Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

The fun thing is that you leave out the non-correspondence ones as for philosophies. What I mean is that for truth as such, you could also have mentioned versions based on coherence, social ones, pragmatic, phenomenological and other non-correspondence ones.

So we are all products of nature and nurture even for what science is.

Aside from nature, which we can't really help too much, nurture in my mind is very important.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Throw in the millions of birds flying around.

And not just limited to one individual per species, but thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions for some species.

It's what happens when you don't know science, don't have evidence, don't have experiments and don't think things through. You end up believing a metaphor is describing an literal event.

 

[YoursTrue]

People like this go out of their way to avoid learning anything about the subject. They rightly fear that if they did, they would be in a difficult spot with their naïve religious convictions. I can see why they might do that.

What beats me though is why they then come and try to argue about it, with people that have learnt about it, when all they can bring to the table is pure, stubborn, wilful ignorance. What do they hope to achieve by doing that?

Here's the situation: do you believe that you evolved from fish?

 

[YoursTrue]

I wonder why the science deniers can't name these assumptions as proposed by Darwin or those supporting the Modern Synthesis. The science deniers like to declare that these are all wrong, but can't list one of them. Not one my friend. Here you have them all listed just so easy. Why is it so hard for the ideological science deniers to do the same thing? It's another mystery. Maybe butterflies are at fault.

Let's say you and others are right. You should have no problem in acknowledging the scientific claim that way back your ancestral origin was a fish or two. Expanding out.

 

[John53]

And not just limited to one individual per species, but thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions for some species.

It's what happens when you don't know science, don't have evidence, don't have experiments and don't think things through. You end up believing a metaphor is describing an literal event.

He has that problem solved, there is no such thing as species.

 

[YoursTrue]

And not just limited to one individual per species, but thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions for some species.

It's what happens when you don't know science, don't have evidence, don't have experiments and don't think things through. You end up believing a metaphor is describing an literal event.

researching this a little bit, I see scientists believe birds came from dinosaurs. But did birds stay birds or is there evidence that birds evolved to something other than a bird? Please notice I didn't ask if their beaks grow larger in populations, but if they are still birds and if scientists say that as much as they know, no matter how long birds have been around, they have not evolved to anything but birds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder why the science deniers can't name these assumptions as proposed by Darwin or those supporting the Modern Synthesis. The science deniers like to declare that these are all wrong, but can't list one of them. Not one my friend. Here you have them all listed just so easy. Why is it so hard for the ideological science deniers to do the same thing? It's another mystery. Maybe butterflies are at fault.

So it is time to bring back DDT. That should teach those butterflies a thing or two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

researching this a little bit, I see scientists believe birds came from dinosaurs. But did birds stay birds or is there evidence that birds evolved to something other than a bird? Please notice I didn't ask if their beaks grow larger in populations, but if they are still birds and if scientists say that as much as they know, no matter how long birds have been around, they have not evolved to anything but birds.

Of course birds stayed birds. They are also dinosaurs. I thought that you understood evolution.

 

[John53]

Of course birds stayed birds. They are also dinosaurs. I thought that you understood evolution.

And fish gave birth to humans

 

[YoursTrue]

And fish gave birth to humans

eventually, isn't that true? Maybe not ALL fish, right? Just a couple...lolol...after a few intermediaries.

 

[AlexanderG]

And fish gave birth to humans

If we ever observed a fish giving birth to a human, that would be strong evidence against evolution. If you disagree, then you simply don't understand evolution. There is an entire cottage industry of apologetics that spread falsehoods to make evolution sound utterly ridiculous. Without exception, their claims as are entirely wrong as your comment was.

 

[Valjean]

Let's say you and others are right. You should have no problem in acknowledging the scientific claim that way back your ancestral origin was a fish or two. Expanding out.

Why do you find it so hard to believe thousands of small changes can accumulate into very big changes?
Do you believe someone could walk from New York to Los Angeles with only 40 cm steps?

 

[blü 2]

I wrote code in the 1960's. I knew enough science to know I didn't need any science to write code.

So how do you define the "real science" you spoke of? How does it differ from real science without the inverted commas?

Talk me through it.

Oh, and you didn't get back to me about what you say happened to language 4,000 years ago , a thousand or two years after writing had been invented, and well over 70,000 years after humans had speech,

 

[John53]

If we ever observed a fish giving birth to a human, that would be strong evidence against evolution. If you disagree, then you simply don't understand evolution. There is an entire cottage industry of apologetics that spread falsehoods to make evolution sound utterly ridiculous. Without exception, their claims as are entirely wrong as your comment was.

No argument from me

 

[YoursTrue]

If we ever observed a fish giving birth to a human, that would be strong evidence against evolution. If you disagree, then you simply don't understand evolution. There is an entire cottage industry of apologetics that spread falsehoods to make evolution sound utterly ridiculous. Without exception, their claims as are entirely wrong as your comment was.

I'm not suggesting that scientists say that fish gave birth to a human. Far from it! Either fish, scientifically speaking of course, are the forebearers of humans down the evolution road, or they are not. You can make fun of my comments, but that is what scientists claim.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish​

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

 

[John53]

eventually, isn't that true? Maybe not ALL fish, right? Just a couple...lolol...after a few intermediaries.

Your stand up comedy is on par with your knowledge of evolution

 

[John53]

I'm not suggesting that scientists say that fish gave birth to a human. Far from it! Either fish, scientifically speaking of course, are the forebearers of humans down the evolution road, or they are not. You can make fun of my comments, but that is what scientists claim.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish​

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

Did you bother reading it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aside from nature, which we can't really help too much, nurture in my mind is very important.

Yes, that is true, but empty in effect for how to do it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He has that problem solved, there is no such thing as species.

Problem, solution, solution. It was right there in front of us the entire time. All that needed to be done was add a third "solution". Probability must be like 800% for something like that.

I propose we are now Homo readingtoomuchnonsensis. Why not if that is all the effort it takes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So it is time to bring back DDT. That should teach those butterflies a thing or two.

We could do that. Or we could breed the hurricane inducing genes out of them with artificial selection. Darwin was so right.

The key to survival of the planet and a normal hurricane season is wingless butterflies.

Denis Noble says, No Wings.