Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Don't worry. God is going to win. Not those holding to a wrong concept.

If a God exists he probably will win. Of course that still does not explain why you think that God is a liar.

 

[YoursTrue]

And the proof your religion has it right is?

The proof, sir, is in the Bible. If you will look up various translations using the word 'hell' along with a decent Bible commentary and dictionary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem isn't Darwin was wrong. The problem is we won't jettison all the things he got wrong.

Of course nothing you can actually name, but we're used to that.

 

[John53]

The proof, sir, is in the Bible. If you will look up various translations using the word 'hell' along with a decent Bible commentary and dictionary.

So no proof just relying on someone else telling me they're right and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. I'll stick to things where there is actual evidence to examine.

 

[YoursTrue]

So no proof just relying on someone else telling me they're right and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. I'll stick to things where there is actual evidence to examine.

That's why you need to look into the Bible itself. If you believe in God, I suggest you pray.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the reality is closer to "unnatural selection" than to "survival of the fittest" like Darwin imagined.

What you believe is irrelevant and questionable.

It's not the fit that survive and create new species over millions of years; it's the ones who have their minds right (or wrong).

Empty assertion. Try again.

Selection is based on behavior, consciousness + genes, not fitness.

Empty assertion with no basis in evidence. Try again.

Nature doesn't select for "survival genes" because it selects for "behavior genes".

At least you are getting the idea that nature selects. It would select genes that benefit the organism whether behavioral or some other trait.

Until you understand consciousness you can not understand natural selection.

Nonsense. Empty assertion. Try again.

I'd use a different term than "fathered".

Since you didn't actually do anything, what difference does it make.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've listed several of them even in posts you quoted asking for his assumptions.

You listed two, but you claimed "all". Two is not all. And to top it all off, the two that you claimed for Darwin were not assumptions of Darwin. Isn't it hilarious.

Suffice to say you can't see them.

I saw them. I've addressed them previously as I have here in this response.

It all word games for you. You claim all. People ask you to list them and explain what is wrong them. You don't. You do post something. That's the word game. You post something, even something wrong and they you refer back to that nonsense as if you did something.

Are word games so ingrained in your nature that you do them without even realizing?

So, here is your opportunity to break tradition and list Darwin's assumptions. Try to get them right this time. Then provide a detailed explanation of why they are wrong.

Will you do it? No. That seems too much for your pay grade.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin was well aware of various factors that caused changes in populations but he didn't believe any species would fill an entire niche or approach a pop of zero. He was only half right. There are strict limitations on how many of most species can exist though this probably doesn't apply to species with complex language and opposable thumbs. But there is no limitations on how few of a species can exist and remain viable. Obviously recovery from a population of one would be extremely long.

Does anyone understand this nonsense?

Yes! Most are self evident and those that are not have been previously cited chapter and verse.

You made claims of two assumptions and you were wrong. Other than that you did nothing except claim you did something. You are never going to do it. That much is pretty clear.

OI have a great number of unique opinions.

There are other words that better describe them.

I usually just say they are based on evidence but will add, when necessary, that they are consistent with logic and theory.

None of that has been demonstrated to be correct.

Everyone's results will vary but my unique opinions derive primarily from unique assumptions and "no" beliefs at all.

Your assumptions, opinions and claims all seem to derive from belief. In fact, I'm pretty sure you have said as much, but I'm also pretty sure you will deny that. Remember, the search function works now.

I began with the assumption that everybody makes sense all the time in terms of their premises. I believe reality exists and proceeds logically from initial conditions. One will arrive at his assumptions given sufficient time. I have learned we reason in circles because of the way our minds work and we are unique in nature in this specific regard. Superstition kills other life forms. It is the most destructive force in the world but it lies at the heart of all modern thinking.

Just politicking. No substance.

I shouldda said "looking" and evidence are irrelevant. It's what I meant. We see only what we expect and all evidence is interpreted in terms of models and beliefs. Proper "scientific observation" should be everyone's goal when trying to understand anything (including religion).

But real science and real theory is founded in experiment because experiment discloses bits of reality instead of bits of what we want to see.

All reality is intimately interrelated and so is experiment.



Some of the problem here is that we are using somewhat different definitions. To some extent I am just trying to force readers to parse my meaning. This is probably a fool's errand since people can't see my meaning, don't share my premises, and parse words in their own way even when I define my terms. Obviously, "evidence" is more than just a personal interpretation much of the time. But just exactly as we each parse words we parse reality including everything in it (evidence). One sees an oasis, one a mirage, and another salvation. Our experience, senses, and knowledge leads us each in our direction even when this is not apparent.



I think you are splitting hairs here. I don't know what Darwin thought but I do know that he factored consciousness out of every equation and I believe consciousness is fundamental to life and every change in life. I don't think Darwin could possibly have ended up in reality from his assumptions.

He was doomed to be wrong.



It's easier to just dismiss this one experiment. I am talking about significant change in significant species anyway. I am talking about species with higher level consciousness than e coli. An acorn is far more dependent on the vagaries of gravity and wind than its consciousness. The most clever, strongest, or fastest acorns may not have much better luck at being an oak than any other. Mostly all they need to remember is to be oriented properly to send down a tap root.



Sure. We think of things being "gradual" only because some changes are imperceptible in a lifetime. But these changes are very sudden if you change your perspective. Right now the Horn of Africa is moving away and accelerating at a breakneck pace. We don't see it and don't think about the changes it has caused over the last 10,000 years but it's still true. In a million years when it is out of sight the people then won't really think of it as "sudden" either but it will be as seen from the perspective of time or from Madagascar. Just as the earth isn't the center of reality neither is any human. We view reality from infinite distance and timelessly but other species including ancient man saw everything from the inside and infinite time.

It's not that we're "wrong" per se, merely that much of reality is hidden from our perspective.



I don't care about punctuated equilibrium. When it is shown to be right I'll have some interest.



I believe this is false. Before the invention of writing all people were scientists and metaphysicians with most men being predominantly scientists and most women predominantly metaphysicians. They had no choice because it was the nature of language. Just a bee dances ancient people danced with nature. Superstition is impossible in a language that has no abstractions.

Superstition really started at the tower of babel. It started when science and the state failed and homo sapiens arose from the rubble. There was no infrastructure for superstition until abstraction and thinking began.

Everybody would have died after the tower of babel except for ancient technology called agriculture. The world was sufficiently tamed that the destructive forces of superstition were less powerful than farming and the desire to survive.

I could go on and review the rest of this, but why bother. It is empty assertion and nebulous statements that tell us nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Logic plays no role in science because homo omnisciencis is in no way logical and every scientist today s homo omnisciencis. I don't know how many times I've said this. And you still think metaphysics is philosophy after I defined it dozens of times for you alone!!!! The evidence for Ancient Language has been presented several times and you simply gainsay it. You hand wave most of it and deny what's left. You can't seem to even see most of it because it doesn't fit your beliefs.



You've never challenged anything. Maybe if you presented an experiment to show ANYTHING I say is wrong then I would present evidence or specific experiment but since every experiment agrees with me I don't need to. Here's your proof;

List of experiments - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But you can't cite a single one of these that show I'm wrong.

This is about failed paradigms and Darwin's failed assumptions.

Why don't you lecture me about the meaning of the word "metaphysics" again?

You can't cite a single experiment or one piece of evidence that supports any of the claims you've made.

We'll never know your incites on Darwin's assumptions, since you run from providing anything about it.

You rattle on about nonsense, here's your opportunity to show us something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

DARWIN CALLED IT SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT, IT IS WRONG.

Call it strong is best, fast is better, or stay awake to live and it is all wrong. Nature doesn't select for fitness or anything else.

IT IS WRONG!!!

It is just Darwin's illusion.

Wow! Gettin' a little tense?

Natural selection has evidence and experiments to support it. I've posted some of the research. It wasn't adds for bulk agar either.

Here's more of those inconsistencies. You sometimes talk about selection and other times deny it. Which is it dude?

DARWIN GOT THAT CORRECT! YOU GOT IT WRONG. AS USUAL.
Denial seems to be the illusion you operate under.

If you ever decide to post evidence to support your assertions, perhaps then things may turn for you. Good luck.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've listed several of them even in posts you quoted asking for his assumptions.

Suffice to say you can't see them.

I expected my prediction to come true. Your track record for responding with evidence is pretty poor, to non-existent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A fateful decision:

View attachment 76502

Rare is fine. The wins accumulate and the losses get culled out.

If they make claims, they are expected to provide evidenced arguments in support - the standards of the scientific and academic communities.

Darwin thought populations were stable? His theory explains why and how they are not.

You were asked to, "Present Darwin's assumptions citing references that support they are and then show us how they were wrong." Do you think you did that? Have you shown that differential survival rates among individuals in a population competing for scarce resources doesn't occur or if it does, doesn't lead to biological evolution, or that consciousness is necessary for evolution?

I'd say that the opposite is true instead. If Darwin had no support, threads like this would be as rare as threads arguing for a flat earth. They exist, but not on RF to my knowledge, and are far outnumbered by disagreements about evolution. You have some unique opinions also lacking experimental support that I haven't seen argued anywhere else, but if they did enjoy such support, more people would be arguing with you.

You just described religion, not science. You must have a different understanding of what experiment is if you have divorced it from observation and evidence.

Evidence is what we experience through the senses. Interpretation of that evidence - what is it evidence of - follows, and if done properly, generates sound (correct) conclusions.

He wrote, "There is no evidence that consciousness is required or involved in natural selection even if human consciousness is involved in artificial selection." That's a different statement from the one you claimed Darwin made. What you wrote was, "He [Darwin] thought ... consciousness wasn't necessary to life or change in life." Wasn't necessary is a different claim from not known to be necessary.

That's fine, but until you present them as evidenced argument, your objections are only relevant to you.

Same answer.

These are the kinds of passages others have told you lead to ambiguity. I really don't know what the word sudden means to you if these are examples of sudden change. Do you remember posting this? :

"No matter how many rtimes I say all observed change in life and nature is sudden they continue to gainsay rather than to provide a single example. I am left to provide examples myself (like colliding galaxies)"

We know that the ancients relied on superstition and magic. Many modern people still do.

The claim that two of Darwin's assumptions were stable populations and uniform populations make no sense. All it shows me is someone that doesn't understand the science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that is what it all really is. Someone wanting to be seen as relevant in these discussions.

The more I see, the more I'm convinced I'm witnessing an attention gathering device.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So no proof just relying on someone else telling me they're right and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. I'll stick to things where there is actual evidence to examine.

The usual schtick is the circular argument that the Bible proves the Bible. I read the Bible a lot. My faith is based on it. But it is not proof of anything. It is evidence, but not evidence that creationists understand and for what.

Mostly, you are up against ideological dogma that some person told the believer is how they should believe.

 

[Audie]

So no proof just relying on someone else telling me they're right and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. I'll stick to things where there is actual evidence to examine.

The proof that holding Africans as slaves
was good for them is in the Bible. Along with
proof that Pi=3 and the world is flat.

 

[John53]

The proof that holding Africans as slaves
was good for them is in the Bible. Along with
proof that Pi=3 and the world is flat.

I do like bible genetics. Put some sticks in the paddock and you'll get striped sheep. Much easier than trying to understand Darwin's theory.

 

[Audie]

I do like bible genetics. Put some sticks in the paddock and you'll get striped sheep. Much easier than trying to understand Darwin's theory.

And rocks are cheaper than snake antivenom

 

[John53]

I expected my prediction to come true. Your track record for responding with evidence is pretty poor, to non-existent.

And when you tell him it's not evidence he says it wasn't meant to be. I don't understand the point of posting it then.

 

[John53]

That's why you need to look into the Bible itself. If you believe in God, I suggest you pray.

I have and found a few things of value but mostly violence, racism and misogyny. And I found praying was nothing more than talking to myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And when you tell him it's not evidence he says it wasn't meant to be. I don't understand the point of posting it then.

It just seems like it is all about getting attention.