Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

You claimed science didn't fit reality and that assumptions were in error.

NO!!!

You are mistaking paradigms for science. This is a very common error among believers in science.

Science isn't in error but it is reductionistic and many assumptions are in error which causes paradigms to be in error.

Science and reason are all we really have.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science isn't in error but it is reductionistic and many assumptions are in error which causes paradigms to be in error.

And you're still just making assertions without even saying what you mean. What assumptions, specifically? What errors, exactly?

Without deals, you're just spouting hot air: "you're all wrong and I'm right, so there!"

 

[cladking]

So what do you think the definition is and why do you think it's wrong?

Science has no definition which is why Darwin had so many illusions.

"Life" is consciousness

 

[cladking]

And you're still just making assertions without even saying what you mean. What assumptions, specifically? What errors, exactly?

You just persist in ignoring, handwaving, or gainsaying every assumption I list. Most you are ignoring because you can't see them. You can't parse a simple sentence as it is intended unless it agrees with your preconceptions.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science has no definition which is why Darwin had so many illusions.

So what has not having a definition of consciousness got do do with Darwin's theory (assuming that's what you mean - can't see the relevance otherwise)?

You just persist in ignoring, handwaving, or gainsaying every assumption I list.

But the problem is that you keep asserting that assumptions have been made and you think they're wrong without listing exactly what assumptions or saying why you think they're wrong. Without those details, the entire claim meaningless.

 

[cladking]

So what has not having a definition of consciousness got do do with Darwin's theory (assuming that's what you mean - can't see the relevance otherwise)?

With the exception of adaptation and some or most mutation, change in species results from consciousness. All change is rapid but consciousness bears on all change because life IS consciousness.

 

[cladking]

...what assumptions or saying why you think they're wrong.

They are wrong because they don't agree with experiment and they create anomalies.

 

[ratiocinator]

With the exception of adaptation and some or most mutation, change in species results from consciousness.

Not sure what you think is left of evolution when you say "With the exception of adaptation and some or most mutation". Evolution is basically long term adaptation and mutation is required for that.

As for "...change in species results from consciousness.", what do you mean and where is the evidence?

All change is rapid but consciousness bears on all change because life IS consciousness.

Evidence?

They are wrong because they don't agree with experiment and they create anomalies.

And you're still not giving details. What assumptions, exactly and specifically, are wrong, what are the experiments, what are the results, in what way do they disagree? What exact assumptions cause what specific anomalies?

Be specific - hand-waving generalisation is literally meaningless..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This probably lies at the heart of our every disagreement.

Sigh!!! No! What is at the heart of our every disagreement is:
1. You constantly make empty assertions.
2. You never provide evidence to support your claims.
3. You redefine terms that have known and accepted definitions to mean something you make up.
4. You project all the flaws in your posts onto others.
5. You ignore what others say.
6. You don't provide details and specifics. You just make nebulous statements.
7. When asked to provide information, you don't.
8. You don't seem to understand science, history, experiments, evidence among many things.
9. You make up nomenclature for species that don't exist.
10. You have a belief system that combines a trivial understanding of science, religion, for some bizarre reason, Egyptology, stuff that seems to be apparently made up and references to, but no actual use of metaphysics.
11. Your posts are often internally inconsistent and internally contradictory. You make one claim and then within the same post you counterclaim it.
12. Your posts are often externally inconsistent. You claim one position and then post about something that belies that position.

I could go on and on, but those are some of the main flaws that I and others have to deal with in trying to engage with you.

You believe the evidence of your own eyes and I believe we can't directly see any reality. You trust the paradigms invented by modern science and I trust what I can see, hear, and touch. You see all of reality through reductionistic science and I've discovered reductionistic science doesn't necessarily have a clean fit with reality because so many assumptions are in error. Many definitions are poor or wholly nonexistent so can't describe critical referents in modern science. Imagine making complex calculations with some of the variables wholly absent!! Correct answers would require coincidence.

I think our problem is that you believe your trivial judgements are facts.

What assumptions are in error? What are the errors? What definitions are poor and in what way? Specifics. Details. Not just your nebulous chatter.

All I see from you are empty assertions and nebulous statements.

When you use the word "know" you mean something entirely different than what I mean. You mean something you read and believe from a reliable source. I don't use the term much except to say "I don't know" because I believe all true knowledge is visceral. It is experiential. What we call "knowledge" is actually just models and constructs comprised of beliefs and what we've been told. Whether it's founded in science or religion much of it is useful and much of it is essentially correct. Much of it represents the accumulated wisdom of 40,000 years of "human" existence or 400 years of experimental knowledge.

More empty assertions.

It is my personal opinion that any time a science topic comes up, you should lead with "I don't know". It will save you a lot of time.

The problem is all of it, every word of it, is dependent of unstated assumptions, axioms, and definitions. All of it, every word, every bit, can be misapplied to reality. Without understanding the source of all these wisdoms it is frequently misapplied and the the nature of the paradigms with which we see reality is unknown to everybody. If you simply ignore Darwin's assumptions and perspectives you won't see all the other many things that must be true for him to be correct. You won't see he was a product of his time and place.

What are these assumptions that you keep chattering on and on and on and on and on and on about?

I see inconsistency in this entire post. I believe what I see and it different from you believe what you see. It doesn't even make sense.

There are countless anomalies but these are very hard to see because we see what we believe and paint in everything we don't see. We each see the entire picture, all of reality, through these means yet we all see something different. Even the two finest scientists will often disagree about not only their specialty but everything else as well. We each have our minds and our own means and modes of thought as well as unique perspectives, definitions, and languages. You seem to not be able to see this idea but even if we each had exactly the same language and we all had exactly the same definitions it would still be impossible to communicate because we each still must parse the other persons sentences. No matter how carefully or perfectly a sentence is crafted each individual would see a different meaning.

More assertions and nebulous statements without any apparent meaning.

So we each have unique models/ beliefs and few of us paid much attention to their construction. We each tend to go through life never realizing that communication is a mess and we all have different opinion on everything. Half of aviation engineers believe an airplane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction. Many physicists also are incorrect but score the best. Ignoring such things is easy to do but we miss the picture when we do and the big picture is that we are each seeing an entirely distinct big picture. We are each a product of our time and place. We each see reality through definitions and assumptions that vary with time and place. It wasn't always like this. If cavemen all lived in different realities they'd have gone extinct and we wouldn't be here.

If a different reality would lead to cavemen like our ancient Homo sapiens ancestors were, then it would not be a reality so different that cavemen would just go extinct. Its just another of your meaningless claims.

If Darwin hadn't believed in survival of the fittest,

He didn't. He discovered natural selection. Others did to it turns out. He just had the most evidence and priority.

the inconsequence of consciousness,

We don't know what Darwin said about consciousness if anything. However, it is irrelevant to developing a theory of evolution and no one has shown that it isn't irrelevant.

and stable populations

Not an assumption of Darwin. Sorry. You just really don't know.

the world might be very much different today.

Yeah. People that make stuff up would be trying to get everyone to substitute what they make up for reality.

It's not too late to at least start undoing the damage he did but first we must expose his errors, biases, and assumptions.

We are undoing all the damage we can, but some of the damaged are very uncooperative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are wrong because they don't agree with experiment and they create anomalies.

You were asked what assumptions and not why you think they wrong in some nebulous sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know from experiential (and experimental) knowledge that I see what I believe and reason in circles like everyone.

I don't know of any experiments you have mentioned other than your belief that you created a species of fly, but I'll attest the rest of it.

I can't see reality directly and have only my reason and senses to try to discern it.

You just said one post up that you believe what you see and experience. Now we see another of those inconsistencies that you are becoming famous for with me. Which is it fella?

These are facts virtually by definition.

No they are not. Just empty assertions.

Virtually no metaphysician would disagree.

No evidence to support this empty assertion.

People make sense and this is the sense people make; science is reductionistic.

Unsupported assertion.

All of the assumptions imparted by language are in error.

What assumptions and how are they in error? By now, I know you will not respond in any reasonable, but it should still be asked.

Remember reality exists and is not analog?

Meaningless and empty.

Etc Etc Etc. I have discovered them to be in error.

Empty assertion.

"Human" progress is neither linear nor "human".

I have no idea what you are on about here.

We can't see reality directly. Modern science is not the only way to differentiate reality from appearances and modern science is often little more voodoo or mysticism. Religion is not what it appears. It is a confusion of ancient knowledge and science. Populations are not stable. You can't see change in species by staring at fossils or discounting consciousness. We believe intelligence exists but there is no such thing. In humans it is an event, not a condition. Almost everything anyone believes is either false or correct only in a left handed sort of way. In modern language all "truth" is provisional and conditional. We think in language and all language today is as confused as it was 4000 years ago.

It's all empty assertion or meaningless and disconnected statements.

You can't parse these words if you take them singly or try not to follow author intent. All of reality applies to and affects everything in reality. All experiment holds at all times and applies to every paradigm. Science (reductionism) takes things apart but never puts them all together again. All things do not fit together in the ways science suggests which spawns many anomalies which disappear under other paradigm(s).



All definitions have problems. The most relevant here is "consciousness" which is key to change in species but was ignored by Darwin.



Most people reject everything but what they believe out of hand.

I guess you did better than most and probably better than I could have.

This doesn't answer any question that anyone has asked you. You just seem to be finding any way you can to avoid answering questions or supporting your assertions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If "we can't directly see any reality", why would you "trust what I can see, hear, and touch"? You're not making any sense.


Still just an assertions. No evidence, not even any detail. What is it that doesn't fit? What assumptions are you referring to? How do you know they are in error?


What definitions? Which ones are missing? Which do you think are poor and why?


Yet correct answers abound in science. If they didn't, we wouldn't have the technology that you're using to post vague, hand-waving, unsupported assertions.

I could go on through the rest of your entire post asking similar questions, but I got bored...

I'm getting bored too. What is the point of trying to engage with someone that refuses to and only wants people to accept his beliefs without question?

 

[cladking]

What is the point of trying to engage with someone that refuses to and only wants people to accept his beliefs without question?

No. I expect people to try to understand my argument so we can argue it. At the very least I'd like a response to the many arguments I've made against Darwin and his beliefs rather than a continual litany of semantics, gainsaying, and deflection.

I address every point at least once usually 30 or 40 times because other people keep coming back with the exact same thing but most of my points have never been addressed. No one has yet to present a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. Obviously it's never going to happen. How about either/ or? Show an experiment that shows gradual change or survival of the fittest. Let's leave e coli out of this please.

Darwin was wrong and this is why the evidence against the MS just keeps growing.

 

[John53]

No. I expect people to try to understand my argument so we can argue it. At the very least I'd like a response to the many arguments I've made against Darwin and his beliefs rather than a continual litany of semantics, gainsaying, and deflection.

I address every point at least once usually 30 or 40 times because other people keep coming back with the exact same thing but most of my points have never been addressed. No one has yet to present a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. Obviously it's never going to happen. How about either/ or? Show an experiment that shows gradual change or survival of the fittest. Let's leave e coli out of this please.

Darwin was wrong and this is why the evidence against the MS just keeps growing.

Dogs, chickens, cows, corn, wheat. There's 5 examples, let me know if you want more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I expect people to try to understand my argument so we can argue it.

You don't argue. You assert. Beyond that, just nebulous statements that are often nonsense.

At the very least I'd like a response to the many arguments I've made against Darwin

You've gotten responses to your claims about Darwin. Lots of them.

and his beliefs rather than a continual litany of semantics, gainsaying, and deflection.

I wish you would stop too.

You were asked about a list of assumptions you claim are wrong and why. Still nothing from you except the usual empty assertions.

I address every point at least once usually 30 or 40 times

NO YOU DO NOT! People have asked you to expand on your nebulous claims and you have not responded at all.

because other people keep coming back with the exact same thing but most of my points have never been addressed.

If you are going to play games, I'm done. I don't have time to waste on this nonsense.

No one has yet to present a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest.

You have not presented one experiment that demonstrates it does not happen. ZERO! ZIP! NADA! I've presented experiments just this week that support natural selection and evolution and nothing from you.

Obviously it's never going to happen. How about either/ or? Show an experiment that shows gradual change or survival of the fittest. Let's leave e coli out of this please.

Darwin was wrong and this is why the evidence against the MS just keeps growing.

I've no more time for these grandiose claims.

Sell your beliefs and your empty assertions to someone else that has more time to waste not getting responded to about magical ancient scientists inventing talking beavers that eat fish.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dogs, chickens, cows, corn, wheat. There's 5 examples, let me know if you want more.

I often wonder if it isn't all just a game. That all this is being done on purpose at the expense of those that want to discuss actual arguments and not empty assertions and nebulous claims that don't say anything.

I think I've had enough.

 

[John53]

I often wonder if it isn't all just a game. That all this is being done on purpose at the expense of those that want to discuss actual arguments and not empty assertions and nebulous claims that don't say anything.

I think I've had enough.

I sometimes wonder if it's Poe's law.

 

[John53]

I often wonder if it isn't all just a game. That all this is being done on purpose at the expense of those that want to discuss actual arguments and not empty assertions and nebulous claims that don't say anything.

I think I've had enough.

Maybe I'm not understanding what he's asking but aren't dogs a wonderful example of humans experimenting with natural selection?

 

[cladking]

Maybe I'm not understanding what he's asking but aren't dogs a wonderful example of humans experimenting with natural selection?

How ironic!

I believe dogs are as close to an experiment as ancient science ever got. It was based on observation and logic instead of observation and experiment however. It did not "experiment" and wouldn't understand the concept because the people had no abstractions and science was based in the logic of language and observations could not be staged.

I believe "dogs" virtually prove my contention that change in species is "always" sudden and caused not by "survival of the fittest" but by behavior of individuals at bottlenecks. Bottlenecks select for behavior and no sort of "fitness".

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, and I am the correct messenger and you will burn in Hell, because you have faith in the wrong ones.

Nobody burns in hell.