Darwin's Illusion

[exchemist]

I'm still curious about this. How is the fact that you can buy agar in from 55 lb bags from China a legitimate objection to the Lenski's E. coli experiment? Or is it that this particular brand wasn't available then and that set of a chain of events leading to the death a certain individual pike in Michigan and therefore, Lenski's experiment is flawed? Does it have anything to do with star formation?

The materials and methods Demski uses are available online. I'm surprised that we didn't get links to that instead of nebulous reference to some brand of agar from China that you can purchase in bulk.

Overview of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment

DM25 Liquid Medium

TA agar plates

It is almost as if you are unaware of these things and don't understand what it means or how to use it. Which leads to questions about why you think you have a voice to object to these experiments that so clearly demonstrate natural selection.

Demski??

Freudian slip?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Demski??

Freudian slip?

Probably. LOL! I'm glad you pointed that out.

 

[cladking]

You have yet to establish Darwin was wrong and can't explain why his theory forms the continued basis of the modern theory.

As @LIIA has proven "Evolution is under attack from without and within.

Plus, you have never presented any experiments from 40,000 years old science.

Ancient science didn't need experiment. It was not based on experiment as ours is.

Ancient science was based on the logic of nature incarnate in the human brain and its metaphysics was Ancient Language itself.

You do realize that metaphysics and science parted ways a long time ago.

Semantics again! I don't play word games and usually don't quote them either. Enjoy!

Meaningless drivel that tells us nothing and doesn't support your contention that something was wrong the agar.

Nothing was "wrong" with the agar. The product changed over time just like everything else.

How do you do that constantly and consider yourself a scientist?

I've performed countless thousands of experiments. I've also performed many thought experiments. Science isn't about Peers and communication except to believers. Science is a state of mind. It is a perspective.

No he didn't. Your claiming this incorrect view does not establish it as fact. It doesn't even make sense.

Try Funk and Wagnalls, any edition.

There exist no science 40,000 years ago as there are no 40,000-year-old written language that explain anything.

I've already shown there were the same symbols inscribed in caves all over the world. You can call what bees do, beavers do, and ancient man did anything you want to call it. And then you can play word games with any of it. but the fact remains the evidence and logic fit another explanation than yours.

But you don't mention any of those and go straight to this unfounded objection.

More semantics. I listed three categories of objections to the "experiment" in the very sentence you quoted. You just brush them off as though I said nothing at all.

Believers don't want to discuss, they just use an means possible to appear to win arguments. I could expand on any or all of these three categories but believers aren't interested in discussion. The Inquisitors didn't ask heretics about their beliefs, they just tortured them until they saw the light or died.

Theories are models that lead to the development of experiments that produce evidence to use in testing the models.

"Theories" are the interpretation of experiment. Logic and evidence typically are the basis of hypothesis. "Models" are the way all humans (homo omnisciencis) think and are far more akin to paradigms than experiment. Many people mistake evidence or fact for science but science can never prove anything.

Sarcasm isn't going to help you.

I said I was wrong that I'm often wrong. I don't know what to say and not be gainsaid.

I am often wrong because I don't get my answers out of books. But I can get the right answer when all the books are wrong sometimes.

 

[exchemist]

Probably. LOL! I'm glad you pointed that out.

I admire your stamina in this war of attrition. I know this poster from elsewhere and confess I have had him or her on Ignore for over a year. The nonsense will never stop.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As @LIIA has proven "Evolution is under attack from without and within.

I haven't seen anything useful from that source, but what does widely and previously recognized controversy in science and the standard creationist denial have to do to with supporting your claims? It seem rather diversionary. Certainly it does not directly address the question with anything resembling a valid answer.

Ancient science didn't need experiment. It was not based on experiment as ours is.

Who knows what a fictional construct needed or didn't. Whatever you want it to mean. It has no relevance here even as an amusing anecdote.

Ancient science was based on the logic of nature incarnate in the human brain and its metaphysics was Ancient Language itself.

Irrelevant empty claims.

Semantics again!

No.

I don't play word games and usually don't quote them either. Enjoy!

That is a large part of what you do. Did you forget about your redefining terms arbitrarily or the dancing you do to avoid providing valid responses? Maybe word games are such a deep part of your nature you don't even realize you are heavily engaged in them.

Nothing was "wrong" with the agar. The product changed over time just like everything else.

And you base this claim on the fact that you can buy agar from China? How is that relevant? How have you shown that it changed? In what way? What was significant about the change? Why is that such a glaring source for objection when you can't list any other?

I've performed countless thousands of experiments.

I don't believe you. Show me.

I've also performed many thought experiments.

I think that pretty much constitutes your experience with experimenting and as near as anyone can determined you act as your own peer review inserting your own bias while patting yourself on your own back at the brilliance of your "discoveries".

Science isn't about Peers and communication except to believers.

Science includes peer review and communication. It is a fact. Are you saying that scientists shouldn't consult other experts or tell people what they found. You referenced another poster on here to open this typical non-responsive response of yours.

Science is a state of mind. It is a perspective.

Science is a methodology. If you want to consider it a perspective, it doesn't appear to be one that you take.

Try Funk and Wagnalls, any edition.

Why don't you provide an explanation? Any post. Do your own foot work. If it is important enough for you to claim, you should show some justice and support it.

I've already shown there were the same symbols inscribed in caves all over the world.

Who cares. It is irrelevant.

You can call what bees do, beavers do, and ancient man did anything you want to call it.

Irrelevant and unestablished speculation.

And then you can play word games with any of it.

It is not my choice to follow you down rabbit holes of word games. I would just as soon you stopped, but that doesn't look it will happen.

but the fact remains the evidence and logic fit another explanation than yours.

Now you are claiming evidence and logic and another explanation that you can't seem to present here. Why is that? What is preventing you? If it is so important and you know so much more than everyone else, presenting your explanations would seem logical and paramount.

More semantics.

No it isn't. You don't mention explanations. Fact. You don't provide support. Fact. You make empty claims. Fact. All established based on a review of the evidence. I don't need word games when I have evidence.

I listed three categories of objections to the "experiment" in the very sentence you quoted.

Show me.

You just brush them off as though I said nothing at all.

I can't brush off what isn't there.

Believers don't want to discuss,

That is exactly what anyone gets from you. You don't want to discuss things. You declare, play word games, don't answer questions put to you or provide any valid explanation and then you run off.

they just use an means possible to appear to win arguments.

We ask you to explain yourself in more than nebulous naysaying and repetition. You don't seem to be able to apply any sort of specific objection to anything you deny.

I could expand on any or all of these three categories but believers aren't interested in discussion.

Of course, blame others for your own failure. That really works. You didn't list three categories and any reason to support them. You went straight to and only agar from China as if that was an answer.

The Inquisitors didn't ask heretics about their beliefs, they just tortured them until they saw the light or died.

Of course, declarations of persecution are the best means to address questions and provide explanations. It is part and parcel with the litany of semantics you employ.

"Theories" are the interpretation of experiment.

Theories are explanations for evidence. Results and conclusions are the interpretation of the experiment.

Logic and evidence typically are the basis of hypothesis.

You should try presenting some.

"Models" are the way all humans (homo omnisciencis) think and are far more akin to paradigms than experiment. Many people mistake evidence or fact for science but science can never prove anything.

Humans are Homo sapiens and no one has shown differently. Another empty assertion based on thought experiments not in evidence.

No one is mistaking fact for science. Another meaningless word game that is typically non-responsive.

You said I was wrong that I'm often wrong.

That is what the evidence demonstrates. I you talk about things that aren't even established to exist, let alone comment on as if they were real. Ancient science. Ancient language. Ancient bees. Ancient beavers. Nebulous assertions that have no backing.

I don't know what to say and not be gainsaid.

Try something based on actual evidence for a change. You gainsay anyone that objects to the fact that you demonstrate nothing and most of what you claim is empty and based on nebulous word games.

I am often wrong because I don't get my answers out of books.

No. You are wrong, because you think you have answers and refuse to recognize that they are baseless.

But I can get the right answer when all the books are wrong sometimes.

Who would know. You never present anything to establish that.

You will be doing the exact same thing here a year from now. From what I have seen on other platforms, 10 years from now or even 20. You appear to refuse to learn. You appear to believe you have all the answers. You refuse to show anyone that what you claim has any validity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I admire your stamina in this war of attrition. I know this poster from elsewhere and confess I have had him or her on Ignore for over a year. The nonsense will never stop.

It is more of an exercise in critical evaluation of content and sound replies. It is like mental exercise.

I've seen some of the same thing elsewhere myself. The presentation is consistent if nothing else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As @LIIA has proven "Evolution is under attack from without and within.



Ancient science didn't need experiment. It was not based on experiment as ours is.

Ancient science was based on the logic of nature incarnate in the human brain and its metaphysics was Ancient Language itself.



Semantics again! I don't play word games and usually don't quote them either. Enjoy!



Nothing was "wrong" with the agar. The product changed over time just like everything else.


I've performed countless thousands of experiments. I've also performed many thought experiments. Science isn't about Peers and communication except to believers. Science is a state of mind. It is a perspective.



Try Funk and Wagnalls, any edition.



I've already shown there were the same symbols inscribed in caves all over the world. You can call what bees do, beavers do, and ancient man did anything you want to call it. And then you can play word games with any of it. but the fact remains the evidence and logic fit another explanation than yours.



More semantics. I listed three categories of objections to the "experiment" in the very sentence you quoted. You just brush them off as though I said nothing at all.

Believers don't want to discuss, they just use an means possible to appear to win arguments. I could expand on any or all of these three categories but believers aren't interested in discussion. The Inquisitors didn't ask heretics about their beliefs, they just tortured them until they saw the light or died.



"Theories" are the interpretation of experiment. Logic and evidence typically are the basis of hypothesis. "Models" are the way all humans (homo omnisciencis) think and are far more akin to paradigms than experiment. Many people mistake evidence or fact for science but science can never prove anything.



I said I was wrong that I'm often wrong. I don't know what to say and not be gainsaid.

I am often wrong because I don't get my answers out of books. But I can get the right answer when all the books are wrong sometimes.

If you can do anything you claim, then just do it. It's pretty simple. Others do it.

 

[cladking]

Show me.

It's in the sentence you quoted. You can just follow the little yellow arrow next to my name to the statement.

Now doubt others have.

"I have numerous objections to the e coli "experiment" ranging from its relevance, parameters, and execution. Perhaps this highlights my greatest objection;"

These are entire categories with multiple objections in each category.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's in the sentence you quoted. You can just follow the little yellow arrow next to my name to the statement.

Now doubt others have.

"I have numerous objections to the e coli "experiment" ranging from its relevance, parameters, and execution. Perhaps this highlights my greatest objection;"

These are entire categories with multiple objections in each category.

You call them categories, I call them nebulous and meaningless.

What relevance? What are you claiming is relevant and why is it significant? What have you presented that anyone can use to agree or disagree?

What parameters? Why do you object to them?

What is wrong with how it is executed? In your vast experience as a microbiologist, geneticist and molecular biologist with thousands of experiments under your belt, what is wrong with how it is executed and why?

You offer no points to consider. You have nothing. It is just going to go on and on and on and on...with no explanations or evidence. This is who you are apparently. You seem to have fixed on a position based on your own views, imagination and tenuous, flawed understanding.

You don't offer science or even rational rebuttal with any detail.

You offer word games.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I admire your stamina in this war of attrition. I know this poster from elsewhere and confess I have had him or her on Ignore for over a year. The nonsense will never stop.

It is like a treadmill. Definitely a lot of exercise available.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's in the sentence you quoted. You can just follow the little yellow arrow next to my name to the statement.

Now doubt others have.

"I have numerous objections to the e coli "experiment" ranging from its relevance, parameters, and execution. Perhaps this highlights my greatest objection;"

These are entire categories with multiple objections in each category.

It is interesting that is the thing you key on from my post and ignore everything else. Perhaps the one thing you had a chance on coming up with something on point?

 

[John53]

I even have a few I've never posted before but we can't get past the most obvious things like all observed change is sudden and all of reality occurs in events.

What do you mean by "observed change"? Are you still talking evolution or just in general? I just cooked some eggs and observed a sudden change, they went from liquid to solid within a couple of minutes of me putting them in the frying pan. But sudden depends on your perspective, it would not have been sudden if someone was holding my hand on the frying pan, I suspect it would have felt like a very long time.

You need to define your terms because it's very difficult to follow your posts.

 

[John53]

As @LIIA has proven "Evolution is under attack from without and within.

Just because something is under attack doesn't make it wrong. What is your evidence that Darwin was wrong?

 

[cladking]

What do you mean by "observed change"?

Here is the rub. When we see a change in species it is always sudden (one or a few generations). But obviously if there really were a gradual change such as Darwin believed it would be invisible to every individual. So we must expand the definition of "observation" just as we must expand the definition of "experiment" to study astronomy. These expanded definitions still must be rooted in experiment. You can't just pick up a series of fossils and say "see, there's a gradual change". This isn't science.

I once created upside down flies by killing every housefly upright on a flat surface for about three weeks. This new species lived on the bottom of furniture except to feed (mostly when nobody was around). This sudden change in species would probably make flies much more likely to survive some freakish solar event that killed almost all the flies because more flies will be underneath objects that protect them. This is how nature works. It doesn't waste resources making less fit flies. It doesn't favor fitness because there is no such thing. There are flies that act normally and some that do not. It is consciousness that derives genetically and through experience that determines whether an individual lives or dies and has nothing really to do with "fitness".

We see things change suddenly because that's the only way they change. Everything in nature dead and alive changes suddenly. Reality is a series of events and is all intimately interconnected. Reality is sudden and life is reality incarnate. Consciousness is life and is the logic of reality.

We can't see this because we use a binary brain and analog language. We see what we believe instead of what exists. We are wholly blind to what we don't believe. It doesn't matter why we don't believe, we still can't see it.

I just cooked some eggs and observed a sudden change, they went from liquid to solid within a couple of minutes of me putting them in the frying pan. But sudden depends on your perspective, it would not have been sudden if someone was holding my hand on the frying pan, I suspect it would have felt like a very long time.

Everything happens suddenly. If you hadn't cooked the egg in less than 4 months it would be inedible. In a year it would be mostly decomposed and in little more time it would be non existent except for most of its constituent parts. If you ate it it would be gone in a couple hours except for what changed forms in digestion and residue. The shell would quickly molder down in land fill. Every day a chicken lays a new egg and few ever hatch. But chickens don't last either whether they cross the road and are named "Methuselah" or not.

Darwin imagined gradual change connecting the fossils. He assumed the conclusion. If you don't believe in reality, consciousness, non-reductionism, or bottlenecks then you have no choice but to imagine the individuals represented by fossils changed gradually from earlier incarnations. You end up right at Darwin's Illusion.

 

[cladking]

Just because something is under attack doesn't make it wrong. What is your evidence that Darwin was wrong?

My only point is that it's not only creationists, crackpots, crazies, and cranks who don't support Darwin but also tenured biologists, scientists, and peers who don't support him. I personally don't believe in "punctuated equilibrium" either but this is less wrong than Darwin.

 

[John53]

My only point is that it's not only creationists, crackpots, crazies, and cranks who don't support Darwin but also tenured biologists, scientists, and peers who don't support him. I personally don't believe in "punctuated equilibrium" either but this is less wrong than Darwin.

Questioning or expanding on his ideas isn't saying he's wrong. Darwin was a while ago, we learn more but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

 

[John53]

Here is the rub. When we see a change in species it is always sudden (one or a few generations). But obviously if there really were a gradual change such as Darwin believed it would be invisible to every individual. So we must expand the definition of "observation" just as we must expand the definition of "experiment" to study astronomy. These expanded definitions still must be rooted in experiment. You can't just pick up a series of fossils and say "see, there's a gradual change". This isn't science.

I once created upside down flies by killing every housefly upright on a flat surface for about three weeks. This new species lived on the bottom of furniture except to feed (mostly when nobody was around). This sudden change in species would probably make flies much more likely to survive some freakish solar event that killed almost all the flies because more flies will be underneath objects that protect them. This is how nature works. It doesn't waste resources making less fit flies. It doesn't favor fitness because there is no such thing. There are flies that act normally and some that do not. It is consciousness that derives genetically and through experience that determines whether an individual lives or dies and has nothing really to do with "fitness".

We see things change suddenly because that's the only way they change. Everything in nature dead and alive changes suddenly. Reality is a series of events and is all intimately interconnected. Reality is sudden and life is reality incarnate. Consciousness is life and is the logic of reality.

We can't see this because we use a binary brain and analog language. We see what we believe instead of what exists. We are wholly blind to what we don't believe. It doesn't matter why we don't believe, we still can't see it.



Everything happens suddenly. If you hadn't cooked the egg in less than 4 months it would be inedible. In a year it would be mostly decomposed and in little more time it would be non existent except for most of its constituent parts. If you ate it it would be gone in a couple hours except for what changed forms in digestion and residue. The shell would quickly molder down in land fill. Every day a chicken lays a new egg and few ever hatch. But chickens don't last either whether they cross the road and are named "Methuselah" or not.

Darwin imagined gradual change connecting the fossils. He assumed the conclusion. If you don't believe in reality, consciousness, non-reductionism, or bottlenecks then you have no choice but to imagine the individuals represented by fossils changed gradually from earlier incarnations. You end up right at Darwin's Illusion.

Things like colour mutations can happen suddenly but I doubt strongly that a new species can evolve over a couple of generations.

Your fly experiment would only be meaningful if you bred the flies in a closed environment. If you're just talking about stray flies entering your house it doesn't mean a thing. Did you keep a record of temperature? I'm not an entomologist (I do know one) but I believe flies have different behaviour at different temperatures.

 

[YoursTrue]

According to your belief system. And neither according to mine, hence the But some people do believe that.

The Bible makes it clear that hellfire is a distorted, once-again imagined misinterpretation. Sad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Things like colour mutations can happen suddenly but I doubt strongly that a new species can evolve over a couple of generations.

Your fly experiment would only be meaningful if you bred the flies in a closed environment. If you're just talking about stray flies entering your house it doesn't mean a thing. Did you keep a record of temperature? I'm not an entomologist (I do know one) but I believe flies have different behaviour at different temperatures.

Oh, the famous fly experiment. They still talk about that at the Nobel Committee meetings I go to.

The identity of the flies would have to be determined. Specimens collected, mounted, labeled and stored available for anyone to examine. Are the flies all one species or several? That would need to be established. You'd have to see if this behavior is common to all members of a species or just some. You would want to review the literature. I know what others have done and found out doesn't interest @cladking, and he doesn't think of it as real, but you would have to review any prior work.

There is a lot that would have to be done. The main thing that would need to be done is to accept the fact that flies already land upside down. Killing some to ensure that others land upside down changes nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

I checked, but maybe I missed something. I saw no list of reasons against or any discussion why Lenski's experiment with E. coli should be excluded. I must concur that it seems that the only reason is that it falsifies claims that natural selection doesn't act to drive change in populations. For which it is very good evidence.

Perhaps it is only word games that a claim that some have detailed their reasons 30 or 40 times. I haven't seen that even once.

I'm still waiting for a list of Darwin's assumptions and a detailed explanation why they are considered all wrong by some. I don't think we are going to see that. I have seen a few assumptions credited to Darwin, but those are wrong. Darwin did not consider populations stable or that members of a population were uniform in formulating his theory of evolution. If he did, then he never would have come up with the theory that he did. It wouldn't make sense to discuss variation and selection if he thought populations were uniform and stable.

Too bad there's no proof. Furthermore, "homo sapiens" are said to be the latest hominids and have been around for many, many years longer than the Bible says. Now that's good reason for believers of the ToE to figure that these humans were just too busy gathering crops, planting, etc. to be bothered about things like evolution. During that time it's clear that some animals became extinct, there's "proof" of that. Like dodo birds. But where is there any recollection of animals evolving except in the minds of those who believe in Darwinian style of evolution? It is certainly possible that within constraints of genetic passage the various types evolved, such as wolves and dogs, etc. Birds of various kinds. No insult intended, because certainly genetic passage of longer legs and various colored skin in a species does not prove evolution. Go for it, man!