Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

That cannot be otherwise. We will necessarily evolve into something that cannot be called human, anymore. Like having four eyes, or a forehead the size of football. Or get extinct before.

But why don't you like it?

Ciao

- viole

Dandelions do not, to the best of my knowledge, have brains that can ponder over their own existence. Frankly, neither do lions (again to the best of my knowledge). Maybe others know different. In other words, maybe they know if dandelions wonder why they're alive and what's going to happen to them, maybe some claim to know that lions and gorillas have brains that ponder over these things, too. ?

 

[Luchito Prays]

Darwin was indeed a deluded dude.

His book wasn't called The origin of Species.

The original book of Darwin published in 1859 by j. Murray, in London, carried the title:

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

OK, so, the book did focus in Natural Selection as its main purpose.

After exploring species here and there, taking notes, observing their physical appearance, behavior and more, Darwin must had to have a conclusion. A conclusion based in his Natural Selection, of course.

The published book had several chapters or sections. Chapter fourteen was the last one, and was titled Recapitulation and Conclusion.

Over there, he wrote...

"... this grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings seems to me utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation.

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps".

Very well, such statement was found false some years later. Mutations showed the contrary to Darwin's conclusions.

And same with Darwin, the evolutionists before and after him have been the same, the common ignorant playing to be the masters in biology.

Darwin's theory died and has been buried long ago, but evolutionists didn't perform any funeral. Darwin's theory was buried in secret.

A new theory was invented and evolutionists kept the titles of the dead theory but they filled up with news ideas, ideas totally different to Darwin's.

It was not an upgrade or an update, it was a total change of doctrines. With Darwin, ancient species were worst, simple and inferior, in order to become better, more complex and superior. Such was the evolution theory he inherited from his times. His natural selection was in accord with such doctrine.

His book is of course discarded by current science.

Those were times of great ignorance, and Darwin became a great representative of such status.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin was indeed a deluded dude.

His book wasn't called The origin of Species.

The original book of Darwin published in 1859 by j. Murray, in London, carried the title:

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

OK, so, the book did focus in Natural Selection as its main purpose.

After exploring species here and there, taking notes, observing their physical appearance, behavior and more, Darwin must had to have a conclusion. A conclusion based in his Natural Selection, of course.

The published book had several chapters or sections. Chapter fourteen was the last one, and was titled Recapitulation and Conclusion.

Over there, he wrote...

"... this grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings seems to me utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation.

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps".

Very well, such statement was found false some years later. Mutations showed the contrary to Darwin's conclusions.

And same with Darwin, the evolutionists before and after him have been the same, the common ignorant playing to be the masters in biology.

Darwin's theory died and has been buried long ago, but evolutionists didn't perform any funeral. Darwin's theory was buried in secret.

A new theory was invented and evolutionists kept the titles of the dead theory but they filled up with news ideas, ideas totally different to Darwin's.

It was not an upgrade or an update, it was a total change of doctrines. With Darwin, ancient species were worst, simple and inferior, in order to become better, more complex and superior. Such was the evolution theory he inherited from his times. His natural selection was in accord with such doctrine.

His book is of course discarded by current science.

Those were times of great ignorance, and Darwin became a great representative of such status.

Nope. Haeckel's recapitulation was found to be false. Can you show that it was the same as Darwin's? You would need a reliable source, not a dishonest creationist one. We all know that they will lie at the drop of a hat.

But even if Darwin made that error it does not refute evolution. Evolution has become only clearer and better supported over the time. Considering how little info that Darwin had it is truly amazing that he got as much correct as he did.

Can you tell us why you hate the fact that you are an ape?

Also you got he title of Darwin's book wrong. The full title is:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"On the Origin of Species" is close enough.

Lastly no, a new theory was no invented as much as Darwin's theory was made more accurate. In other words, you are still an ape.

 

[viole]

Dandelions do not, to the best of my knowledge, have brains that can ponder over their own existence. Frankly, neither do lions (again to the best of my knowledge). Maybe others know different. In other words, maybe they know if dandelions wonder why they're alive and what's going to happen to them, maybe some claim to know that lions and gorillas have brains that ponder over these things, too. ?

And how having a brain, able to ponder about its existence, defeat evolution? Or a naturalistic origin of the mind? That is just a non-sequitur.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Luchito Prays]

Nope. Haeckel's recapitulation was found to be false. Can you show that it was the same as Darwin's? You would need a reliable source, not a dishonest creationist one. We all know that they will lie at the drop of a hat.

But even if Darwin made that error it does not refute evolution. Evolution has become only clearer and better supported over the time. Considering how little info that Darwin had it is truly amazing that he got as much correct as he did.

Can you tell us why you hate the fact that you are an ape?

Also you got he title of Darwin's book wrong. The full title is:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"On the Origin of Species" is close enough.

Lastly no, a new theory was no invented as much as Darwin's theory was made more accurate. In other words, you are still an ape.

This topic is about Darwin.

He was wrong.

End of the story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This topic is about Darwin.

He was wrong.

End of the story.

I see, you are a comedian. Sorry, Darwin was right. He got some details wrong. So what? You believe in a fairy tale for kids under twelve.

Can you do science at all?

 

[cladking]

That cannot be otherwise. We will necessarily evolve into something that cannot be called human, anymore. Like having four eyes, or a forehead the size of football. Or get extinct before.

The purpose of life is to have fun and leave the world a better place.

It kindda goes without saying that the principle reason to leave the world a better place is for those we leave behind and our progeny. I want each of them to succeed and leave the world a better place.

Language and the human race should be the only status quo we try to preserve.

But why don't you like it?

Species change suddenly at bottlenecks. "Bottlenecks" by definition mean everyone I care about will die and none will be replaced except by some creature that is unknowable to me and not human. In some ways it's even worse than extinction.

 

[Luchito Prays]

I see, you are a comedian. Sorry, Darwin was right. He got some details wrong. So what? You believe in a fairy tale for kids under twelve.

Can you do science at all?

Yes I do.

point here is that his book was based on natural selection.

But it happens that his error wasn't in other topic but in his natural selection.

This is telling you that regardless of his observations, his conclusions based on his natural selection were wrong.

It seems that you want to overpass this detail. It wasn't any error, but that his main point was the error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Species change suddenly at bottlenecks. "Bottlenecks" by definition mean everyone I care about will die and none will be replaced except by some creature that is unknowable to me and not human. In some ways it's even worse than extinction.

Species change suddenly in a geologic time frame after bottlenecks. Do you know what is sudden in a geologic time frame? By the way, the Cambrian explosion is extremely poorly misrepresented. It began before the Cambrian and continue after the Cambrian. In the Cambrian alone it has two different phases. So to the terribly ignorant of geologic time some changes appear to be rapid. To a real time observer they would not be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I do.

point here is that his book was based on natural selection.

But it happens that his error wasn't in other topic but in his natural selection.

This is telling you that regardless of his observations, his conclusions based on his natural selection were wrong.

It seems that you want to overpass this detail. It wasn't any error, but that his main point was the error.

I doubt if you can do science. I doubt if you understand the scientific method or even the concept of scientific evidence. If you deny that there is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution then you have demonstrated that you cannot do science.

And why are you focusing on the title so much? It could have even been named "My summer with Aunt Flo". The work itself would still lay out the basics of evolution and how we know that it is a fact.

 

[cladking]

That's funny when you keep saying today's science is "look and see science" (or more precisely observational science), not "experimental science".

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Science is real where it follows metaphysics and a great deal of science even today still does.

"Look and See Science" isn't science at all but masquerades as science. Practitioners are often self deluded and they fool the public because education has failed. Many people believe theory is founded in evidence rather than experiment and the word of Peers is final.

There is no such thing ads "observational science" for humans since the tower of babel. It requires mathematically precise logic to employ observation and logic to reality and modern language is not logical. Beavers and bees and ancient people who all have metaphysical languages use(d) observational science. It is (was) real science but its metaphysics is completely different.

...you have weird and false sense of what sciences are, thinking it have to conform to your preferences,...

If you actually tried thinking about it the nature of modern science and why it works is pretty easily understood. Metaphysics isn't hard.

Ancient metaphysics was hard and that's how we ended up at the "tower of babel". Three dimensional thought is so easy a dancing bee can do it but when a lot of knowledge accumulates it becomes increasingly difficult until most individuals no longer can. Would the last bee that speaks metaphysical language dance at all?

Do you ever even read one of my posts before you gainsay it and start word games?

 

[cladking]

Species change suddenly in a geologic time frame after bottlenecks. Do you know what is sudden in a geologic time frame? By the way, the Cambrian explosion is extremely poorly misrepresented. It began before the Cambrian and continue after the Cambrian. In the Cambrian alone it has two different phases. So to the terribly ignorant of geologic time some changes appear to be rapid. To a real time observer they would not be.

Gainsay and word games.

 

[Luchito Prays]

I doubt if you can do science. I doubt if you understand the scientific method or even the concept of scientific evidence. If you deny that there is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution then you have demonstrated that you cannot do science.

And why are you focusing on the title so much? It could have even been named "My summer with Aunt Flo". The work itself would still lay out the basics of evolution and how we know that it is a fact.

Are you saying that the following is correct?

"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gainsay and word games.

L

LOL!! No, a logical argument that is supported by the observed evidence that you have no answer to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that the following is correct?

"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations"

You need more of the quote. If you are okay with that then refute this:

"there is no God" The Bible.

Do you know what quote mining is? That appears to be what you are attempting to do. By that standard the Bible refutes your belief in God.

 

[cladking]

LOL!! No, a logical argument that is supported by the observed evidence that you have no answer to.

No. You are just repeating back the common wisdom; the belief of Peers founded on the prevailing set of opinions and interpretations, the paradigm. I already know "they mustta used ramps" and "Evolution results from survival of the fittest as disclosed in the fossil record". I don't believe these things. I find fault with the underlying assumptions but you don't want to talk about the assumptions that cause you to be wrong. When you start with the assumption only ramps could be used, species populations are relatively steady, math defines reality, and might makes right then you end up in a world with an infinite number of tombs built with an infinite number of ramps by a species that is ever slowly evolving with its leaders more right, more strong, and more evolved than the peons dragging stones for a living. You even end up with a science that is available not to reality but the highest bidder who just happens to be the greediest among us. God help them if the greediest create a new species.

The simple fact that there there are some knowns about things like the Cambrian hardly means we know everything that happened then. You didn't find anything about it did you. You didn't invent the internet either did you. You are just parroting back things you've been told that I believe are wrong. The paradigm is wrong, Darwin was laughably wrong, and "Evolution" doesn't exist but all you can do is recite chapter and verse of modern beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You are just repeating back the common wisdom; the belief of Peers founded on the prevailing set of opinions and interpretations, the paradigm. I already know "they mustta used ramps" and "Evolution results from survival of the fittest as disclosed in the fossil record". I don't believe these things. I find fault with the underlying assumptions but you don't want to talk about the assumptions that cause you to be wrong. When you start with the assumption only ramps could be used, species populations are relatively steady, math defines reality, and might makes right then you end up in a world with an infinite number of tombs built with an infinite number of ramps by a species that is ever slowly evolving with its leaders more right, more strong, and more evolved than the peons dragging stones for a living. You even end up with a science that is available not to reality but the highest bidder who just happens to be the greediest among us. God help them if the greediest create a new species.

The simple fact that there there are some knowns about things like the Cambrian hardly means we know everything that happened then. You didn't find anything about it did you. You didn't invent the internet either did you. You are just parroting back things you've been told that I believe are wrong. The paradigm is wrong, Darwin was laughably wrong, and "Evolution" doesn't exist but all you can do is recite chapter and verse of modern beliefs.

No, sorry, I don't care about Egypt. The fact is that you are almost certainly wrong, but that is as far outside of my area of expertise as it is out of yours.

And of course we do not know everything that happened in the Cambrian, but once again the evidence refutes your beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...I find fault with the underlying assumptions but you don't want to talk about the assumptions that cause you to be wrong. ...

Sorry. But that one is not how it works in practice for either you or I. You wouldn't accept that because that is not how it works for you, but neither is it how it works for me.
And that is the general level of your thinking. You think it is true because it makes sense to you and thus it is true for something else than you.

 

[wellwisher]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution, indirectly came from observing human selection and the evolution of domesticated species. This had been in practice since before the dawn of civilization.

Instead of natural selection, human selection for breeding plants and animals was based on humans using various selection criteria, important to humans, such as plant and animal health and vigor, and best food production. The modern farmer, for example, uses the same biological sciences as the evolutionist to create rapid tailored changes in plant and animal breeds; divine approach.

Darwin's theory came about by traveling to the Galápagos Islands, which was a place humans had not done much in the way of human selection. This was unlike England, where the entire island hand been deforested by man at one time or another, and thereby its steady state was not fully natural. Many natural species were made extinct and with England a world empire, plants and animals had been brought there from all over the world. It was not an original natural environment to use as a control.

In the raw and natural Galapagos Islands, species lasted longer and the varieties seemed to reach a type of slow natural steady state, due to no human intervention. This unique type of environment was deemed the product of natural selection, instead of manmade selection, although the basic mechanics were the same.

Manmade selection, which was very common all over the world, did not contradict the Bible, even though it was based on and used science of the day, to make it better and more efficient. The Bible said that man was put in charge of the plants and animals of the world. So even if we assume Noah's Ark was where all the root animals appear, manmade selection, from just those animals was not a contraction, since manmade selection resulted in very rapid changes. For example, nearly all dogs come from wolves, with now 450 recognized dogs breed worldwide, most in the last 100 years. We do not see this speed in nature.

Darwin's theory of natural selection, in the light of Galapagos, showed that natural selection was much slower and far more conservative, since it did not make use of manmade subjective criteria, like fur color, as the main selection choice; black cat. Natural selection had the impact of expanding the time scale, for life, which did contradict the Bible dating.

Natural selection is why science uses the slow boat approach to evolution. But manmade came first, in terms of using applied science, with human will and choice able to meet the biblical time table by its own actions. Manmade selection can improve nature in both quality and speed. But it also had a pitfall since humans do not select nature based on thinking that can integrate nature in 3-D. This is why we can go faster but create other problems. Nature has more variables to include for each integrated selection, so it is slower.

One of the ironies is natural selection and Mother Nature is sort of a mythological addendum added to science, since it appeals to a Pagan spirits of nature. Manmade selection was more about human will and choice which, which was less mythological than Mother Nature and natural selection. Mother Nature still makes use of the whims of the gods; casino math. But this could be due to choices not always fully integrated with the bigger picture that is not easy to see in 2-D.

 

[gnostic]

I already know "they mustta used ramps" and "Evolution results from survival of the fittest as disclosed in the fossil record". I don't believe these things. I find fault with the underlying assumptions but you don't want to talk about the assumptions that cause you to be wrong.

This thread is about the criticism against Evolution, the “Darwin’s illusion”, not your obsession with pyramid building in Egypt. I don’t care if they used funiculars or ramps to move heavy blocks of stones.

Nothing about Natural Selection or other evolutionary mechanisms have anything to do with pyramid-building. This isn’t an engineering thread, but about natural processes of changes in biology, so I don’t give a bloody crap about this “ramp” vs “funicular” crap.

And second, science concern with evidence, not about what people “believe” or “don’t believe” about Evolution.

Natural Sciences (including physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy, not just biology) don’t run on belief or your “like” or “dislike” about Evolution.

These dislikes of yours and your (incorrect) belief about Evolution, don’t matter at all, because they are merely your personal opinionated biases, nothing more, nothing less.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever about your beliefs/claims. And you have cited no peer-reviewed sources.