Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

I grew up exposed to nature and biology. "Evolution" didn't fit with observation and there was no experiment to support it.

What observations. So far, the body of experiments supporting evolution continues to grow. Can't see how you missed all that.

I suppose I "believed" it until I gained experiences that contradicted it but my belief was highly provisional.

What are these "experiences" that are mentioned but never revealed?

My primary interests were not even within biology but rather in the nature of thought, metaphysics, and communication all under the umbrella of natural science. In those days I thought the Bible was merely a collection of stories written by different stripes of sun addled bumpkins just like almost everyone else. It was only recently that I've come to believe most of it is literally true under a few layers of confusion begun at the "tower of babel". Only recently have I come to believe that most of the Bible contains more truth than almost any biology text; it is merely far more difficult to interpret properly.

The Bible doesn't include much of anything that is found in modern science texts. It has to be interpreted and believed. Interpretations vary. There are numerous contradictions in the Bible and some of the information cannot be verified. Your claims doesn't hold up to the evidence and experiments.

Ironically I always believed we are the same species as cavemen and that we are all animals.

If "caveman" refers to something like Cro-magnon man, then yes, it isn't just belief, but supported by the evidence. If you are referring to Neanderthal man, then it may not be the same species as us.

Yes, humans are animals. We fit the established criteria and there is no reason to exclude us.

Now I believe there was a speciation event at the tower and homo sapiens who were very wise gave way to homo omnisciencis who are stinky footed bumpkins and no longer "animals" at all in every definitional term. Life is consciousness and we are sleep walkers.

There is no reason for anyone to consider this valid, meaningful or useful. A biblical event of undetermined history that is metaphorical is not a speciation event.

If you haven't got a definition of consciousness and have compared and contrasted that to the condition of life, your claim is meaningless.

Yes, we have as many instincts as any other species but we almost invariably suppress them.

Now were back to using the term instinct. What happened to hard-wired. Did you forget?

We each learn to think things through rather than to react (most of the time). This works for humans only because we have tamed the planet so utterly.

We haven't tamed the planet. We thought things through long before we were so populace as we are now.

Most of the dangers have been eradicated and guardrails installed.

Really? 35,000 of us die each year in the US in auto accidents. 100's still die from animal attacks and venomous animals. Doesn't sound eradicated to me at all.

Animals can control instinct as well through learning and this is hardly unusual. Individuals aren't so much aware of instinct just as they aren't so much aware of consciousness; they just do it.

Individuals like you who just made that statement that contradicts itself by being written by an individual that talks about his awareness of consciousness and instinct to other individuals that are also aware.

Personally I don't like the word "instinct" because we use it in all its "magical" senses.

What magical sense?

Every time an animal displays cleverness, awareness, or perspicacity someone will suggest it was merely "instinct".

Some of it may be. You haven't provided any information for anyone to make the call all though evidence by those that actually know indicate that some is instinct and some is learned.

Real instinct happens outside of consciousness in animals and must be planned in advance (learned?) in humans.

Humans have instincts. Fight or flight is instinctual and not learned.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Excellent question!

I believe the earth first became capable of supporting life at about that time. Before life had a chance to arise on earth it was seeded from space. Life rarely has a chance to arise on its own because space is full of "seeds".

So, are you saying that there were no single-celled prokaryotes before a billion years ago or that they somehow came to exist on a planet that was hostile to them?

You are aware that the evidence science has looked for and seen indicates that life formed about 3.5 billion years ago? Aren't you? I would think you should know this to consider yourself even remotely qualified to talk here.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that those who promoted the idea that they know the composition, when and wherefor of seeds they postulate may have somehow dropped in from outer space. But they keep on, like S. Hawking, guessing about 'how' it happened. Maybe.

We have found the evidence Amino acids in meteorites, asteroids and from Mars.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.16.8835#:~:text=Aspartic%20and%20glutamic%20acids%2C%20glycine,per%20billion%20of%20bulk%20meteorite.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How am I supposed to have every answer?

You should be able to discuss your topic and find answers. You normally don't provide them. You just tell your story about 40000 year old scientists, fish-eating beavers that talk to each other and multiple references to some thing you refer to as stinky-footed bumpkins and homo omniwhatever.

I don't know if some "germ" can survive in the primordial soup or what.

The primordial soup is a metaphor for the chemical basis of what are referred to as germs in the common parlance. It would be considered that they would be right at home in the thing that resulted in their formation.

I'm simply providing the simplest explanation based on all known science IMO.

This statement doesn't reflect a review of all known science and it isn't simple so much as fantastical.

There must be a logical reason for what is known if I am correct that mathematics is logic quantified, reality is logic manifested, and life is logic incarnate.

Doesn't mean anything to me. I don't know what you are trying to say.

These are the paradigm I'm suggesting. All of reality is intimately connected and unfolds according to cause and effect from initial conditions.

Yeah. But that doesn't mean I or anyone should accept everything else you say at face value when it has no basis and couldn't hold up to any reasonable standard of evidence.

This is not like your science that is reductionistic and experimental.

Yet, you keep referring to the products of that science incessantly. Clearly you don't consider it worthless when it is convenient to your claims.

My science involves all experiment, observation, and empirical evidence simultaneously.

You given no one any reason to consider that you use any sort of science. You don't provide experimental evidence or observations to back up your claims.

Unlike your science, I might be wrong in whole or in part.

I think we can pretty much dismiss what you claim, since there is no evidence for it.

You are highly unlikely to live to see your science change because your science changes one funeral at a time.

There's that funeral statement again. I don't know what that is supposed to tell us. Some sort of criticism, but what it says is nebulous.

Mine has evolved (in fits and starts) for many years.

But, but, but...yours can't evolve according to you, because evolution is a delusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I realize that pharmaceutical companies make tests of their products. And formulas. (postulations) Thus these are tested, often not 100% curative. Generally the medications are not "proven" to be successful and

We have found the evidence Amino acids in meteorites, asteroids and from Mars.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.16.8835#:~:text=Aspartic%20and%20glutamic%20acids%2C%20glycine,per%20billion%20of%20bulk%20meteorite.

I thought you might answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you think ancient people invented agriculture and explained fossils?

Observation. Trial and error.

They used ancient science.

They likely just noticed things and tried them. Not really science, but akin to it in a primitive way.

This was very poor for generating technology but it did generate a great deal of understanding. Its metaphysics was language just like other life forms.

You're not refuting his statement. You're just talking about unevidenced claims about past people that you fail to connect to the point you are responding to.

Oh. Then tell me what causes it and whether it's faster or slower than the speed of light.

This doesn't address what he asked. You are avoiding an explanation of your claim that "we've forgotten how we know it".

Science now days is bought and paid for. The same people who bring us wide spread corruption bring us Soup of the Day Science.

There is still some real science but not so much now days.

Sigh! The conspiracy theories. Oh the conspiracy theories. It sounds like you support a version of science that could be called Make it UP and Say Science.

Even Richard Feynman can sound like a mystic to a metaphysician.

That doesn't answer his question. It is a statement of opinion that has no relevance.

Under hypnosis you will develop a blister if touched by a pencil after being told it is a lit cigarette.

Again, not answering his question. Hypnosis would be an external stimuli acting on the brain of the individual with blistering being the response. The subject is experiencing the hypnotist.

NO!


We see what we believe.

I'm convinced that you see what you believe, but I don't believe what you believe and I don't see it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I grew up exposed to nature and biology. "Evolution" didn't fit with observation and there was no experiment to support it. I suppose I "believed" it until I gained experiences that contradicted it but my belief was highly provisional. My primary interests were not even within biology but rather in the nature of thought, metaphysics, and communication all under the umbrella of natural science. In those days I thought the Bible was merely a collection of stories written by different stripes of sun addled bumpkins just like almost everyone else. It was only recently that I've come to believe most of it is literally true under a few layers of confusion begun at the "tower of babel". Only recently have I come to believe that most of the Bible contains more truth than almost any biology text; it is merely far more difficult to interpret properly.

Ironically I always believed we are the same species as cavemen and that we are all animals. Now I believe there was a speciation event at the tower and homo sapiens who were very wise gave way to homo omnisciencis who are stinky footed bumpkins and no longer "animals" at all in every definitional term. Life is consciousness and we are sleep walkers.

Yes, we have as many instincts as any other species but we almost invariably suppress them. We each learn to think things through rather than to react (most of the time). This works for humans only because we have tamed the planet so utterly. Most of the dangers have been eradicated and guardrails installed. Animals can control instinct as well through learning and this is hardly unusual. Individuals aren't so much aware of instinct just as they aren't so much aware of consciousness; they just do it. Personally I don't like the word "instinct" because we use it in all its "magical" senses. Every time an animal displays cleverness, awareness, or perspicacity someone will suggest it was merely "instinct". Real instinct happens outside of consciousness in animals and must be planned in advance (learned?) in humans.

Hello again. Just to mention that although tests are done with pharmaceuticals, doctors prescribe placebos often believing they can be as effective as particular medicines. (So much for testing...also because the percentages of tests do not equate to a real good rate of cure.) Therefore, the claimed testing done by scientists of the theory of how life started, etc., does not have to be true. In fact, based on what I've read about spontaneous generation, it does not equate with certainty backing up the theory. Be that as it may -- supporters will likely continue claiming support for 'testing' evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I really should answer most of those question you asked. That I've answered them all before is hardly sufficient reason not to do so again. I can't expect anybody to remember everything I post.

I'll return to them.

Now, nearly 10 pages later and you still have not gotten to them. I'm sure you have some reason for this that you will claim you have provided hundreds of times, but I don't expect you will ever answer those previous posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think we can sum up the three arguments against the theory of evolution on this thread as:
1. But, but, but Denis Noble says. Therefore the theory of evolution is failed and my_________________(fill in the blank with your favorite belief) wins by default.
2. Fan fiction and nebulous claims of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and just nebulous, unsupported claims of disaster and conspiracy theories.
3. Don't know science. Admit this ignorance. Not knowing, the stand just turns into outright denial without basis and fish are still fish.

Thus is summed up the state of cutting edge creationist denial of science.

Oh yes, scientific theories are models. Good grief, you would think that people that were arguing against something would have taken the time to actually learn what it is they are arguing against.

I find all of what I have read in regards to denial of science and theory to be just so sad.

 

[cladking]

It does not promote your credibility by insisting on calling Homo sapiens by some other name that doesn't exist anywhere except in your head.

Homo sapiens are extinct.

It really doesn't matter what you call them or us; they are just words for two distinct species.

You just said that they don't experience thought at all.

Animals think but do not experience it. I've defined human thought.

There is no indication that human consciousness and fox consciousness are similar, for instance.

All consciousness is the same except humans are the odd man out; we see what we believe and act on beliefs.

That is instinct. You are just playing your usual word games.

Instinct (hard wiring) is a small part of the consciousness of most species.

You've never offered a definition of consciousness.

It is a gist bestowed by nature that individuals might survive and prosper. It drives change in species.

Clearly you are stating that thinking is not required for consciousness. There is no mistaking that statement.

Yes! Only humans think. More accurately only homo omnisciencis experiences thought.

Assumptions get tested all the time.

Who tested the assumption that understanding of consciousness wasn't necessary to understand species or life?

 

[cladking]

Aren't dogs recognizing patterns and extrapolating?

Consciousness has a great deal of pattern recognition. This is not an abstraction.

 

[cladking]

Really? One of the best what?

Prognosticators.

Do you have references to show us so that we can all praise your first to market? Or was this suppressed by Peers?

This was posted 7-25-'15

"I'm not really hoping to see anything but am predicting there will be heat transfer spots

at 81' 3" and at 162' 6". These spots will be right on the centerlines. If any appear at the

corners it would be fascinating. If these exposures are sufficiently long terms there would

also be the exact same segmentation into 81' 3" parts as is revealed in the gravimetric scan.

The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan."



It's not the only one.

Punctuated equilibrium is evolution. Just a different mode.

There is no gradual evolution caused by survival of the fittest.

Darwin was wrong.

I'm sure it all is, but doesn't that seem like a cop out and avoiding more detailed responses that someone of your avowed knowledge could dispense easily?

I've made relatively little progress reinventing ancient science. I have only a broad base outline but highly limited understanding of their math. I believe it is counterproductive for me to explain how it works so I've avoided providing many details for several years now.

Do you have evidence to share with us so that we can see it too? Or do you feel that what you say should be accepted without question or vetting?

I'm suggesting that just as each individual should try to redevelop ancient science each of us should study slime molds and try to understand them in this framework.

What do you mean by inter-subjective.

I believe you took something out of context. I can't find it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Homo sapiens are extinct.

Sigh! No they are not! We are Homo sapiens.

It really doesn't matter what you call them or us; they are just words for two distinct species.

It does if you want to be seen as credible and you want to discuss them rationally. Making up names that only have meaning to you isn't a way to have a rational discussion. Especially when these made up things are delivered as fact and are not.

Animals think but do not experience it.

Sigh! SMH. The evidence indicates that they think about and learn from experience. They couldn't be trained if they didn't think and learn.

I've defined human thought.

Sigh! SMH! No you did not. You don't define anything. Not in any way that anyone would recognize as defining things. You contradict yourself so often, nothing can be gleaned from that except you really don't understand what you are talking about.

All consciousness is the same except humans are the odd man out; we see what we believe and act on beliefs.

You may see what you believe, but not all humans do that. We have cognitive abilities that may not be shared with other conscious organisms, but you have provided no evidence nor any valid comparison to sustain your claims.

Not all living things have consciousness. Perhaps the fact that you don't understand that, among many things revealed by your posts, leads you astray as you are.

Instinct (hard wiring) is a small part of the consciousness of most species.

I'm not sure where you stand on this, since you play word games with it, then contradict yourself. I half expect that you will be attempting to divorce those two terms again at some later date as if they were two distinct things.

It is a gist bestowed by nature that individuals might survive and prosper. It drives change in species.

Yes, that is what Darwin determined from his observations. The natural differences between genotypes leads to phenotypes of varying fitness. Not all individuals and populations are equally fit.

Yes! Only humans think. More accurately only homo omnisciencis experiences thought.

Sigh! Homo sapiens think. Homo omnisciencis is made up and doesn't represent a recognized taxon. You literally can say anything about it. I say it is a misnamed fungus.

I don't know that only humans think and you have done nothing to support that claim except repeat it and then contradict it and then repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.

Who tested the assumption that understanding of consciousness wasn't necessary to understand species or life?

Who claimed it was an assumption to understand speciation and provided the evidence to support that claim? You sure didn't and never will.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Prognosticators.



This was posted 7-25-'15

"I'm not really hoping to see anything but am predicting there will be heat transfer spots

at 81' 3" and at 162' 6". These spots will be right on the centerlines. If any appear at the

corners it would be fascinating. If these exposures are sufficiently long terms there would

also be the exact same segmentation into 81' 3" parts as is revealed in the gravimetric scan.

The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan."

That's not really a verifiable reference and amounts to just an extension of your claim.

It's not the only one.

So you made more than one post. Big deal. Did you publish it somewhere showing your priority?

There is no gradual evolution caused by survival of the fittest.

Exactly. There is gradual evolution due to natural selection.

Darwin was wrong.

Not based on anything you or anyone else on here has provided.

Darwin was correct in his recognition of the process of evolution and provided a sound mechanism that has withstood 150 years of testing.

I've made relatively little progress reinventing ancient science.

I wouldn't imagine that anyone would be able to re-invent something that never existed.

I have only a broad base outline but highly limited understanding of their math. I believe it is counterproductive for me to explain how it works so I've avoided providing many details for several years now.

So nothing about nothing. Got it.

I'm suggesting that just as each individual should try to redevelop ancient science each of us should study slime molds and try to understand them in this framework.

What compelling reason is there for people to study something that no evidence indicates actually existed?

People do study slime molds for actual reasons.

I believe you took something out of context. I can't find it.

I asked you to explain something. You obviously can't. But this may be the first time I've seen you try to even give lip service to a direct question regarding something you claimed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Consciousness has a great deal of pattern recognition. This is not an abstraction.

It has been explained to you by more than one person that dogs exhibit behavior consistent with abstract thinking. I've witnessed what is best described as abstract thinking in many a dog.

 

[Valjean]

Homo sapiens are extinct.

It really doesn't matter what you call them or us; they are just words for two distinct species.

I'm not extinct.

Animals think but do not experience it. I've defined human thought.

How do you know this?

Instinct (hard wiring) is a small part of the consciousness of most species.

So most animal behavior is thought out and planned?

Yes! Only humans think. More accurately only homo omnisciencis experiences thought.

Didn't you just say animals think, and that instinct is only a small part?

Who tested the assumption that understanding of consciousness wasn't necessary to understand species or life?

What makes you think all life is conscious?

 

[metis]

Doesn't the Bible say each seed grows only its kind?

Every species that exists, every process that exists, every single thing that exists is both unique and changes over time. Whatever grew from the first seed changed over time and became human. But it did not change gradually but rather in fits and starts and it did not change through survival of the fittest but as a result of consciousness, conscious decisions, and the behavior these caused.

You can't step into the same river twice and no river can have the same man step into it twice.

Time don't fly, it bounds and leaps.

That really doesn't address my question. Plus, what objective evidence do you have for this?

 

[metis]

It really doesn't matter what you call them or us; they are just words for two distinct species.

"Homo" is a genus label and "sapiens" is a species label.

 

[cladking]

What makes you think all life is conscious?

Someday perhaps I'll write out a detailed answer to this. Remember reality is logic manifest that unfolds from initial conditions and life is logic incarnate that unfolds through free will, consciousness.

Didn't you just say animals think, and that instinct is only a small part?

Yes.

But I also said animals do not experience thought. Their reality is configured differently than ours as are their languages. If we could ask one what it's thinking it would not understand. It would not understand any abstraction. The words to form the question do not exist in any animal language. They could not learn these words without learning a new language and how to "think".

They could tell you what's going on in their minds by various means, and do, but they do not experience "thought".

So most animal behavior is thought out and planned?

Yes. Animals act on their highly limited knowledge by means of the complexity of their entire "brains". They see what they know and act accordingly.

How do you know this?

Writing from before the "tower of babel" contains no abstraction, taxonomy, or words to express thought. It was apparently written by another species. The language is logical and there is a mathematical relationship between words.

But everything is extrapolation from all theory and observation in the light of empirical evidence. In other words I maintain that all things are logical and in order that all the evidence and experiment fit into a logical pattern a new paradigm emerges that shows life is consciousness, Darwin was wrong, all our assumptions are wrong.

We see only what we believe and reason in circles so this is invisible to us.

Humans are distinct from all life that existed before modern languages (the confusion of the language).

 

[cladking]

There is no reason for anyone to consider this valid, meaningful or useful. A biblical event of undetermined history that is metaphorical is not a speciation event.

I wasn't there so I don't know.

What I am saying is that the story in the Bible is just about exactly what I'd expect to see if story were interpreted from older writing by individuals who did not understand science or the meaning of the story. The event was the official change in language.

I am hamstrung by only being able to base my models on experiment and fact.

The Bible doesn't include much of anything that is found in modern science texts.

All things are evidence. Reality is binary; either something exists or it does not.

The Bible exists.

A biblical event of undetermined history that is metaphorical is not a speciation event.

The story in Genesis exists but it also exists in other sources dating all the way back to about 1800 BC.