Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

BTW, see my avatar? 100% early modern human, i.e homo sapiens, same as you and me but from 22000 years ago. Thicker skull bones, slightly more pronounced brow, 13% larger brain case, more powerful lower jaw... Evolutionary differences that have taken thousands of years.

That certainly seems to support my theory that humans are devolving.

And since they were stinky footed bumpkins it lends credence to my theory that there's no such thing as intelligence, too.

I wager that if you could take a closer look at the changes in homo sapiens or homo omnisciencis then you'd see a long series of sudden changes caused by consciousness rather than Evolution.

 

[cladking]

It's relavant if you want to be taken seriously.

It's relevant if you want funding or if you want to be appreciated for your work in furthering current beliefs.

Peer review is irrelevant to being correct if the existing beliefs are all wrong as is apparently the case with Evolution.


I have little ability or interest in furthering existing beliefs. If the status quo can't handle this then perhaps the problem lies with the status quo. Spoiler alert, look at the role of consciousness and examine the assumptions that populations are stable and change in species results from survival of the fittest.

 

[ChristineM]

No. Peers don't get to decide the relevance or meaning of an experiment. Opinion always means nothing in science. If something can't be replicated or consistently replicated then it is not experiment.

Peers in many cases can only interpret experiment in terms of the existing paradigm so science changes one funeral at a time.

Peers get to decide if an already relevant experiment is actually repeatable.

Bull, an experiment is defind as, a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.

And peer review : evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

You don't get to make the rules of science.

 

[ChristineM]

That certainly seems to support my theory that humans are devolving.

Or evolving greater efficiency. Either way it's evolution

And since they were stinky footed bumpkins it lends credence to my theory that there's no such thing as intelligence,

Were they? Have your seen their art? Stinky footed bumpkins don't produce art that is seen by hundreds of thousands of people every year.

I wager that if you could take a closer look at the changes in homo sapiens or homo omnisciencis then you'd see a long series of sudden changes caused by consciousness rather than Evolution.

I eagerly await your evidence.

But don't worry, I won't be holding my breath

 

[cladking]

Peers get to decide if an already relevant experiment is actually repeatable.

As is typical believers in science ignore the argument and gainsay its parts.

Do you know what a paradigm is? Do you know why science works?

 

[cladking]

Or evolving greater efficiency. Either way it's evolution

And if our heads were as small as a weasel's we could evolve to chase rats through sewers.

Stinky footed bumpkins don't produce art that is seen by hundreds of thousands of people every year.

Do you believe that they had technology and modern science? Do you believe they believed in many gods and various magic? Do you believe they ate healthy meals, bathed regularly, and always practiced the best hygiene? You're alone if you do.

I eagerly await your evidence.

Why don't you show me evidence that you're right?

I've already posted ample evidence for a new interpretation but it is invisible to believers. Show me some evidence for a gradual change.

 

[ChristineM]

As is typical believers in science ignore the argument and gainsay its parts.

Do you know what a paradigm is? Do you know why science works?

Eh? We are talking evidence, not faith.

And attempting to insult your opponent does not help your case

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry everyone. I am a bit late to the conversation this morning. Did I miss anything?

@cladking seems rather sure of himself. He must have finally posted that evidence that agrees with his post.

Right?

Right ? ? ? .. . .

 

[ChristineM]

And if our heads were as small as a weasel's we could evolve to chase rats through sewers.

Irrelevant wtraw man comments don't help either

Do you believe that they had technology and modern science?

No, do you believe they needed it to survive?

Do you believe they believed in many gods and various magic?

They gave thanks for what fed and clothed then, wtf has gods got to do with it?

Do you believe they ate healthy meals, bathed regularly, and always practiced the best hygiene? You're alone if you do.

Irrelevant, they livedbas best they know, only modern science has improved food standards and hygene. You seem to think owning the latest smart phone and apple mac was important to stone age people.

Why don't you show me evidence that you're right

You made the statement, thst ownes is on you

I've already posted ample evidence for a new interpretation but it is invisible to believers. Show me some evidence for a gradual change.

I don't think so, you have made irrelevant claims about what it seems you are ill equipped to understand.

Example of gradual change, stripes of a tiger which evolved over thousands of years.

Example of punctuated equilibrium, the langway bent toed gecko which is evolving quite rapidly.

Quite rapidly is over several generations. (Equivalent to thousands of years in human terms)

 

[cladking]

You made the statement, thst ownes is on you

You're still ignoring my every word.

I said every single experiment and observation supports my theory preferentially to the ToE or is the same.

You need to find something that doesn't involve your opinion or the opinion of Peers that supports your beliefs or denies mine.


Gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is antiquated.

In all these years the best believers have done is to cite the 1986 e coli experiment!!! If you can't do better than this you don't have a "theory", you have a belief system.

 

[Firelight]

More nonsense, no evidence.

“Do you know what science is?”
“There’s lots of evidence.” (But I won’t provide any.)
(For the 457,392nd time) “Theory is truth!”
“Straw man.” ‘Scarecrow’ should start being used just to change it up a little.
“….hypothesis….”

I’d really like to see posted real evidence of the theory that so many claim to believe in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More nonsense, no evidence.

“Do you know what science is?”
“There’s lots of evidence.” (But I won’t provide any.)
(For the 457,392nd time) “Theory is truth!”
“Straw man.” ‘Scarecrow’ should start being used just to change it up a little.
“….hypothesis….”

I’d really like to see posted real evidence of the theory that so many claim to believe in.

Yet you appear to be afraid to ask me about evidence.

 

[cladking]

I’d really like to see posted real evidence of the theory that so many claim to believe in.

You'd think with all these folks who know theory is truth one of them could post some actual evidence, like an experiment that can be interpreted only one way.

They have nothing except a belief in the omniscience of science and Peers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'd think with all these folks who know theory is truth one of them could post some actual evidence, like an experiment that can be interpreted only one way.

They have nothing except a belief in the omniscience of science and Peers.

Who has said that theory is "truth"?

And you lost the ability to demand evidence from me. At least not until you understand the concept. Are you ready to learn?

 

[cladking]

And you lost the ability to demand evidence from me.

I guess that happened when I correctly pointed out that evidence has no bearing on theory except as it's the most common way to create hypothesis. But then you don't seem to understand that almost every hypothesis turns out to be false.

Experiment creates theory ands all experiment supports my theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess that happened when I correctly pointed out that evidence has no bearing on theory except as it's the most common way to create hypothesis. But then you don't seem to understand that almost every hypothesis turns out to be false.

Experiment creates theory ands all experiment supports my theory.

No, you were incorrect about that.

But baby steps. First you learn what is and what is not evidence, and then we move on from there. And please don't make false claims about others. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence. . I trust you when you say that you believe that there is no evidence for evolution. I do not think that you are lying. And since the evidence is obvious and demonstrable and has been given to you many times over the only logical conclusion left over is that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

You're still ignoring my every word.

I said every single experiment and observation supports my theory preferentially to the ToE or is the same.

You need to find something that doesn't involve your opinion or the opinion of Peers that supports your beliefs or denies mine.


Gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is antiquated.

In all these years the best believers have done is to cite the 1986 e coli experiment!!! If you can't do better than this you don't have a "theory", you have a belief system.

cite what? DNA?

And your projection doesn't helpbyou

 

[Firelight]

cite what? DNA?

And your projection doesn't helpbyou

What DNA proves the theory of evolution?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What DNA proves the theory of evolution?

You are asking the wrong question and using proof as a standard. Science is not about proof.

 

[ChristineM]

What DNA proves the theory of evolution?

It shows all life evolved from a single common ancestor.

It shows when our ancestors branch took a slight different direction than those who were to become chimp and bonobo