Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

I don't think the man can do it. He appears to be all over the place and cannot focus with anyone.

nice escape!
you're deceiving no one other than yourself. if you're not honest with yourself, no one can take you seriously.

Take care

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. A single species is always the same species, it can be a single species with different gene pools (and keeps the ability of interbreeding) but it can’t be a single species but not the same species. It’s either a single species or multiple different species, there in no other option.

You’re making an untestable false hypothesis. It’s only your wishful thinking, Speciation as a key mechanism of evolution, is the only means through which the interbreeding capability would be lost. Without speciation, the species will always continue to be the same species and will stay capable of interbreeding.

Losing the ability of interbreeding in the speciation process means that future changes in one species may not directly impact the other and all species can coexist independently.

If this is the case, what is the reason that all alleged transitional hominid forms (that necessarily emerged through speciation) went extinct? This may happen only in the case that intermediates never lost the ability of interbreeding and continued to evolve. But this hypothesis entails that no speciation was ever involved. No speciation ever happened (because speciation is necessarily associated with the loss of interbreeding capability).

Speciation as a key mechanism of evolution, if we dismiss Speciation, it necessarily means that the ToE is false.

However you look at it, you will see that these predicted scenarios are false and not consistent with real world observations. See #414

The ToE as a theory is fundamentally about speciation that takes place through random mutations and natural selection, the fact is these two fundamental principles are false. Neither mutations are random as explained multiple times nor natural selection has any way to explain speciation. That is why top scientists such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble are calling the replacement of modern synthesis with the extended modern synthesis “EES”. See # 160

Non-Random Mutations:

Again, Denis Noble said that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Natural Selection:

Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Conclusion:

The fundamental principles of the ToE are false.
The ToE is false.

Sorry, quoting works that you did not understand will not help you. My oh my! It appears that you are rather excitable. Being wrong should not stress you out so much.

Can you relax and try to make a proper argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

nice escape!
you're deceiving no one other than yourself. if you're not honest with yourself, no one can take you seriously.

Take care

No attempted deception here. At least this post was shorter.

Can you focus on point at a time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asked for a single point, I gave it to you and you failed. Pathetic.

You were responding to #410, If yt ou want to prove me wrong go back to #410 and refute my single point (which is refuting your claims that my referenced articles are 40 years out of date.). If you cannot, then stop your pathetic excuses. No one will buy it.

Two of your sources were extremely out of date and you did not understand them. The newest post only dealt with evolution being a bit more complex than thought previously. It did not refute evolution. You were wrong again.

 

[cladking]

The ToE is an old dying theory with lots of errors and challenges. Top scientists today acknowledge the fact that the standard theory of evolution needs a major revision or to be entirely replaced, many evolutionists are simply not aware of it. See#160

It was born dead but nobody really noticed.

People are so busy defending the underlying beliefs that they don't notice it's dead. They want to believe and they especially want to believe in survival of the fittest.

 

[danieldemol]

Gould summed it up when he honestly said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

Let's lay the topic of evolution aside for a brief moment.

If I say diamonds are rare, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that they are not common. But the fact of their existence still requires explanation.

Returning to the topic of evolution, if you accept that Gould was honest in describing transitional forms as extremely rare, then presumably you also accept that he was honest in accepting that transitional forms exist even if not common.

Logically then, the existence of transitional forms requires explanation.

I think evolution is a better explanation for transitional forms than intelligent design which essentially predicts according to my understanding that there should be 0 transitional forms as opposed to there being "rare" transitional forms.

In my opinion.

 

[cladking]

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

I'm so far out of touch with mainstream thought that I didn't even know anyone generally agreed with me.

But I did develop my similar theory from keeping up with experiment in biology and other branches of science. It is right here in the very meaning of "intelligence" where I diverge from nearly complete agreement with you. I don't believe there is such a thing as "intelligence". It is a mirage created by the way humans think for the last 4000 years. It is one part language, one part consciousness, and one part standing on the shoulders of giants. If we can come down to earth the mirage disappears and all that's left is consciousness which is what really drives all life and all change in life in many different ways.

Reality is change and consciousness adapts to all change instantaneously while change in species lags far behind but is generally instantaneous when it happens. Our consciousness is defined by our beliefs for 4000 years and we want to believe in Evolution. Biology will not change to reflect experiment and a new paradigm that will arise to replace it until each believer has shuffled off the mortal coil. To best explain experiment any paradigm attempting to define the nature of change in species will most probably need to involve the concept of consciousness.

There is no life without consciousness.

 

[ppp]

False, principle mechanisms as proposed by “The Modern Synthesis” are proven false.

[yawn] Go argue with someone from the 40's

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was born dead but nobody really noticed.

People are so busy defending the underlying beliefs that they don't notice it's dead. They want to believe and they especially want to believe in survival of the fittest.

Odd, it is only that are totally ignorant of the sciences that make that claim. In the real world, where people have to properly support their claims the theory of evolution is not only alive, it is gonig so strongly that creationists try to claim that it is unfalsifiable (don't worry, they simply do not understand that term).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you guys try to be more specific? Which part you agree with and which part you don’t?



False, it would be a gap argument if gap is the exception. This is absolutely not the case; gap is the rule, not the exception. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology” See #352

Second, my argument is not only about the fossil record, I explained multiple times that the fundamental principles of the ToE in terms of random mutation and natural selection leading to speciation are false. Which necessarily means that the theory is false.

Your argument is nothing but baseless denial. I’m not the one who is calling for EES because of the failure of current theory to address the latest scientific finds, the top scientists are. See #160

It's a gap argument as I have explained. Sorry. Clear enough though?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fundamental conceptual framework of biology as entailed by the ToE doesn’t provide scientific explanations of living phenomena that are consistent with new empirical evidence. The Modern Synthesis is a mid-20th century theory; all of the assumed Modern Synthesis principles of organismal change over time have been disproved. That’s why top scientists are calling for the EES.

The proposed "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" is about the integration of latest finds of functional biology not just the baseless “Geisteswissenschaften” assumptions of evolutionary biology. It’s a step in the right direction. At least the baseless hypothesis of random mutations + natural selection and all the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproven because of the lack of consistency with the empirical evidence. See #494 and second page of the lecture below by Denis Noble.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134



I never mentioned anything about a default-accepted view. Evolutionists are the ones who adapt false default view. Again, you’re making a false dichotomy.

Yes, the present theory should be revised to include latest evidence.

Again, in principle, any change can be logically caused by two competing hypothesis:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

I’m not saying drop the scientific method; I’m saying let the scientific method decide which option is supported by observations. Why is that so difficult to accept?

No one should just pick or choose. If all empirical evidence support that changes are Intelligently Guided, then why would anyone insist that the changes are random and try to force all interpretations to fit that false premise?

Except that you are just saying these things, because you don't want them to be true. Not because they have failed or that there is no evidence supporting them. That is the strength of the theory. The evidence is supporting it.

There is no evidence for intelligently guided change.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

False, if an intermediate is in the ancestral line for species A, then it’s a transitional form for species A. if an intermediate is not in direct line for species A but rather in direct line for species B (after the branch point), then it’s a transitional form for species B not A. In the case that a specimen is before an alleged branch point, then it’s considered as a relative not an intermediate. It doesn’t depict an ancestral relationship.



See # 480



I don’t believe that everything that ever lived left fossilized remains, Not at all. I’ve been specific and clear that transitional fossils are extremely rare to the contrary of predictions entailed by phyletic gradualism, that’s why Gould proposed, “punctuated equilibrium” which was rejected by critics including Richard Dawkins who insisted that phyletic gradualism is the mechanism for evolution. The debate was never settled and more evidence against the theory emerged that’s why the need emerged for EES. See#160


See # 480



Who is talking about “a principle of default”?
Search the meaning of False dichotomy


See # 480



It’s amazing that you’re arguing about this. Yes, I post publicly, I want others to see it but “others” is not limited to you. Others means current and future readers, I’m posting for those who will benefit from it, don’t get me wrong; I hope you would be one of them but I doubt it. It’s not for you. Again, what you read is totally your concern.



No you don’t, if you do, you would agree with it. It would help if you leave your presuppositions behind. Try it.

Long posts happened to be my style of writing, I appreciate the advice and I understand Long posts would greatly limit the number of readers but again; you’re not “the readers”, If you failed to get it for some reason or another, others will.

I do understand your posts. I recognize the tactics being employed. That is why I do not agree with your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By proposing, “punctuated equilibrium”, Gould tried to explain the unexplainable but he failed. All what “punctuated equilibrium” achieved was discrediting “Phyletic gradualism” (hence discredited the Modern Synthesis itself) on the other hand failed to explain the massive appearance of genetic info. That’s why critics such as Richard Dawkins rejected it.



I did explain to you before, I’m aware that my posts are long and many readers wouldn’t pay attention. I’m only trying to get their attention to important parts. Sorry if it bothers you but you're not the only reader.

Punctuated equilibrium did not discredit gradualism. Just because a person might want that to be true does not make it true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By proposing, “punctuated equilibrium”, Gould tried to explain the unexplainable but he failed. All what “punctuated equilibrium” achieved was discrediting “Phyletic gradualism” (hence discredited the Modern Synthesis itself) on the other hand failed to explain the massive appearance of genetic info. That’s why critics such as Richard Dawkins rejected it.



I did explain to you before, I’m aware that my posts are long and many readers wouldn’t pay attention. I’m only trying to get their attention to important parts. Sorry if it bothers you but you're not the only reader.

Whether you intend to swamp and overwhelm your readers or not, that is what functionally results. You have been made well aware of this. Breaking it down into 11 consecutive posts, in rapid fire, doesn't change that. It only changes the form in which the apparent swamping is applied.

Since you claim to know all there is to the failure of explanations for evolution, I would expect you could find one good example and post on that. Why you cannot is puzzling under the light of your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You previously refused the scenario competing multiple occupancy and now you use it to justify extinction! See #343. Regardless I agree extinction may happen for one reason or another but if you claim that all these millions of ancestral species/transitional forms went extinct every time speciation took place, then it’s a totally false and baseless claim.

The scenario of multiple occupancy is not an expectation of the theory of evolution and it is not seen. It is falsified.

I was not using it.

I did not claim that speciation resulted in the extinction of the ancestral species. Saying so I did is incorrect and inconsistent with claimed understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fundamental conceptual framework of biology as entailed by the ToE doesn’t provide scientific explanations of living phenomena that are consistent with new empirical evidence. The Modern Synthesis is a mid-20th century theory; all of the assumed Modern Synthesis principles of organismal change over time have been disproved. That’s why top scientists are calling for the EES.

The proposed "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" is about the integration of latest finds of functional biology not just the baseless “Geisteswissenschaften” assumptions of evolutionary biology. It’s a step in the right direction. At least the baseless hypothesis of random mutations + natural selection and all the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproven because of the lack of consistency with the empirical evidence. See #494 and second page of the lecture below by Denis Noble.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134



I never mentioned anything about a default-accepted view. Evolutionists are the ones who adapt false default view. Again, you’re making a false dichotomy.

Yes, the present theory should be revised to include latest evidence.

Again, in principle, any change can be logically caused by two competing hypothesis:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

I’m not saying drop the scientific method; I’m saying let the scientific method decide which option is supported by observations. Why is that so difficult to accept?

No one should just pick or choose. If all empirical evidence support that changes are Intelligently Guided, then why would anyone insist that the changes are random and try to force all interpretations to fit that false premise?

Any update, change or replacement of the theory of evolution would happen using evidence, reasoning and logic. That there may be reason to consider revising the theory does not automatically place whatever a person wants to believe as the default replacement. That is an incorrect position based on a false idea.

Using arguments regarding existing theory does not automatically lead to an intelligent designer by default.

Continually pointing out controversy in science doesn't support your cause. It weakens it in my opinion, since such tactics are widely recognized to be commonly used by creationists in place of valid arguments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see that you still cannot debate properly.

Take a deep breath , relax, and try to focus. One point at a time.

Can he do it?

I have only taken a first glance through this overwhelming volume of material and already I feel swamped.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

[yawn] Go argue with someone from the 40's

In my experience, and by your response you appear to have noticed this too. Many of the designer arguments are rehashed failures of creationist arguments attacking positions decades or centuries dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have only taken a first glance through this overwhelming volume of material and already I feel swamped.

He actually calmed down a little bit, but then mysteriously disappeared. It is as if he only comes here to rant and post nonsense. I do wish that he would enter into a proper discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is called “Selective Breeding” or “Artificial Selection”, not “human selection”.

It happened because of the domestication of animals or domestication of plants.

In the case of animal, humans choose which animals to breed with, to produce offspring for either consumption, or to do certain works, or that appeal to them as pets.

Early selection in dogs isn't likely to have been some concerted effort by mankind either. I would imagine it progressed initially in a manner consistent with natural selection to a point. Then those early camp "dogs" were noticed by people who began breeding for further domestication and other useful traits.

I think that selective breeding of anything was an evolving process starting with accidental discoveries that formed the basis of the rigorous and scientific artificial breeding we see in use today.

I agree, a poor choice of phrasing.