Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Yes, I'm aware of your bizarre beliefs. The problem is that you have no evidence and what you say doesn't even make sense.


Simply false. I also note that you completely ignored my links to experiments. Ho hum.


But not in one jump. I note that you also ignored the link to ring species that demonstrate all the stages required.

This all sounds like doublethink to me. Ring species that "evolve" in a short time based on where the birds are is interpreted to support the belief that "Evolution" occurs over a very long time based on how fit individuals within a species are!!! It must be nice.

A God that can't create a single universe takes backseat to physicists who can create an infinite number of universes in an infinitely short period of time. There's nothing more omnipotent than a Peer.

Species that remain the same species for millions of generations suddenly become a new species when a Peer peers at the fossil record.

The definition of science itself looks like "bizarre beliefs" to those who believe in it. I suppose it really should when you know all the answer.


Believers in science eat their sciency cake, have it too, and eventually defecate it in still pristine condition. Talk about the holey trinity.

 

[ratiocinator]

This all sounds like doublethink to me. Ring species that "evolve" in a short time based on where the birds are is interpreted to support the belief that "Evolution" occurs over a very long time based on how fit individuals within a species are!!! It must be nice.

Well that when right over your head, then.

A God that can't create a single universe takes backseat to physicists who can create an infinite number of universes in an infinitely short period of time. There's nothing more omnipotent than a Peer.

Species that remain the same species for millions of generations suddenly become a new species when a Peer peers at the fossil record.

The definition of science itself looks like "bizarre beliefs" to those who believe in it. I suppose it really should when you know all the answer.


Believers in science eat their sciency cake, have it too, and eventually defecate it in still pristine condition. Talk about the holey trinity.

Is there some sort of meaning in all this? Some point struggling to get out? I made some actual points in my post and you've basically ignored them all (again).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that when right over your head, then.


Is there some sort of meaning in all this? Some point struggling to get out? I made some actual points in my post and you've basically ignored them all (again).

As you noted, it is a bizarre belief system. Syncretic in a fashion, pulling in conspiracy theories, science, pseudoscience, history, pseudoshistory, speculation, semantics, scifi, projection and references to philosophy. Like making a tapestry with many of the threads being speculative or imagined.

It is, unfortunately, what I see has degraded this thread to at or near death.

 

[gnostic]

This all sounds like doublethink to me. Ring species that "evolve" in a short time based on where the birds are is interpreted to support the belief that "Evolution" occurs over a very long time based on how fit individuals within a species are!!! It must be nice.

A God that can't create a single universe takes backseat to physicists who can create an infinite number of universes in an infinitely short period of time. There's nothing more omnipotent than a Peer.

Species that remain the same species for millions of generations suddenly become a new species when a Peer peers at the fossil record.

The definition of science itself looks like "bizarre beliefs" to those who believe in it. I suppose it really should when you know all the answer.


Believers in science eat their sciency cake, have it too, and eventually defecate it in still pristine condition. Talk about the holey trinity.

Once again with the conspiracy theories, and not dealing with reality.

btw, what does the Ring species @ratiocinator brought up earlier, to do with theoretical model of Multiverse?

You do realise that species are a way that humans use to label different organisms, don't you? If we had an example of every single organism from evolutionary history, dividing them into species would be impossible (or obviously arbitrary).

No one generation is going to flick some switch and become a different species from the previous one. We can see the process spread over geographical area, rather than time, in ring species:

Ring species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Multiverse models haven’t been tested yet, and therefore haven’t gone through Peer Review, because it hasn’t pass the testing requirements of Scientific Method. So your claims that peers have accepted the Multiverse models are

(A) either premature​

​

(B) or just your conspiracy theory, where you are straw man.​

I am thinking it is B, because you are infamous at RF, for making things up that don’t exist, or isn’t true. And this Multiverse plus the Peer Review conspiracy is just deflection/evasion from looking at the Ring species.

The Ring species is a subject of biology, it has nothing to with theoretical astrophysics & theoretical cosmology of Multiverse, hence you are deflecting, cladking.

 

[cladking]

Well that when right over your head, then.

Traditionally when someone makes a claim he doesn't provide evidence for the opposite.

Is there some sort of meaning in all this? Some point struggling to get out? I made some actual points in my post and you've basically ignored them all (again).

You made my point.


Many Peers believe universes spring from nothing.

Indeed, and this is not mere semantics, since points are not considered a "dimension" and have no dimension all peers believe our universe sprang from nothing at the big bang. I seriously doubt that any universe including the one we live in came from nothing at all. Perhaps it is true that we can plot our universe back to nearly nothing but it does not follow that everything existed within no dimensions at all. From some perspective there was more than a point.

 

[cladking]

conspiracy theories

Who needs a conspiracy when people have such strange beliefs?

People don't sit around conspiring to believe things with no evidence. They just start with the same assumptions.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There is not "change of kind" in evolution. You are still a human. Just like your parents. But you, your parents, in fact all of your ancestors going back for millions of years are apes. There was never a change from ape to man. People are apes. Just as people are mammals. Oddly enough creationists can understand the fact that people are mammals. It is pretty hard to argue against boobs. But for some strange reason they had to admit that they are apes.

Too bad they didn't keep records millions of years ago or maybe they did? Maybe aliens did it. Or the atoms in their brains were or were not thinking about it -- they had to figure how to get together and think about building beehives. You know, kind of like magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There is not "change of kind" in evolution. You are still a human. Just like your parents. But you, your parents, in fact all of your ancestors going back for millions of years are apes. There was never a change from ape to man. People are apes. Just as people are mammals. Oddly enough creationists can understand the fact that people are mammals. It is pretty hard to argue against boobs. But for some strange reason they had to admit that they are apes.

Too bad they didn't keep records millions of years ago about ancestry, or maybe they did? Maybe aliens kept records. Why not, according to your strawman logic regarding kinds and ancestors. Or better yet, the atoms in their brains were or were not thinking about it -- they had to figure how to get together and think about building beehives.

 

[YoursTrue]

I and many trained peers in biology interpret the fossil record differently than you do. We believe it shows that species change. Some believe it shows sudden changes in species and I believe virtually all change in species occurs at bottlenecks and result from consciousness rathe than fitness.
All evidence is subject to interpretation so can not underlie theory. All theory must be founded in experiment which ironically must also undergo some (much more limited) interpretation. This is simply the nature of science and its metaphysics.



In order for species to change they must change.

Additionally I believe the switch you're looking for is in the genes and is operated by both mutation and through speciation events that occur at bottlenecks. Very few if any species change in the manner described by Darwin.

You're right about species changing. They really change. Or don't change. I mean the "branch" showing the lineage is something, isn't it? Like fish to humans, lol! I know by now some of the argument. Those atoms or collections of atoms that "bind together" and think or don't think -- it's astounding, to put it mildly. Like an audience gasping at a magic show. Except -- where's the audience??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too bad they didn't keep records millions of years ago or maybe they did? Maybe aliens did it. Or the atoms in their brains were or were not thinking about it -- they had to figure how to get together and think about building beehives. You know, kind of like magic.

We have records gong back millions of years. Not every life form was preserved, but enough fossils exist that wen can trace the evolution of lire quite well.

And no, you believe in magic. You need to remember that. None of the evidence supports magic. It all supports evolution which does not use magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right about species changing. They really change. Or don't change. I mean the "branch" showing the lineage is something, isn't it? Like fish to humans, lol! I know by now some of the argument. Those atoms or collections of atoms that "bind together" and think or don't think -- it's astounding, to put it mildly. Like an audience gasping at a magic show. Except -- where's the audience??

Once again I need to remind you that you are the one that believes in magic. There is nothing magical about evolution. It only seems that way to the incredibly ignorant.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again I need to remind you that you are the one that believes in magic. There is nothing magical about evolution. It only seems that way to the incredibly ignorant.

Of course it (evolution) is magical. There is not only no proof, there's no literal evidence showing it's true. You're gonna stick with the concept, I know, even though there are so many holes in the theory it isn't funny. I bring out for your consideration that time marches on, it really doesn't go backwards. And what's here today may be gone tomorrow. Hey, here's an idea -- maybe if time goes backwards, what a thought. Who knows, maybe Einstein & others are having a good time somewhere back in time now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it (evolution) is magical. There is not only no proof, there's no literal evidence showing it's true. You're gonna stick with the concept, I know, even though there are so many holes in the theory it isn't funny. I bring out for your consideration that time marches on, it really doesn't go backwards. And what's here today may be gone tomorrow. Hey, here's an idea -- maybe if time goes backwards, what a thought. Who knows, maybe Einstein & others are having a good time somewhere back in time now.

There you go, shooting yourself in the foot by using the wrong terminology. There is no "proof" of anything. But if you think that there is any proof of anything then by that same standard the theory of evolution has been "proven". You are once again reasoning irrationally. Just because you refuse to understand a simple concept that does not make it magic. Where once again the Bible is full of magic. Would you care to challenge me on that claim? You probably will not because you know that I am right.

And no, evolution is a well understood and well explained concept. No magic is needed at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

There you go, shooting yourself in the foot by using the wrong terminology. There is no "proof" of anything. But if you think that there is any proof of anything then by that same standard the theory of evolution has been "proven". You are once again reasoning irrationally. Just because you refuse to understand a simple concept that does not make it magic. Where once again the Bible is full of magic. Would you care to challenge me on that claim? You probably will not because you know that I am right.

And no, evolution is a well understood and well explained concept. No magic is needed at all.

lol, later maybe...if we live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, later maybe...if we live.

Why are you afraid to learn? Let's say that there is a Christian God. Don't you think that he would want you to have the most accurate understanding of his universe possible?

 

[ratiocinator]

Many Peers believe universes spring from nothing.

Who are these 'Peers'? I know of no serious scientists that think the universe 'sprang from nothing'.

Indeed, and this is not mere semantics, since points are not considered a "dimension" and have no dimension all peers believe our universe sprang from nothing at the big bang. I seriously doubt that any universe including the one we live in came from nothing at all. Perhaps it is true that we can plot our universe back to nearly nothing but it does not follow that everything existed within no dimensions at all. From some perspective there was more than a point.

Straw man.

And I note you totally changed the subject.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course it (evolution) is magical. There is not only no proof, there's no literal evidence showing it's true.

This statement is simply false. What's more you should know it's false because you've been given evidence multiple times. What's even more, instead of explaining why you don't think it's evidence, you've largely just ignored it or misrepresented it entirely.

 

[cladking]

Who are these 'Peers'? I know of no serious scientists that think the universe 'sprang from nothing'.


Straw man.

And I note you totally changed the subject.

You've addressed none of my points which is how we ended up on whether or not big bangs can be traced all the way back to having no space at all.

You've cited "ring species" which for some reason you believe shows that species gradually change due to survival of the fittest. It's not your logic I'm disputing it's your evidence.

You've said without citing either evidence or experiment that experiment is not the basis of science. Here I must doubt your logic since each observer interprets evidence differently. A surgeon in the 1850's knew that if he wasted time washing his hands and instruments a patient might bleed to death. His interpretations were very different.

Where is your evidence that we each interpret evidence correctly and that experiment is superfluous?

Why do you ignore my points?

 

[cladking]

You're right about species changing. They really change. Or don't change. I mean the "branch" showing the lineage is something, isn't it? Like fish to humans, lol! I know by now some of the argument. Those atoms or collections of atoms that "bind together" and think or don't think -- it's astounding, to put it mildly. Like an audience gasping at a magic show. Except -- where's the audience??

Some of them are entertaining each other.

Science is nearly as wondrous as nature itself sometimes but those who forget that it is founded in definitions and axioms use it improperly and are misled and at least partially blinded. They shrug off their ignorance, errors, and anomalies which are part of the wonder of nature like water off a duck's back. They see only what they believe.

 

[ratiocinator]

You've addressed none of my points which is how we ended up on whether or not big bangs can be traced all the way back to having no space at all.

Maybe, maybe not. It's unknown. However, that would not mean that the "universes spring from nothing". It would just mean that the space-time manifold was finite it the past direction.

You've cited "ring species" which for some reason you believe shows that species gradually change due to survival of the fittest.

No, I cited them to illustrate how gradual changes can mount up to the point that two populations no longer interbreed, so can be considered separate species.

You've said without citing either evidence or experiment that experiment is not the basis of science.

I cited examples of science that doesn't (and can't) rely on experiment. However, it is really up to you to support your case that they must. That is not part of the scientific method that involves testing by observation or experiment.

Here I must doubt your logic since each observer interprets evidence differently.

So you don't understand the scientific meaning of 'evidence', then. Okay.