Darwin's Illusion

[Soandso]

I was raised in a biology setting and I know the basics but always disagreed. There is simply no evidence beyond interpretation within the setting of numerous assumptions that I doubted then and have come to believe are false. Some of my old teachers might not be impressed but they would support my thinking for myself.

"No evidence beyond interpretation within the setting of numerous assumptions."

The thing about evolution is that it's testable, so it's more than just baseless conjecture. Paleontologists can make predictions, for instance, on where specific kinds of fossils can be found at specific places at specific stratum based on where and when they think this animal could have lived according to the combination of the geological and the fossil record

Predicting Fossil Finds | KQED

Scientists used evolutionary theory to figure out where to find the bones of this fishibian. Lately I have been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. And so far it is a fascinating read. What is so great about this book for a scientist is that it gives the big picture on evolution. This sort

www.kqed.org

"For example, I had heard about the fossil of Tiktaalik roseae that was found in 2004 that linked fish to amphibians. This was a huge deal because the animal that the bones came from had characteristics of both fish and amphibians. And it appeared in the fossil record at the right time to be a transitional animal between the two.

What I hadn't fully appreciated was that the scientists decided to look where they did based on how old they thought the fossil should be. In other words, they were able to use the theory of evolution to predict where to find the fossil they were looking for."

The proof is in the pudding. The evidence is strong, and continues to strengthen with each find

 

[YoursTrue]

Science changes one funeral at a time but of course I really should provide evidence for this, right?

Lol right. Only kidding.

Frequently the funeral is for the one who was right rather than the many whom are wrong.

Homo omnisciencis are literally born with all the answers because we acquire them with language. At two years old when our brains are expanding to learn Ancient Language we are instead fed old wives tales and beliefs that lead to every answer.

Instead of celebrating people like Semmelweis we celebrate fools like Champollion. We don't always get it wrong but frequently enough.

Hopefully these things will be made clearer some day.

 

[cladking]

"No evidence beyond interpretation within the setting of numerous assumptions."

The thing about evolution is that it's testable, so it's more than just baseless conjecture. Paleontologists can make predictions, for instance, on where specific kinds of fossils can be found at specific places at specific stratum based on where and when they think this animal could have lived according to the combination of the geological and the fossil record

Predicting Fossil Finds | KQED

Scientists used evolutionary theory to figure out where to find the bones of this fishibian. Lately I have been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. And so far it is a fascinating read. What is so great about this book for a scientist is that it gives the big picture on evolution. This sort

www.kqed.org

"For example, I had heard about the fossil of Tiktaalik roseae that was found in 2004 that linked fish to amphibians. This was a huge deal because the animal that the bones came from had characteristics of both fish and amphibians. And it appeared in the fossil record at the right time to be a transitional animal between the two.

What I hadn't fully appreciated was that the scientists decided to look where they did based on how old they thought the fossil should be. In other words, they were able to use the theory of evolution to predict where to find the fossil they were looking for."

The proof is in the pudding. The evidence is strong, and continues to strengthen with each find

I'm not disputing that tiktaalik are whales or when they are found. I am disputing that there is ANYTHING in the fossil record to show that speciation is a gradual process or that it is caused by survival of the fittest. These are nothing but Darwinian conjectures.

 

[Soandso]

I'm not disputing that tiktaalik are whales or when they are found. I am disputing that there is ANYTHING in the fossil record to show that speciation is a gradual process or that it is caused by survival of the fittest. These are nothing but Darwinian conjectures.

But if there was nothing to it, surely they wouldn't be able to take a nothing hypothesis and make accurate predictions based on it, it would seem to me

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not disputing that tiktaalik are whales or when they are found. I am disputing that there is ANYTHING in the fossil record to show that speciation is a gradual process or that it is caused by survival of the fittest. These are nothing but Darwinian conjectures.

You have been given examples, but then you dismiss them of them as being only adaptation. Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

 

[John53]

I'm amazed that someone who said they don't answer questions because they're posting for the lurkers is now complaining about having their questions not answered. The irony meter is off the scale.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not disputing that tiktaalik are whales or when they are found. I am disputing that there is ANYTHING in the fossil record to show that speciation is a gradual process or that it is caused by survival of the fittest. These are nothing but Darwinian conjectures.

I agree there is nothing beyond the fossils that are used to show the intermediate biological cellular process. That is one reason I will not accept the theory as thought of by many. You phrased it better than I could.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have been given examples, but then you dismiss them of them as being only adaptation. Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

Except it may be adaptation but we don't know. But again, the fossil record is not proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you. I wasn't aware of thois or had forgotten;

"He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. "

Ignaz Semmelweis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He died very young. This is the thanks all reformers get.

Ironically ancient science was well aware of germs and had procedures to stop their spread. This isn't because they were so smart but rather it's because ancient science was a tool better suited to learning it. This formed the basis of a couple books of the Bible and admonitions about cleanliness.

I was thinking about this in the restaurant bathroom when I washed my hands. That particular restaurant has paper towels rather than that tough blower that might spread germs all around so I was appreciative of that. I need to compliment the management but probably after I do they'll switch to those bursting air blowers.

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think that I cannot understand it? I seem to understand it better than you do because I could support an argument that goes either way. You won't let yourself believe what the Bible clearly says again and again in that matter. Those first verses were from Mark. Let's see what Matthew said:

Matthew 25:46 ESV​

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Good going! Except it doesn't mean eternal torture while conscious. Try again. Maybe others who go to church, claim to be Christian now can let you know how this fits in with evolution if they applaud the theory as if it's true.

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think that I cannot understand it? I seem to understand it better than you do because I could support an argument that goes either way. You won't let yourself believe what the Bible clearly says again and again in that matter. Those first verses were from Mark. Let's see what Matthew said:

Matthew 25:46 ESV​

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Speaking of cruelty, and yes I know I said one post at a time and I'm breaking the rules slightly but sticking to the subject, ok...is the opposite of eternal life the opposite of eternal punishment? There's eternal life and there's kind of like the opposite, eternal punishment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find it interesting that the anti-science position as expressed in this thread puts all the weight of evolution on the fossils when it is clearly supported by much more evidence than that. I suppose that other evidence is perceived as too technical and those already lost fear being further lost in the evidence of chemistry, physiology, virology, biochemistry, ecology, morphology, physics, and so on and on that they have little ability to navigate.

ERV's are evidence of the relationship of the Great Apes beyond the support of the fossil record. Homology of genetics and morphology yet more evidence. The chromosomes are again more evidence.

This sort of evidence exists for other species and groups.

I often wonder if it is the creationist belief that this evidence was planted by God to confuse us, but that doesn't make any sense that His Word would say one thing and His Work another. Unless His Word was not intended to be taken literally or that it mostly the words of men inspired by God, but not dictated by God.

Of course, those that "know" everything that other people have told them they should know seem to supersede what many others see as the messages of God in many instances.

All I know is that the claims and arguments used today are much the same as those used 10 years ago, 20 years, 30 years and on. The only exception seems to be a belief even stranger than biblical creationism and I cannot say much about that, since there isn't even ancient texts to support it exists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm amazed that someone who said they don't answer questions because they're posting for the lurkers is now complaining about having their questions not answered. The irony meter is off the scale.

I would like to extend my thanks to the lurkers for their support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm amazed that someone who said they don't answer questions because they're posting for the lurkers is now complaining about having their questions not answered. The irony meter is off the scale.

All those contradictions indicate to me, a view that is so convoluted and insisting upon itself that it isn't even understood by the one proponent it has.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have been given examples, but then you dismiss them of them as being only adaptation. Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

I have found that most people do not understand what genetic adaptation is and think it is the physiological versatility in examples like flat fish and octopi changing colors or people shivering in response to the cold. Those things are derived from pre-existing mechanism hardwired into an organism that do not result from a change in the genes in response to the environment.

Pointing out the limitations of that ignorance seems purposefully viewed as insulting in order to dismiss the facts without review.

 

[YoursTrue]

Has anyone here on the evolutionist side said what creationism is yet? If so maybe I missed it and perhaps the kind evolution part of the body's brain can impel a believer in the theory of evolution to provide an answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have found that most people do not understand what genetic adaptation is and think it is the physiological versatility in examples like flat fish and octopi changing colors or people shivering in response to the cold. Those things are derived from pre-existing mechanism hardwired into an organism that do not result from a change in the genes in response to the environment.

Pointing out the limitations of that ignorance seems purposefully viewed as insulting in order to dismiss the facts without review.

Not to be direct because that could lead to problematic situations, based on the information provided above, what do variations and/or genetic changes show/prove/evidence/demonstrate about the theory of evolution? That a couple of chance meetings of cells bloomed into humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

"No evidence beyond interpretation within the setting of numerous assumptions."

The thing about evolution is that it's testable, so it's more than just baseless conjecture. Paleontologists can make predictions, for instance, on where specific kinds of fossils can be found at specific places at specific stratum based on where and when they think this animal could have lived according to the combination of the geological and the fossil record

Predicting Fossil Finds | KQED

Scientists used evolutionary theory to figure out where to find the bones of this fishibian. Lately I have been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. And so far it is a fascinating read. What is so great about this book for a scientist is that it gives the big picture on evolution. This sort

www.kqed.org

"For example, I had heard about the fossil of Tiktaalik roseae that was found in 2004 that linked fish to amphibians. This was a huge deal because the animal that the bones came from had characteristics of both fish and amphibians. And it appeared in the fossil record at the right time to be a transitional animal between the two.

What I hadn't fully appreciated was that the scientists decided to look where they did based on how old they thought the fossil should be. In other words, they were able to use the theory of evolution to predict where to find the fossil they were looking for."

The proof is in the pudding. The evidence is strong, and continues to strengthen with each find

That is not testing the process claimed of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Has anyone here on the evolutionist side said what creationism is yet? If so maybe I missed it and perhaps the kind evolution part of the body's brain can impel a believer in the theory of evolution to provide an answer.

I know that I and others have provided definitions several times since you first starting requesting this information some many months ago. I saw it offered earlier today as well, by yet another person. It is for this and many other reasons, I have grown tired of this and similar methods you employ to sustain your position and do not find that it is beneficial to engage you further. I post this only for informational purposes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not to be direct because that could lead to problematic situations, based on the information provided above, what do variations and/or genetic changes show/prove/evidence/demonstrate about the theory of evolution? That a couple of chance meetings of cells bloomed into humans?

See my previous post and consider this one as another example of the methods you are employing in what I see as an intentional disruption of the conversation.

Don't bother to involve me further in your style of discussion. Asking seems to be pointless, but if you are true to your values, it should be more than sufficient.

The only thing problematic that I have encountered is that my request to cease attempts at drawing me into the discussion were ignored as if I have no right to not involve myself in what I see as a fruitless continuation of tactics over discussion.