Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Yup reducing an idea to absurdism

I'm not sure how much more absurd that is than any other belief without evidence is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes only one life. My next life will be only one life as well. And on and on and on.

I have no knowledge of reincarnation and no evidence of it. My own religious views do not consider it in the extent of a series of different lives connected by some manifestation of the am that is me or the am that is others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not reincarnation. A whole new world, universe, all of it

A series of universes that exists consecutively instead of contiguously?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was born in 1961! Am I the creator?

I don't believe in 1961.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I

everybody’s afraid they’ll look ‘coo coo’

i love science. What’s your point?

What is it you love about science?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That was a response to, "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."

I don't see how your response relates to mine. In fact, I can't tell that you read my comment. You asked for evidence of whale evolution and I gave you a link and explained the fossil evidence suggested, and that it wasn't accounted for by evolution's only alternative, a deceptive intelligent designer. There's the answer. If you'd care to tell me what part of that is in error and why, we can discuss our differences of opinion and perhaps resolve them, but answers like that one don't help.

Let me share something I wrote earlier today on another thread, where another poster was touting Christian morality, to which I gave about a dozen examples of moral failings of Jesus in the Gospels, only one of which was addressed - the one where Jesus kills a herd of pigs. I only mention it because it outlines a hierarchy of dissent from rebuttal to lower forms of disputation:

You'd need to address all of them to rebut the claim that this ethical system is flawed, not just one. If you don't want to do that, address three or four of the most egregious ones, not the one about disrespect for personal property. Why won't you give a response to all of them? Isn't defending your faith important enough, assuming that you can?​

​

I saw a similar response on a thread asking whether Christmas and Easter were adaptations of pagan holidays, and about a dozen examples of pagan influences (yule logs, tinsel, flocking, Santa and reindeer, eggs, bunnies), and the guy chose to address one of them as if that were a rebuttal. We also see this with the response to claims that the Bible contradicts itself or that biblical prophecy is weak if several examples are provided.​

​

But it is the best one can do short of a complete rebuttal - a rebuttal of one point. It goes downhill from there. Next worse is simply giving what you believe instead without explaining why you feel what you reject cannot be correct. Next least effective is to simply dissent: "That's not what I choose to believe." An ad lapidem fallacy comes next ("Anybody with commonsense can see that your argument is absurd"), and the lowest rung is the dismissive insult, like your first answer: "Wisdom is too high for a fool"​

What you have done is give what you believe instead without attempting to rebut what you reject.

I am saying that consilience supports the theory.

Species change because genomes and habitats change. Also, such a genetically homogeneous species would be eliminated by disease.

Your hypothesis explains and predicts nothing. If you disagree, please rebut. If you think the comment is wrong for a reason, you shouldbe able to produce the argument that falsifies it.

Several (maybe all) scientific theories are correct in the main beyond reasonable doubt, including evolutionary theory.

Perhaps not in your estimation, but there are countless ideas that are demonstrably correct and for which no serious dissent exists in the field. Opinions from outside the field aren't relevant. The creationists would argue that evolution isn't settled science and produce pseudoscientific apologetics, but the scientific community isn't looking at them or responding to them.

That was in response to, "Creationism doesn't predict or explain finding ancient, extinct forms." Once again, I don't know how you think that response relates to my comment. So perhaps you can address what I wrote with, "I agree" or "I disagree because [rebuttal here]"

Are you saying that creationism predicts finding ancient, extinct creatures? If not, you aren't disagreeing with me.

I'll be interested to see your responses to the latest post.

 

[John53]

I don't believe in 1961.

But but but but... what about me!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But but but but... what about me!

Are you sure you are not a figment of your own imagination? 1961 could have been implanted in you by AI's in a vast conspiracy with Peers to make us think that there was a 1961, when that year actually got skipped to adjust Ancient Calendars. I think that may be what Denis Noble said. I could be wrong. A beaver told me and you know the dam lies they tell.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But but but but... what about me!

If every experiment supports any random claim than experiment must support that there was no 1961 and also it must support that there was. I'm so confused.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is all too much for me. I need sleep. I've got a lot of eggs to deliver by morning.

 

[PureX]

Did evolution happen? Dang must’ve missed it.

Visit any dog breeders kennels, and you can see it happening right before your eyes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You said "no other mechanism can account for the change".

I know of no other mechanism that can explain the tree of life as it find it today and the extinct forms in the ground than natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations.

Not only have I already proven this statement [the one above] is false but other posters in this very thread have done the same.

Not to my knowledge.

all experiment and all evidence says species change suddenly at bottlenecks because of their behavior. This IS just ONE MORE possible explanation and that it is ignored is irrelevant to its veracity.

So you're saying that behavior drives evolution? So does the scientific theory. It's all about reproduction, which is linked to behavior. Behavior that facilitates reproduction is selected for and vice versa.

all experiment applies and the current paradigm is not supported by all experiment. Fossil record reading is a kind of magic. It's voodoo.

This is the kind of statement that has no meaning or impact. You'd need to be more specific. What experiment are you suggesting contradicts the scientific theory or is not accounted for by it? What is your specific objection to the way fossil data is used, and why do you consider it a problem?

I've been doing this over three or four threads since I got here but my argument is ignored and then I'm accused of repeating myself. Hmmm, have you ever heard me say "all individuals are fit" or "Reductionistic science can not study what it can not define". "Since consciousness lies at the heart of change in species science can not study it". Stop me if you've heard any of this before. I've also provided evidence,. logic, and the means to see a new paradigm. It's all ignored.

These are also not useful ideas in the form presented. I would love to understand what you are proposing so that we could discuss it, but all I can answer to such comments is that I don't see how they are relevant. You say, "all individuals are fit." Why do you say that? What does it mean? That there is no most fecund form, that they are all equal? Maybe it means something else to you. But as is, I can't respond to it except like this, which doesn't advance my understanding of what you believe.

What does, "Reductionistic science can not study what it can not define" actually say that's relevant here? What can't science define, how is that a problem, and what remedy do you propose? What does studying consciousness have to do with evolutionary science? You general tone is that of grievance, but it lacks specifics and remedies.

Of course. But even this doesn't mean our knowledge of anything at all is complete.

OK. Is that a problem? We work with the knowledge we have and try to improve it over time. This is what I mean by a grievance that identifies no actual problem needing correction and no suggested correction.

The bottom line is Peers and all of their opinions are no more relevant to reality or science than the opinion of a ditch digger.

Peer review is an important aspect of scientific research. Interobserver subjectivity leading to consensus is a means for identifying individual subjectivity and error in interpretation.

I think we've each created our own fake reality. We create a reality defined by what we believe and never realizing that much of this separate reality is imparted not through our parents and teachers but through language and what we believe about consciousness.

OK. Is that a problem to you? Most of my understanding of reality comes from experiencing it, not from words. I use words to summarize and report those experiences and the inductions derived from them. And the test of that worldview is its ability to guide choices in a way that leads to desired outcomes both short term and long.

Where do you want to be in life? Most of us want to be happy and comfortable as we understand that, meaning we want love, respect, beauty, and purpose in our lives, and as little shame, guilt, loneliness, anxiety, etc. as possible. How do we get and stay in that space, or as near to it as we can manage.

That's the game of life, and we are thrown into it with assorted sensory, cognitive, and affective faculties, and our job is to utilize those to optimize our experience on earth, which we do empirically - by trial-and-error - noting what works to produce desired outcomes and what doesn't and needs revision, although people do this to varying degrees of success. You know the adage that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome, which is a failure of the executive function of standing back and looking at the bigger picture to identify such patterns.

 

[YoursTrue]

Our definitions differ. But all in all it’s only one life

When Jesus resurrected his friend Lazarus, he did not resurrect a different person. He resurrected Lazarus. Similarly, when he resurrected the widow's son, I am guaranteeing you he came back as the widow's son and not another person. (Oh well. )

 

[YoursTrue]

Visit any dog breeders kennels, and you can see it happening right before your eyes.

hardly. That's like saying various skin colors are evolution. (They're not.) They are a result not of changing forms from dinosaurs to birds or fish to mammals but staying within the range of genetics.

 

[YoursTrue]

But but but but... what about me!

Hey, remember that song? Great song. Yeah, what about you?
Meantime, I have been lovingly (yes, sarcastic) banned from certain aspects of response here because it has been deemed unacceptable by a particular power for me to ask questions of certain posters here in mighty positions.
I'll listen to that song later...thanks for reminder.

 

[cladking]

I know of no other mechanism that can explain the tree of life as it find it today and the extinct forms in the ground than natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations.

This is because you are assuming the conclusion; the same conclusion that Darwin assumed. You see fossils of a changed animal and assume that if you had a continual run of fossils that it would show a gradual change. You assume numerous missing links caused by gradual change driven by survival of the fittest. It is these assumptions that cause you to see what you see.

We can't look at anything without seeing our own beliefs instead.

Reality is best described as a series of events and this also applies to living things and species on steroids. Most events have almost no effect on species. Individuals are driven by events but it (usually) matters little to a species whether one individual had 1000 offspring or a million because all individuals are equally fit.

Surely you will agree that if I'm right that most change in species occurs at bottlenecks than Darwin's disbelief in bottlenecks would blind him to how species actually change.

 

[cladking]

This is because you are assuming the conclusion; the same conclusion that Darwin assumed.

Many would take this as an insult but the fact is I believe our species is more aptly named homo circularis rationatio (circularly reasoning man). We each reason in circles and for most practical purposes we even do this collectively. Obviously committees don't think and have no ideas but each individual will normally share all the same precepts and assumptions. It's what brings them together into a meeting whether it's Peers or board of directors. Humans are highly social so we effectively do most things in circles. It is unavoidable individually, collectively, and even as a species.

I simply made different assumptions than you made and reasoned in a different circle. I believe (most of) my assumptions were correct so I ended up at a better "conclusion"; a more accurate and predictive theory (paradigm by the terms of modern science and theory by the terms of animal science).

 

[Jimmy]

So like the multi-universe theory..
When you die your spirit leaves this universe and goes to another?

No

 

[Jimmy]

You cannot say "I love science" and then pick and choose. It all works together.

I can

 

[Jimmy]

I don't really know what you believe.

I’ve told u