Darwin's Illusion

[exchemist]

Ring species is still a “species” but with distant ends that cannot interbreed. Can a Chihuahua naturally breed with a Great Dane? Yet they are both the same species and will never be anything other than dogs.

I told you that the definition of “species” is controversial and to keep things simple I said that gene mutations through adaptation never give rise to a new family of species.

Which the existence of ring species shows is false. The difference in size of dogs is mainly due to a difference in only a single gene. So the reason great danes are not mated with chihuahuas is physical, not genetic.https://www.perfectdogbreeds.com/chihuahua-great-dane-mix/

 

[paarsurrey]

"Darwin's Illusion"​

What was exactly the Illusion or disillusion of Darwin, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

nothing but the usual meaningless empty claims of yours. see # 5222

View attachment 75706

So what? Now you are back to an opinion piece. That is not from a peer reviewed work. I can tell by the language and claims alone. It is merely the opinion of a man that is working far outside of his area of expertise. Scientists in the field are not taking him seriously so why should anyone else? And here is the kicker that you cannot deal with. Even if he was right, and that is extremely dubious, evolution would still be a fact. You might have to totally drop the word "Darwinian" in the name, but evolution would still be a fact and you would still be a monkey.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Darwin's Illusion"​

What was exactly the Illusion or disillusion of Darwin, please?

Regards

The illusion is that such an Illusion ever existed. Though not perfect Darwin's theory, or what it has evolved to be, has been confirmed countless times and is now in the realm of scientific fact.

 

[YoursTrue]

Google mudskippers. Here I'll save you the trouble Mudskipper - Wikipedia

View attachment 74840

Again, this shows that things that look like fish have parts that allow them to flop around on land. It does not prove evolution of the natural selection as if it bettered them anyway. It may seem like a link but again -- there truly is nothing to show (or using the worst language, of course, "prove") that evolution is true. Nothing. It may seem like that, but just like something came from nothing, it is conjured up in some minds.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Darwin's Illusion"​

What was exactly the Illusion or disillusion of Darwin, please?

Regards

Good question.

 

[John53]

Again, this shows that things that look like fish have parts that allow them to flop around on land. It does not prove evolution of the natural selection as if it bettered them anyway. It may seem like a link but again -- there truly is nothing to show (or using the worst language, of course, "prove") that evolution is true. Nothing. It may seem like that, but just like something came from nothing, it is conjured up in some minds.

Didn't say it proves anything but it is evidence of evolution. Add it to all the other evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, this shows that things that look like fish have parts that allow them to flop around on land. It does not prove evolution of the natural selection as if it bettered them anyway. It may seem like a link but again -- there truly is nothing to show (or using the worst language, of course, "prove") that evolution is true. Nothing. It may seem like that, but just like something came from nothing, it is conjured up in some minds.

Once again you need to understand the concept of evidence and what mudskippers "prove". They do not just "flop around. The spend a significant amount of time out of the water because that is where they feed for the most part. They illustrate how life could have moved from the sea to the land.

 

[YoursTrue]

Didn't say it proves anything but it is evidence of evolution. Add it to all the other evidence.

Sorry but the fact that there are organisms that look like fish but flop around on land does not prove/show or demonstrate that evolution is working there...You and others may think so, but again -- there is nothing to prove it or better yet in terminology, substantiate the theory/idea beyond question or doubt at all. It may appear that the organism crawled (evolved) from being a fish type substance to living entirely on land, but otherwise nothing to substantiate that except someone working in the dots and commas between whatever some may say are the in-betweens. (Nothing to show for that.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Didn't say it proves anything but it is evidence of evolution. Add it to all the other evidence.

I have determined from my examination of what evolutionists say is true beyond doubt, that the theory is NOT true. But that's me -- I'm sure not everyone would agree. So you have a good evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have determined from my examination of what evolutionists say is true beyond doubt, that the theory is NOT true. But that's me -- I'm sure not everyone would agree. So you have a good evening.

What makes you think that you are qualified? You might as well tell a team of expert doctors that their cancer diagnosis for a close family member is false and suggest that he or she just take more Vitamin D. The problem with such extreme hubris is that it can harm other people at times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

this shows that things that look like fish have parts that allow them to flop around on land. It does not prove evolution of the natural selection as if it bettered them anyway

Nor need it. It merely need be consistent with the theory, and it is. It's enough that the change was selected for. If you can propose another mechanism for fish growing footlike appendages than that they conferred a competitive advantage, please share it.

there is nothing to prove it or better yet in terminology, substantiate the theory/idea beyond question or doubt at all

Two things. Theories never get more certain than "proven" beyond reasonable doubt. And, your unawareness of the evidence and its implications reflects on you alone, not the quality or quantity of the knowledge leading to a consensus among evolutionary scientists. It's out there for you if you like, but if you don't avail yourself of that information, cries that it doesn't exist simply mean that you don't know about it. The theory of evolution is correct.

 

[cladking]

Good luck with carpal tunnel!

Thanks. I might finally have a handle on it.

So which of those meanings are you referring to?

By "metaphysics" I mean "the basis of science". I don't really consider this "philosophy" per se because it involve experimental results, paradigms, and everything to do with state of the art and previous states of the art.

I don't understand that statement. What's an example of something we know, but have forgotten how we know it?

This applies to everything really. From "gravity", to pyramid construction, to Evolution if you are not familiar with the fundamental experiments then you don't really know what you know.

But surely without knowledge there is nothing to understand.

Yes, but knowledge does not automatically confer understanding. You can know that the sine equals the opposite over the hypotenuse without being able to use it in a sentence or apply it to a simple problem.

Why should Egyptology be singled out?

Egyptology belittles real scientists and refuse to do simple scientific testing. They prefer to "understand" ancient people through magical means. They literally understand the pyramid builders through a book of what they believe is incantation translated in terms of a culture from 1000 years later!!!

So who do you say is claiming omniscience? What's an example of such a claim?

Every member of our species; homo omnisciencis. Everybody here has every answer. It's what we do and nobody is holier than thou than believers in science. Real scientists aren't nearly as bad.

It does that routinely. If you disagree, please give me an example of an erroneous axiom or definition of the kind you're speaking of.

I've listed dozens over the years. It is assumed that human progress is linear. Most people even believe evolution is linear but this is anti-scientific.

Again you give no example. Your argument needs clear hard examples or it has no connection with reality.

There are many but, of course, there is the assumption that Evolution can be understood without even a definition for consciousness. There is an assumption that reality can be extrapolated and interpolated from what is known and even the best scientists often make this error. We see what we believe and we think we see everything there is. We do not directly experience any reality at all.

I think that's a baseless claim. Again, what examples specifically do you have in mind?

This is true for every axiom by definition. We assume the transitive property always holds but we have no way of proving it. Of course in real life is not true. Just as 1 + 1 = 3 if the former are male and female there is no logical relationship between language and reality. There are no two identical things in the universe to count: reality is digital, not analog.

 

[John53]

Sorry but the fact that there are organisms that look like fish but flop around on land does not prove/show or demonstrate that evolution is working there...You and others may think so, but again -- there is nothing to prove it or better yet in terminology, substantiate the theory/idea beyond question or doubt at all. It may appear that the organism crawled (evolved) from being a fish type substance to living entirely on land, but otherwise nothing to substantiate that except someone working in the dots and commas between whatever some may say are the in-betweens. (Nothing to show for that.)

Once again didn't say it proves anything but it is evidence.

If you've got proof on how the diversity of life on earth came about please tell me and I will investigate your proof.

 

[cladking]

That you follow modern ongoing brain research and the mapping of the brain and the interconnection of its regions and functions, and the systems that sustain it as a working piece of astonishing biochemistry? If not, you don't really have a place to stand when consciousness is the topic, do you?

Brain chemistry is no more "consciousness" than is a brain. It is no more "consciousness" than is the brain of a rabbit that's been run over by a bus. We might be able to one day understand "consciousness" on this path but I seriously doubt it. A live rabbit has a better understanding of consciousness than any neurosurgeon or microbiologist. A bee must understand consciousness to dance.

If all our beliefs are wrong, it will be easy for you to specify those beliefs which are both wrong and very important. I don't know why you didn't put them in your opening paragraph, but anyway, please spell the biggies out for us.

I've done so many times.

The work required is extensive and will take centuries.

It will be far easier going forward after we reinvent ancient science. This can go very quickly.

What coming disaster is that that? Global warming?

No. At worst this is a tempest in a teapot.

There are five serious threats to the species and the most imminent is "Tower of Babel 2.0". This will result from the breakdown in communication and the impossibility of amalgamating the many scientific disciplines. It is already affecting the economy because businesses are working against themselves with none of their hands knowing what the others are doing.

Also imminent is human obsolescence as machine intelligence takes over. AI is a dead end but there will be machine intelligence within twenty years.

I believe much of the corruption choking the world is really just a symptom of the hostile takeover of science by monied interests. The tower looms.


Our problems all stem from confusion and belief. The tool we call "science" has already done nearly as much work as its design makes possible. I believe it must be combined with ancient science to move forward because there is no going back.

 

[Audie]

Once again you need to understand the concept of evidence and what mudskippers "prove". They do not just "flop around. The spend a significant amount of time out of the water because that is where they feed for the most part. They illustrate how life could have moved from the sea to the land.

Speaking of flopping around
was that a flop, or something
else that got our friend from fish
" something from nothing"

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again didn't say it proves anything but it is evidence.

If you've got proof on how the diversity of life on earth came about please tell me and I will investigate your proof.

That is the point. Darwin had an idea because of the way certain groups looked, in that they looked kind of similar. But this does not prove that all life in its varied forms came about because of selection of the fittest. Bats do have groups of bats that are different but similar, thus are bats. This does not add up though to evolution from fish to landroving animals.

 

[John53]

That is the point. Darwin had an idea because of the way certain groups looked, in that they looked kind of similar. But this does not prove that all life in its varied forms came about because of selection of the fittest. Bats do have groups of bats that are different but similar, thus are bats. This does not add up though to evolution from fish to landroving animals.

So how did it happen?

 

[Audie]

That is the point. Darwin had an idea because of the way certain groups looked, in that they looked kind of similar. But this does not prove that all life in its varied forms came about because of selection of the fittest. Bats do have groups of bats that are different but similar, thus are bats. This does not add up though to evolution from fish to landroving animals.

You have the most remarkably dim and
sketchy idea about biology.
No wonder you don't believe ToE.
Nobody in his right mind would believe
the things you talk about.

 

[blü 2]

By "metaphysics" I mean "the basis of science". I don't really consider this "philosophy" per se because it involve experimental results, paradigms, and everything to do with state of the art and previous states of the art.

You can call it 'scientific method' if you wish. It's one (large) part of reasoned skeptical enquiry, and it sets out a way of seeing and doing ─ induction, empiricism, details of method to ensure repeatability, quality checking, openness, publication, honesty.

Its justification is that it works ─ beyond argument the most successful system for advancing human knowledge about the world external to the self that we've ever had.

This applies to everything really. From "gravity", to pyramid construction, to Evolution if you are not familiar with the fundamental experiments then you don't really know what you know.

But we know about gravity, and I can't think of any sense in which "we've forgotten how we know it." On the contrary, our experience of gravity begins before we're born, I was taught its concepts at school, and have read popular science accounts to this day, including how discrepancies between our understanding of gravity and our observation of revolving galaxies has played its part in our hunt for the solution to the mystery known as "dark matter".

So what, exactly, do you say we've forgotten?

Yes, but knowledge does not automatically confer understanding. You can know that the sine equals the opposite over the hypotenuse without being able to use it in a sentence or apply it to a simple problem.

That's beside the point. Without knowledge, we can't understand objective reality. Knowledge is for checking and rechecking ─ part of scientific method is repeatability, checking that inductive conclusions are remain valid, hence are justified.

Egyptology belittles real scientists and refuse to do simple scientific testing. They prefer to "understand" ancient people through magical means. They literally understand the pyramid builders through a book of what they believe is incantation translated in terms of a culture from 1000 years later!!

But our understanding of what the mathematics of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, India, China, achieved in ancient times has all come about by virtue of reasoned skeptical enquiry, whether in maths or in applied maths.

Every member of our species; homo omnisciencis. Everybody here has every answer. It's what we do and nobody is holier than thou than believers in science. Real scientists aren't nearly as bad.

You appear to be saying that your complaint is confined to posters here at RF, implying that you're happy with the actual proceedings of science in modern Western society. Is that right? If so, it's a pity you didn't make that clear at the outset, because to this point I've understood your argument to be with the way science is in fact practiced.

I've listed dozens over the years. It is assumed that human progress is linear. Most people even believe evolution is linear but this is anti-scientific.

I asked you
please give me an example of an erroneous axiom or definition of the kind you're speaking of.

So however many you've listed in the past is irrelevant. Please state a clear example of what you're claiming.

There are many but, of course, there is the assumption that Evolution can be understood without even a definition for consciousness.

In what way, in your view, is consciousness necessary to explain evolution?

And what definition of consciousness are you arguing for? I asked you if you're reasonably up to date with modern research into consciousness. Am I to assume from your silence that you're not?

There is an assumption that reality can be extrapolated and interpolated from what is known and even the best scientists often make this error.

It's part of scientific method to test whether any particular statement about physical reality is conditional, in order to determine what if any the required conditions are.

Please give me an example of "the best scientists" making the "error" you speak of.

We see what we believe and we think we see everything there is. We do not directly experience any reality at all.

What then do we experience through our senses, if not the world external to us, aka objective reality?

there is no logical relationship between language and reality.

I define objective reality as the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses, and from that pov I see great numbers of examples of connections between language and reality ─ for example, 'please pass me the salt'. Whereas you say you see no such relationship, which brings up the question, why on earth do you bother to post? As a way of talking to yourself?