Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes the most sense is the simplest narrative that can account for the appearance of man in history as we find him. Human history is consistent with naturalistic explanations of human biological, psychological, and cultural evolution. If that doesn't make sense to you, it would if you learned more. I illustrated the evidence of these things occurring a few pages back on this thread in a section that began "I think we can also suss out the origin of the concepts of intelligence and creativity."

Your argument is analogous to the creationists' use of the Cambrian explosion to serve as evidence of the creation of the kinds as outlined in Genesis. You also want to compress a long time in terms of individual human lives but a relatively short piece of human history - the time between when the only records of man were things like tools and nomadic campsites and when there was evidence of settled civilization and written records - into a single act of creation.

Agreed. I just wrote this on another thread in response to a creationist's claim that, "I have more answers and more sensible answers than "it assembled itself" :

"What you have are not what I would call answers, which need to be demonstrably correct claims. What you have are unfalsifiable claims, which have no explanatory or predictive power." This is a paraphrasing of your comment. We can't call anything fact, true, correct, knowledge, etc. unless we can demonstrate that empirically, which means accurately predicting outcomes not accurately predicted without that idea.

Do you have a hypothesis for why that is the case for you? It's not for me. In your estimation, what's the difference between us that accounts for our different experiences posting? People see my evidence and arguments, even if they aren't convinced by them.

If you believe that evolution is possible, and that if it occurred, we should find "snapshots" of its progress in the fossil record, then you can understand those fossils as being consistent with that expected evidence.

Do you believe that gradual change turned your grandmother's grandmother from a little girl into an old woman? If so, why?

If there were physical evidence of that transformation remaining, what might it look like? What if you found a scrapbook of her with a birthday photo every year from youth to old age? Would those pictures be a record of slow change, or would that be a rash hypothesis in your estimation because it can only be believed if one believes it possible?

You've moved the goalposts. Identical was not mentioned. "This can be done by placing two apples in a container, then proceeding to place another two apples in the same container." And why aren't the four apples placed in the container identical to the four found there a moment later?

What would unconscious life look like? A tree seems to be unconscious, like a human zygote. Why do you say it's not? Because it grows? Because it demonstrates tropism?

I don't have any reason to think that I am not seeing everything you posted here.

I'm not surprised to see logical fallacies continue to be a part of the creationists playbook. Thanks for pointing that one out. I missed it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The difference is they didn't just make a claim, they provided the measurements as evidence to back up the claim. You're just making claims without supporting evidence.

That's a Winner Frube!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I know that it is surprising but like a stopped clock the Bible even gets things right sometimes.

There is a lot of that to be seen around here.

Now I know where I can get bulk agar if I need it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I don't

I'm a marlin. No. No. I'm a barracuda. Heart sang a song about me.

 

[gnostic]

No. You are describing paradigms.

"Kuhn claimed that science guided by one paradigm would be 'incommensurable' with science developed under a different paradigm, by which is meant that there is no common measure for assessing the different scientific theories."

There are standards that any prospective hypotheses must meet before a hypothesis can be accepted as “science”, and that’s only possible if you have observable physical evidence to support the new hypothesis.

That’s the only way in Natural Sciences or in Physical Sciences. The more evidence you have, evidence that independently verify the first evidence, then you would have empirical evidence.

Multiple empirical evidence are needed to ensure the first evidence wasn’t a fluke or error, or an anomaly. Empirical evidence not only about verification; verification are needed to double-check, triple-check, checking as many times as possible.

If you want to call the method of science (or Scientific Method), “paradigm”, then so be it. It isn’t accurate.

You are simply playing word game, again.

The word paradigm can apply to science, to philosophy and to any non-scientific studies, eg grammars, linguistics, etc.

The metaphysics that you advocate so highly for, is just another set of paradigms.

Your choice of word to use in your garbled argument, is just you playing word game that have no real meanings.

 

[blü 2]

How many times????????????????????????????????

Life is consciousness,

So life is a synonym for consciousness?

Tell me, are prions conscious? Are viruses?

behavior is what it does, and free will is how it does it.

You say that each amoeba is aware of its surroundings, has a will, makes considered and deliberate actions, is not just a self-reproducing fragment of biology with evolved reactions to particular stimuli, but a self-aware entity?

Really?

And amoebae learnt to read some 4000 years ago too, I take it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are standards that any prospective hypotheses must meet before a hypothesis can be accepted as “science”, and that’s only possible if you have observable physical evidence to support the new hypothesis.

That’s the only way in Natural Sciences or in Physical Sciences. The more evidence you have, evidence that independently verify the first evidence, then you would have empirical evidence.

Multiple empirical evidence are needed to ensure the first evidence wasn’t a fluke or error, or an anomaly. Empirical evidence not only about verification; verification are needed to double-check, triple-check, checking as many times as possible.

If you want to call the method of science (or Scientific Method), “paradigm”, then so be it. It isn’t accurate.

You are simply playing word game, again.

The word paradigm can apply to science, to philosophy and to any non-scientific studies, eg grammars, linguistics, etc.

The metaphysics that you advocate so highly for, is just another set of paradigms.

Your choice of word to use in your garbled argument, is just you playing word game that have no real meanings.

I suspect, as is becoming clearly the case, that the word paradigm is used with some double secret definition that doesn't reflect any accepted definition most of us would be aware of. Not that I have an expectation that we would be provided with that double secret definition to facilitate understanding or anything, but my bet is it doesn't have the meaning most of us would recognize.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

You keep saying “life is consciousness” but refuse to explain what you mean by “consciousness”?

Depend on usages, consciousness can have multiple meanings, depending on if you were using in biological context, or psychological context, or both psychological-biological context, but then you would have numbers of different contexts for different philosophies or for different religions, eg Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism are very big when they talk of consciousness, especially of the transcendent type. Then you would get the woo-usages by those who believe in occultism or the paranormal.

So please answer questions from @blü 2 , @Dan From Smithville and just everyone else:

What do you mean by “consciousness”?​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As an entomologist, I am enjoying being a fly on this wall. And the ceiling too, since flies can land upside down.

 

[John53]

As an entomologist, I am enjoying being a fly on this wall. And the ceiling too, since flies can land upside down.

Only if you breed them that way

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only if you breed them that way

I am definitely being a fly from one of those top secret government fly breeding programs using the Roswell Ancient Alien technology. Bred to land upside down and fly through curved space time at infinite speed.

The evidence is there, you just can't see it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only if you breed them that way

This video was smuggled out of Area 51 and shows a band of scientists experimenting on super flies.

 

[John53]

I am definitely being a fly from one of those top secret government fly breeding programs using the Roswell Ancient Alien technology. Bred to land upside down and fly through curved space time at infinite speed.

The evidence is there, you just can't see it.

I'm pretty fly for a white guy

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm pretty fly for a white guy

AC/DC says that all your assumptions have been falsified.

 

[cladking]

and that’s only possible if you have observable physical evidence to support the new hypothesis

Again, "evidence" is interpreted only in terms of belief. And in terms of paradigms. Paradigms explaining the same phenomena are not compatible. They tend to be similar and then experiment can show the better one. But "change in species" and "evolution" are neither similar nor compatible.

If you want to call the method of science (or Scientific Method), “paradigm”, then so be it. It isn’t accurate.

Correct; it is not accurate. A "paradigm" is the interpretation of experiment and theory. No theory is sacrosanct but you seem to believe that any theory with enough "evidence" must be correct.

If you were right science would NEVER change not even with a million funerals.

The metaphysics that you advocate so highly for, is just another set of paradigms.

No. "Metaphysics" is the basis of science and our science has one metaphysics.

Ancient science had a wholly different metaphysics.

Your choice of word to use in your garbled argument, is just you playing word game that have no real meanings.

So how many times now have I defined "metaphysics" for you? It must be a few hundred and you say I play word games!

 

[cladking]

Tell me, are prions conscious? Are viruses?

All individuals are conscious and all life is individual.

You say that each amoeba is aware of its surroundings, has a will, makes considered and deliberate actions, is not just a self-reproducing fragment of biology with evolved reactions to particular stimuli, but a self-aware entity?

Really?

And amoebae learnt to read some 4000 years ago too, I take it?

Let's get real here. Amoeba do not think. They are "barely" conscious. The less beneficial consciousness is for an individual the less conscious they are. But I have no doubt they are far more conscious than you imagine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Out of curiosity, by a show of hands, how many of you think I would be on here talking about my groundbreaking discoveries instead of publishing them and getting awards and accolades and global noteriety?

If I figured out how the universe was formatted, whatever that means and invented two, yes two, sciences, whatever that means would it be better to post about it here with invisible evidence or publish in Science or Nature or the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences?

Friends, I'm leaning on posting here, but coach me and set me straight.

Here are your choices.

A. Post about it here.
2. Publish in a widely read, highly respected science journal or journals.
z. Publish in Car and Driver and get free oil changes for life.

 

[cladking]

Depend on usages, consciousness can have multiple meanings, depending on if you were using in biological context, or psychological context, or both psychological-biological context, but then you would have numbers of different contexts for different philosophies or for different religions, eg Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism are very big when they talk of consciousness, especially of the transcendent type. Then you would get the woo-usages by those who believe in occultism or the paranormal.

No. You are still not paying attention.

Only humans think and only humans have a religion and a language for each individual. Homo omnisciencis are somnambulists to other life forms. It's almost as though we are eight billion different species.

I've defined "consciousness" many many times in countless hundreds of words. I suppose now that we've finally gotten past "life is consciousness" and "free will" is what it does I can do it again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only if you breed them that way

Have you found anymore insect pictures or gotten a chance to take some new ones?

 

[cladking]

z. Publish in Car and Driver and get free oil changes for life.

I could go for that.

For years people encouraged me to write an article for Egyptology. It wouldda been tossed in the trash without even being read. These people won't even converse with outsiders. The last thing they are going to do is argue or consider.

Without the input of skeptics on the internet my theory would be highly incomplete and riddled with errors, some of which would be laughable. I ,mightta said beavers eat fish or something!