Darwin's Illusion

[mikkel_the_dane]

so, the MS is false, and your axiom is an illusion.

You don't understand science as a methodology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is evolution if not the scientific theory of evolution/MS? If the mechanisms are false and the framework is false, the theory is necessarily false. Evolution is a scientific theory not an axiom.

The Modern Synthesis is false as demonstrated and the alleged evidence is an illusion. (Again, "illusion" is not my word, see #4899). Get rid of the axiom and you will be able to see different interpretations of what you used to perceive as evidence of the ToE. Keep the false axiom and force every observation to fit within your view. If your axiom/premise is false, everything that follows is false.

Unless your lenses are neutral, you will never see the true colors. It’s very hard to be neutral, we’re all inclined towards one view or another, such inclination is driven by our “free will", first step is to be aware of your own bias. Once you’re aware of it, try to free yourself from it. If you honestly want to be neutral, you can. We’re never neutral.

You should know that you are the blind one here. You will reach out to anyone desperately for help. None of the claims of your people have been well accepted. That means that they did not "disprove" anything. And worse yet they all support the fact of evolution.

You are still an ape if you are going to use those sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info. Again, it’s not about the info but rather the controlling processes. See #5291

The notion of replication of the fittest genes is misleading/false. All genes get replicated but the unfit is more likely to naturally perish. It’s not selection of the fittest it’s a process of maintaining the species by keeping the favorable healthy traits. In addition, the cell machinery can control directed mutations to intelligently address environmental pressures.

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

Why do you keep admitting that you are wrong by referring back to arguments that you lost the first time that you posted them? Do you think that they aged and got rid of that loser funk they have all over them?

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, I am not going to play that game with you. You don't understand when you are subjective, because you take your own thinking for granted.

it's enough that you understand and confident about your view. wait a minute! are you actually confident about something? I was under the impression that you are skeptic about everything! are you? do you take your thinking for granted? shouldn't you be skeptic about your own thinking? if you are then you have nothing to argue about, if not, you contradict/refute yourself. do you understand?

again, philosophy is not just some useless rhetoric; it provides the rational means to understand reality.

you're entitled to your view.

 

[LIIA]

Why do you keep admitting that you are wrong by referring back to arguments that you lost the first time that you posted them?

really!! ok
keep imagining things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

it's enough that you understand and confident about your view. wait a minute! are you actually confident about something? I was under the impression that you are skeptic about everything! are you? do you take your thinking for granted? shouldn't you be skeptic about your own thinking? if you are then you have nothing to argue about, if not, you contradict/refute yourself. do you understand?

again, philosophy is not just some useless rhetoric; it provides the rational means to understand reality.

you're entitled to your view.

Well, you are confusing being certain with truth. I am certain for the notion of justified true knowledge that it is a subjective idea and it can be done differently. As for rational, the problem is that one of us is not that, yet we are both in the world.
Depending on the context of a debate I use different tools, but in the end know to me is what apparently works for a context,

 

[LIIA]

You don't understand science as a methodology.

its good enough that you do

 

[Subduction Zone]

really!! ok
keep imagining things.

Projection.

Why don't we have a discussion about science, the basics. What the scientific method is. What scientific evidence is. Once you learn the basics then you can begin to understand more.

Do you understand that there is very strong evidence for evolution regardless of the cause?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Projection.

Why don't we have a discussion about science, the basics. What the scientific method is. What scientific evidence is. Once you learn the basics then you can begin to understand more.

Do you understand that there is very strong evidence for evolution regardless of the cause?

Yeah, there is the assumption, the data and the model that explains the data in light of the assumption.
The links explains the data differently as we sometimes get new data and thus get a new model, but the assumption is the same.

 

[LIIA]

Well, you are confusing being certain with truth. I am certain for the notion of justified true knowledge that it is a subjective idea and it can be done differently. As for rational, the problem is that one of us is not that, yet we are both in the world.
Depending on the context of a debate I use different tools, but in the end know to me is what apparently works for a context,

whatever you say is a subjective idea that can be wrong? you have no way to be certain? if you are not certain about anything and cannot have an acceptable level of certainty about anything? then you have no basis to argue about anything.

in your case, there is no reference. without a reference, nothing can be valid or invalid.

 

[LIIA]

Do you understand that there is very strong evidence for evolution regardless of the cause?

you fail to understand that my concern is the scientific theory of evolution. the theory has failed as a scientific theory. it's a verifiable fact. do you understand? I'm not concerned about your axiom. you may keep it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

whatever you say is a subjective idea that can be wrong? you have no way to be certain? if you are not certain about anything and cannot have an acceptable level of certainty about anything? then you have no basis to argue about anything.

in your case, there is no reference. without a reference, nothing can be valid or invalid.

Valid and invalid are ideas in your mind. I use other ideas of that. But I can't act at all so I didn't write this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, there is the assumption, the data and the model that explains the data in light of the assumption.
The links explains the data differently as we sometimes get new data and thus get a new model, but the assumption is the same.

He has to rely on those, even though they do not support him because he has nothing and he knows it. And I think he knows that we also are aware that the creationists cannot come up with a model for their beliefs. They do not have to come up with a model that says how God did it, but they still have to come up with a testable model that explains all of the evidence and that does not appear to be possible for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you fail to understand that my concern is the scientific theory of evolution. the theory has failed as a scientific theory. it's a verifiable fact. do you understand? I'm not concerned about your axiom. you may keep it.

If it is a "verifiable fact" then why can't you support that claim properly? With well accepted papers, not fringe ones, which a large proportion of evolutionary scientists agree with?

All you have are claims from the fringe, and they do not even refute evolution. They only say that the causes for it are slightly different.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, there is the assumption, the data and the model that explains the data in light of the assumption.
The links explains the data differently as we sometimes get new data and thus get a new model, but the assumption is the same.

please stop the ignorant notion that the MS is a model of evolution. I explained many times that the Modern Synthesis is the only scientific theory of evolution. the theory has failed, period.

 

[LIIA]

why can't you support that claim properly? With well accepted papers

I did many times. your failure to understand is your concern. you may go back to the previous posts if you wish. otherwise, stay in denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did many times. your failure to understand is your concern. you may go back to the previous posts if you wish. otherwise, stay in denial.

No you didn't. Fringe work is not supporting them. People that make claims that are not well accepted is not supporting them. That is why every time that you refer back to your old arguments you are just admitting that you lost all over again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

please stop the ignorant notion that the MS is a model of evolution. I explained many times that the Modern Synthesis is the only scientific theory of evolution. the theory has failed, period.

Just because you say so does not matter a hill of beans. Will there be changes to it? Of course. Has it failed? That would have been a headline story all around the globe. Somehow I missed that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did many times. your failure to understand is your concern. you may go back to the previous posts if you wish. otherwise, stay in denial.

Here is the formal problem. For all cases of X is Y and not Z, it is not universal if I can do Z.

Your model is this: For all humans(cases) all thinking is as mine/LIIA(Y) and not different(Z). I just do Z right here in this post.

 

[LIIA]

Valid and invalid are ideas in your mind. I use other ideas of that. But I can't act at all so I didn't write this.

I guess if you have other ideas in your mind, then you exist. do you? I wonder what kind of ideas? do you think its valid, invalid or just some meaningless rhetoric? is there any other option?