Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

I am not saying it is connected. I am saying that is no defeater of evolution. Unless you can show me some logical arguments that support your conclusion.

See post #756;

"Trying to convince believers in Evolution that Peers are wrong is like trying to convince the pope that there is no God but if there were then the devil is the good guy. Every time you present evidence they hear something different. Every time you hold their hand and point out the logic they look and squirm away. There have never been believers holier than thou than those who believe in ramps to build pyramids or Evolution. The less evidence there is for a scientific belief the more tightly is is held by its believers. With Evolution it's even worse because people want to believe and there are numerous experiments that can be interpreted to show it. We can even see it happening before our eyes with lesser species and see no reason not to extrapolate such results to the "fossil record"."

 

[gnostic]

Darwin invented survival of the fittest and others named it.

The mechanism is still called “Natural Selection”, both back then, and today, not “survival of the fittest”.

Survival of the fittest is often misunderstood and misused, and you, liia and other creationists are proofs that all of you never understood this phrase.

And Charles Darwin was not responsible for writing Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer was the author, sociologist and anthropologist.

Social Darwinism have nothing to do with Evolution and Natural Selection. Social Darwinism is a hypothesis on human cultures, social positions, and human behaviour.

Natural Selection is not confined to human biological evolution, it is the studies of changes to all living organisms, where the environmental conditions have impacts on their organisms to reproduce offspring and descendants. If their physical traits don’t change and adapt to new conditions in the environment, they could face extinctions.

These extinctions have nothing to do with murders, genocide or wars. Extinctions have to do with producing offspring that have genetically inherited “adapted physical” that are beneficial to the descendants.

Some of the most drastic environmental changes, come from glaciation periods, long droughts, climate changes caused either by volcanic activities or meteorite impacts, or excessive gases in atmosphere, etc.

In early Earth history, for nearly 2 billion years, the Earth lower atmosphere, have no free oxygen gases, and all microorganism - both bacteria and archaea - lived in oxygen free environments. Then some bacteria evolved, called Cyanobacteria, capable of photosynthesis, like plants, convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.

This changed the atmosphere, known as the Great Oxygenated Event (GOE), caused mass extinction upon many anaerobic microorganisms, where they cannot survive in atmosphere with oxygen; some anaerobic species can tolerate oxygen, while other anaerobes were poisoned by oxygen.

The GOE caused other effects in the atmosphere, like reductions of methane in the atmosphere, which caused the earth to become cooler, which produced ice sheets to large parts of the Earth’s surface, the first glaciation period or Ice Age, known as Huronian Glaciation. The Huronian Glaciation was the longest glacial period that caused more mass extinction of species of Bacteria & Archaea.

There were no wars or genocide in the GOE & Huronian Glaciation extinctions.

Genocide and wars are human actions from human social behavior and politics, which don’t exist in living organisms. Wars and genocide have nothing to do with Natural Selection, something that you and other science-illiterate creationists are incapable of learning or understanding.

 

[cladking]

This changed the atmosphere, known as the Great Oxygenated Event (GOE), caused mass extinction upon many anaerobic microorganisms, where they cannot survive in atmosphere with oxygen;

Since this happened over millions of years how come they didn't evolve to love oxygen?

More semantics. Just ignore the argument and fixate on the words. No one is fooled.

 

[cladking]

Genocide and wars are human actions from human social behavior and politics, which don’t exist in living organisms. Wars and genocide have nothing to do with Natural Selection, something that you and other science-illiterate creationists are incapable of learning or understanding.

Other species have difficulty maintaining thousand mile long supply lines. So what genocide happened before Darwin and Freud?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can’t speak for these people but I can speak for what I see in your case.

You response do show unconscious doubt in your own belief about the ToE as evident in your very response to #753.

Your response shows that You’re aware of the weakness of your premise, that is why you totally avoid the talk about the scientific evidence against it and try to defend it by steering the doubts away from it to the opposite view while failing to understand that the validity or invalidity of the opposite view has nothing to do with the validity of yours.

Your unconscious desperate and illogical defense clearly reflects the real thoughts and doubts in your mind. Get out of your denial (if you can).The facts are clear.

I have no doubts. Nothing in you have posted causes me any doubts. I avoid creationist nonsense masquerading as science.

I am pretty confident that you don't have a background in science based on what I have seen so far. That doesn't lend much credibility to the claims you attempt to make. Much of what you post follows a pattern I have seen followed hundreds of times by creationists that are being fed the information they are using. There is, as I have seen here, little or no evidence that the material dumped on here is understood by the person dumping it.

I am pretty sure what I am seeing is a desperation due to the realization that your arguments don't hold up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

THE LATEST 21st CENTURY SCIENCE DISPROVED ALL THE CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODERN SYNTHESIS (NEO-DARWINISM). NO EXCEPTION

A) The mainstream theory of evolution “ToE” is the “Modern Synthesis” which is a mid-20th century view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.

Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved the ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism). All the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved. No exception.

Below are the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis:
- First, genetic change is random.
- Second, genetic change is gradual.
- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.
- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.

2013 Birmingham, UK, As the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble said in his lecture, “ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPROVED in various ways and to varying degrees, and it is also important to note that a substantial proportion of the experimental work that has revealed these breaks has come from within molecular biology itself. Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

B) The common understanding of the ToE among many proponents of evolution is the model of evolution which theorizes the slow and gradual transformation of a whole species into a new one through random mutation + natural selection as the fundamental mechanism of speciation.

As mentioned above, latest 21st century scientific finds disproved these mechanisms. Neither mutations are random nor natural selection has any way to explain speciation. See below.

Non-Random Mutations:
Denis Noble said that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Natural Selection:
Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

C) Proponents of the ToE are either those who rely on outdated scientific material without much understanding or awareness of the latest in the field (other than their claim that they do) and others who are simply ignorant blind followers.

The material addressing the failure of the “Modern Synthesis” is clear, conclusive and available to anyone especially those who are serious and want to be informed.

Those who enjoy staying in denial, insist to ignore the fact that science is ever changing, find their comfort in dwelling in the ignorance of the past, sure they can do so, it’s their call but they should not pose themselves as rational proponents of science. They’re absolutely not.

I have watched and read some of your posts and you have failed to demonstrate a designer in any argument you have made. The best argument you think you have still puts us with unguided evolution by naturalistic mechanisms. That's gotta sting.

Look at this post. You are arguing for unguided evolution in your constant referencing of the extended evolutionary synthesis which isn't even a refutation or a replacement of the existing theory.

Directed mutations have not been found. We don't even have a mechanism proposed that holds up to scrutiny as a hypothetical. If evidence does lead to the discovery of directed mutations, this does not mean that your belief becomes the mechanism by default. Since, no evidence for the supernatural has ever been demonstrated, the most logical explanation would be a natural mechanism.

What you have assembled as your killer evidence for the theory of evolution is not clear or conclusive.

I like how you end on a logical fallacy. If people believe you and accept what you say without question they are delusional and in denial. Of course that would include 97% of all scientists.

You are sort of entertaining, but that is starting to lose its appeal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Below are the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis:

Below are what you are declaring are the fundamental assumptions of the modern synthesis.

- First, genetic change is random.

Mutations are still random and directed mutation has not been demonstrated. Sorry.

- Second, genetic change is gradual.

If you are referring to mutations as genetic change, they occur quickly on a evolutionary time scale. If you mean the change in allele frequency over time and the expression of traits, it is not sudden even in punctuation.

- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.

Change in allele frequency of a population is known to result from natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow and mutation. Natural selection is the predominant mechanism for fixing alleles in a population.

- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.

I don't think the assumption is stated as impossible. It simply states that acquired traits are not heritable.

The inheritance of longer necks by continually stretching of parent giraffes or tail-less mice from amputee parents still remains undemonstrated. What is known is something entirely different called epigenesis, which occurs in the packaging of DNA and has been shown to be heritable. The mechanisms for this are understood and they do not unseat the theory of evolution no matter how hard you strain to see it that way.

There are other assumptions of the theory of evolution that you do not mention. Was that on purpose?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been at this a while.

Trying to convince believers in Evolution that Peers are wrong is like trying to convince the pope that there is no God but if there were then the devil is the good guy. Every time you present evidence they hear something different. Every time you hold their hand and point out the logic they look and squirm away. There have never been believers holier than thou than those who believe in ramps to build pyramids or Evolution. The less evidence there is for a scientific belief the more tightly is is held by its believers. With Evolution it's even worse because people want to believe and there are numerous experiments that can be interpreted to show it. We can even see it happening before our eyes with lesser species and see no reason not to extrapolate such results to the "fossil record".

Just like reality itself science is logical so its language approximates logic in some regards. Of course I use many of the same words. My paradigm was built from science, math, and history. What makes it seem unusual to believers is simply that it considers the only aspect of life; consciousness. Instead of considering life biologists are reducing it to characteristics and taxonomies. We parse reality itself so why not parse life itself.

Reality is binary and logic manifest. So is consciousness and life where "fitness" is not even a characteristic of any individual.

Erroneous assumption cause erroneous conclusions. Homo omnisciencis always reasons in circles and only experiment might snap him out of it.

This doesn't reflect anything known, understood or studied in science. Or anywhere for that matter. It is just...nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

Since this happened over millions of years how come they didn't evolve to love oxygen?

You are not paying attention to what I have written.

Did you miss the pass where I said this:

This changed the atmosphere, known as the Great Oxygenated Event (GOE), caused mass extinction upon many anaerobic microorganisms, where they cannot survive in atmosphere with oxygen; some anaerobic species can tolerate oxygen, while other anaerobes were poisoned by oxygen.

Some species could tolerate oxygen in the atmosphere, while others can. And it should even be apparent to you that were tolerant to presence of oxygen that some species evolved so they can use oxygen when no other gases are present.

And even today, there are different types of anaerobic organisms. Look it up "anaerobic organism". Some would die, some would tolerate oxygen.

You know that plants use carbon dioxide, while other organisms may breath other gases, like methane or hydrogen gases. Not all organisms breathe oxygen, you should know that, if you have study biology of microorganisms.

Species from Archaea, for instance are unicellular microorganisms that have been known, even today, to survive flourished in normally hostile environments for most other organisms, and some of them don't require oxygen to breathe.

Plants themselves are examples of that rely on carbon dioxide and water, with ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) to cause chemical reaction that convert them into starch (carbohydrates or what you would commonly know as sugar) as fuel energy for their survival, oxygen.

Cyanobacteria have the same photosynthesis as plants, but plants didn't exist 2.6 billion years ago, but these oxygen-producing bacteria did exist, and were responsible for oxygenation of the atmosphere (GOE, Great Oxygenation Event), and indirectly responsible for the Huronian Glaciation that lasted 300 million years, between 2.4 and 2.1 billion years ago.

The points being that some species did survive both extinction events because they were better able to adapt, while others that couldn't adapt obviously became extinct.

Evolution is about those species (not just talking about bacteria or even human) that survive environments that have changed when they are able to adapt, which mean they have better chances of reproducing.

The other point being, there are no wars or genocide involve in these extinction event. That's where you and LIIA and other creationists don't understand Evolution. You and LIIA are confusing Evolution with Social Darwinism, that demonstrated both being ignorants on both subjects.

 

[metis]

But you still can't show one experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. Neither has anyone else.

I told you to check out the links and then maybe look up "speciation".

Christianity is meant to enlighten, not to obscure reality. If you church doesn't do that, then I recommend choosing a church that does as I had to do 5 decades ago.

 

[LIIA]

Sure, and Gould said we have data at the nodes.

Is data factual or is it not?

The nodes of the evolutionary trees are hypothetical common ancestors. That’s what it is. If you don’t agree, provide your own definition. If you don’t know what it is, then you cannot use it as evidence to support your view.

The argument here is about the rarity of data (not just mere existence), which necessarily means that the statistical significance is against your claim. Your argument about the nodes is neither logical nor support your purpose to refute the rarity.

Regardless of what you may be in real life, here you are an internet nobody posting under an acronym with nothing identifiable in your avatar as you.

In other words I treat your claim to be an established palaeontologist with scepticism until you can confirm to us who you really are with a reasonable amount of supporting evidence.

I meant that I’m quoting Gould as an established palaeontologist to prove the extreme rarity of transitional forms. I’m not a palaeontologist. I guess I was not very clear, Sorry for the confusion.

Rarity is a relative word wouldn't you agree?
Why should we ignore Gould's qualifier of just how rare he was meaning?
Do you regard ignoring qualifiers as taking an honest approach to looking at his meaning?

Gould as a palaeontologist explained the fact about extreme rarity multiple times in multiple ways to the point that no rational argument about what he intended is possible. What he confirmed or intended to confirm is evidently very clear and cannot be subject to any argument. It’s the very reason why he proposed, “Punctuated equilibrium”. I did provide many examples of his quotes before. Here are some quotes by Gould:

“Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'”

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

I'm an ex-creationist. I have been an evolutionist for a while, but if I was loaded with bias I wouldn't have changed opinions in the first place.

The possibilities are that you may have been wrong or right before, now or wrong in both cases and there is another way.

I agree with your defense against bias. You could be one of the exceptions or possibly your bias had emerged because of your need of a settled premise.

Bias can be clearly seen in your trial to twist the words of Gould to support your view.

Also I find the idea that any proponent of evolution is biased along with what I assume to be the implied view (that any creationist is unbiased) to itself be loaded with bias.

No one is immune from bias, Neither creationists nor evolutionists. When we hold tight to a false premise, bias is inevitable. We never start our judgment from a neutral position but rather from an inclined position to one side or another.

To control it, you first need to be aware of it, and even when you try, the degree of your success may vary. It’s not easy to be neutral.

Its also not what I'm arguing, I can agree that Gould was probably being honest when he described the fossil data as only supporting the nodes with data, and all else as being "reasonable" inference in his time.

Nodes are hypothetical common ancestors.

So if I don't know the number of nodes in the evolutionary tree why don't you tell me?
Are you afraid to admit that your earlier statement of there being one node in doubt was gross exaggeration even in Gould's time?.

I’m telling you nodes are hypothetical common ancestors. You cannot use what you don’t know as your evidence.

You appear to be disagreeing with Gould here, he said we have data at the nodes, not hypotheticals.

I’m not disagreeing with Gould, I’m disagreeing with your understanding of what he said. Again, nodes are hypothetical common ancestors. If you don’t agree, provide your definition.

Don’t force your interpretations to fit a biased premise; if you do that, you deceive yourself.

 

[LIIA]

Why do some people deny science? Why do they insist on deceiving themselves? Is it to win arguments? Is it to maintain a belief system that would remain unharmed if they were to accept reasonable, rational, logical conclusions from science that are based on the evidence and not on their own fanciful desires?

That is amusing, you’re using my argument but switching places. If you like to use my argument in your favor, you should adapt my premise first. It doesn’t work otherwise.

But no. It’s quite the opposite, you’re the one who denies science and deceives himself. Science is what disproved all fundamental principles of the modern synthesis theory that you are adapting, not me. It’s a fact. Live with it. See # 753

That racists use what is convenient to support their racism is not the fault of what is used. A gun, a knife or a hammer is not at fault for murder committed by a killer using one of those to commit the crime. Why would someone twist logic and reason to ignore that reality? It must be to win an argument that cannot be supported on the facts.

These racist crimes are direct implementation of Darwin ideas in the real world. Not only the racist ideology influenced by the concept of natural selection/survival of the fittest but also the direct statements of Darwin himself to exterminate the savage inferior races throughout the world as he stated in his book (the Descent Of Man) as mentioned before in #682

You cannot compare the impact of toxic ideas to merely tools in the hand of a criminal. Tools may facilitate the action but its not what influence, trigger or validate the criminal actions, the toxic ideas do.

ToE is a threat to humanity as evident by its actual impact in the real world.

Why are the personal feelings of a scientist relevant to a theory that has nothing to do with those personal feelings however good or despicable they may be? Why is it that such attempts are perennial as is the failure of them?

Are you serious? Personal irrelevant feelings? Those feelings are directly driven by the theory itself and the inevitable outcome of it. Not only as personally understood by Darwin but by many others who adapted the same ideology.

It seems now that the attempts to twist science to win the argument have failed

Science already proved the failure of the modern synthesis. You are the one who is twisting science to stay in the comfort of your denial. See #753.

we have moved on to baseless claims of morality that have nothing to do with the theory. That are neither a basis nor a consequence of what a theory is explaining.

In #614 cladking claimed that the ToE is a threat to humanity. I absolutely agree and explained my reasons. The ToE necessarily dehumanizes man and eliminates the basis for any moral values. With this kind of ideology, nothing is left but the materialistic struggle for survival as the only law of nature.

It’s the long established law of the jungle but the ToE made it much broader to encompass everything in nature including Humans who indeed adapted this ideology to end up with a behavior worse than the wild beasts in the jungle.

I believe my morality has a much more stable basis than that. If the only thing keeping people moral is that they believe a specific way, then how is it that people are often moral and often believe things entirely different from other moral people? To pin morality on the acceptance or rejection of a scientific theory is ludicrous in that light. Some people fear the light.

What is the basis of your morality?

An evolutionist is a human (neither an animal nor descendant of an animal) and may very well choose to keep his morality (its not dictated by material) but when he makes this choice to adopt human values of mercy for the weak and equality of all races, he practices schizophrenia and betrays the principles of materialism because he allows lower beings on the ladder, to breed at the expense of higher beings.

If you’re loyal to Darwinism, the inferior races, the weak, the disable should be exterminated not helped to survive against the law of natural selection.

I am honest with myself and I do not appreciate being called a liar or implications that I am lying simply because YOU failed to make your case.

Denial is not equal to lying. Lying is an attempt to deceive others but in the case of denial you deceive yourself even if you’re not aware of it.

You may not be necessarily lying but you could be very well in denial. I didn’t fail to make my case, It’s only your denial. My case is clear and evident to whoever can see (#753) but you wouldn’t be able to see till you leave your bias behind.

Be careful.

Don’t be dramatic, I don’t blame it on you. It’s your avatar.

 

[LIIA]

Survival of the fittest is a poor and imperfect alternative name for natural selection and not a definition of natural selection.

Definitions are irrelevant. We are not talking about definitions. We are talking about adapted ideology as inspired or influenced by ideas/concepts of a theory.

If you adapt the concept that nature only moves forward through the selection of the fittest, then it’s a betrayal to the law of nature if you allow it to be any way else.

What the Nazis did is irrelevant to the validity of a theory. The Nazis also used gravity.

The validity of the theory is not the context here. The context is the damaging influence of the theory on humanity. especially with respect to the negative influence on social behavior/psychology.

 

[LIIA]

Consciousness is the very root of evolution and the modern belief in "intelligence" is the reason this is invisible. We believe reductionistic science can reduce the millions of beaver consciousnesses to a single word "beaver" and then experiment on just beavers and all with no need to understand our own consciousness. We each believe we are intelligent enough to spot any pitfalls like perhaps it's impossible to understand species, life, or our own knowledge without understanding the nature of consciousness. We each chiefly see our own thoughts which are all the product of our models which we believe are perfect representations of reality but we can't even see consciousness as well as a slime mold in an experiment. These things fools us into believing that there is "intelligence" and that some people have more than others and all people have more than all other life forms. It is circular reasoning which is what homo omnisciencis does best. We don't really know everything, we just think we do.

Your view appears to be somehow influenced by pantheism but your understanding of consciousness is not clear.

In the case of humans, do you believe that we have individual relative consciousness or a collective consciousness?

more importantly "intelligence" real intelligence is not a condition so much as an event.

Anything can be described as an event. That doesn’t really shed light on your understanding of what intelligence is.

Consciousness, awareness, intelligence are inseparable. The specific phenomenon of intelligence is unique and can be observed. If you say that intelligence is just an aspect of consciousness, then I agree.

 

[LIIA]

Since I taught it for 30 years and studied it for al lot longer than that and still do, yes.

The question here is not about evolution or anthropology, it’s about your understanding of what an axiom is? Did you teach what an axiom is for 30 years?

An axiom is self evidently true, it serves as a premise or starting point for further reasoning. The status of an axiom is not dependent on a proof. You can’t give such status to a theory unless you accept it first as an unfalsifiable theory.

I've already show you as others here have. What is so difficult in understanding that life forms change over time, which is also what my link dealing with speciation shows you?

Here, again: Speciation - Wikipedia There are links to observations and studies within that link, btw.

life adapts within limits as a result of directed mutations. Adaptation is not a proof of the alleged gradual transformation of one form of life to another totally different form of life. Variants of one species will always stay as variant of the same species such as the example of the Galápagos Islands finches. It will never be anything other than finches.

The fossil record is only a proof for types of a life that did exist. It’s not a proof for a change of one life form into another. How the fossils are related, is an interpretation that can be true or false. None of that justifies the evolution as an axiom.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, in some cases. For example, at where I did my graduate degree, studies done with fruit flies have shown that non-selective breeding can and has produced new species that cannot interbreed with some others. If those who worked on these experiments did selective division, the process happened much quicker. I was not directly involved with them, btw.

Adaptation would create variants but the changes are always very limited. It’s a variation of existing info similar to what happened in the “Escherichia Coli” experiment when an existing silent citrate transporter got activated. Its not a new info but rather directed alteration of existing info. The single-celled E Coli will never transform to a multicellular organism. Galápagos Islands finches will never transform into anything other than finches. Its not possible that the massive amount of new genetic info which is necessary for such transformation to simply emerge out of nothing. It’s always alterations of existing info. There is no evidence for otherwise.

Even so these variants that we observe in the real world exhibit very minor difference from original species but the observation of such variants is what inspired Darwin’s view of how evolution acts to transform a form of life to totally different from of life gradually through endless number of intermediates. Eldredge and Gould confirmed that this gradualism as hypothesized by Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.

The point is, the slow and steady view was disproven by the facts observed in the fossil record, on the other hand variants as observed in the real world do not support punctuation or the massive sudden appearance of new genetic info. It’s neither possible nor there is any proof of it. Hence neither gradualism nor punctuation is supported by real world observations other than some wishful thinking.

There were numerous human species if we go back over 1 million years ago, but through both competition and killing, we're now down to one.

competition and killing? What a wild guess! I was expecting your response as an Anthropologist to be of a better substance. This is not an answer. It’s only your wishful thinking.

Why did chimps and bonobo survived but the numerous human species didn’t? Not even a single one to prove that these alleged -numerous- human species ever existed.

How about the human species that were geographically isolated in remote areas such as Australia, the Americas or the Alaskan Indigenous people (Eskimos)? Why are they all the same H. Sapiens with the ability to interbreed with any other H. Sapiens on earth? If the theory is true we should observe many variants of separate human species at these isolated areas that can’t interbreed with other human variants in Africa, Asia and Europe, which is evidently not true. The 7.7 billion humans on earth are all the same H. Sapiens species.

Why none of the alleged intermediate hominin species on our branch of the hominoid tree are all extinct today (no exception)? If numerous intermediate hominin species ever existed, then some should’ve survived today, especially at remote geographically isolated areas. This is not what we observe.

The point is, real world observations are not consistent with necessary predictions of the theory.

BTW, you really shot yourself in the foot when you acknowledge that there were more species of humans, so how could that be if there was no evolutionary process?

Did I? I never acknowledge that there were more species of humans. I’m saying that the alleged speciation of numerous human species as hypothesized by the ToE is not a reason for extinction; the variants may very well coexist.

The assumption that some may have competed with each other would be acceptable but if you say that all of these numerous species simply disappeared including those isolated in the most remote geographical areas and not a single one survived today, then there is absolutely no logical justification for this wild guess. This is apparently an illogical wishful thinking.

 

[LIIA]

What they believed over a century ago is now irrelevant to the science as biology has progressed much since they lived. It's like believing that there's been no progress in the area of psychology since Freud.

This is totally illogical. The context here is not about biology or scientific advancement but rather about the toxic influence of the fundamental concept of evolution/natural selection with respect to racism and morality. The fundamental concept of evolution never changed since the very beginning.

With respect to biology, indeed science did progress but the latest finds of science not only disproved all the assumptions of the modern synthesis but also didn’t establish a new agreed upon theory yet to replace MS. Till a new theory is established, you have nothing for the time being other than bits and pieces of contradicting obsolete theories/assumptions that were all disproved. This is how far the ToE progressed today. See# 753

 

[LIIA]

That BS strawman. And you know it.

Darwin wasn’t a sociologist or an anthropologist, the point being Spencer was, and the framework of Social Darwinism is social, cultural and political ones. Wars involved politics. Wars, genocides, murders, racism, hatred, and politics all predated Darwin.

Natural Selection was only concerned with biology and genetics, as to what physical changes get passed on, genetically, to descendants.

Plus, the point being, Natural Selection don’t involve wars and government policies. And Darwin never got involved in politics or encourage wars or genocides. Wars and genocide have existed ever since humans became tribal or became societal and civilized.

Total nonsense. I thought #727 should've been enough for you to understand the context of the argument but apparently you didn’t get it. Try to focus, we shouldn’t run in circles and keep repeating the same argument again and again.

The context here is not placing blames on specific people or irrelevant terminology but rather It’s about the negative impact of the evolutionary concept on humanity (including the specific influence of the theory on sociologists, anthropologists, politicians, etc.) with respect to the understanding of biological differences between humans that cause the categorization of some groups as inferior or superior, hence strengthening the ideology of racism. The negative consequences got magnified further because of the fact that the materialistic view itself eliminated the basis for morality and replaced it with materialism and the Darwinian continual 'struggle for existence' as the only rule.

Even your Bible, have such wars and genocide. Are you forgetting ...

• ...Jericho in Joshua?
• ...the Levite in Judges?
• ...and God ordering Saul - via his prophet Samuel - to completely exterminate every Amalekite man, woman and child, in 1 Samuel?

If you seriously think inspiration can be blamed on person who was involved, then you could say the biblical stories have inspired every hatred, racism, murders, wars and genocide throughout history after these OT books were written.

Again I’m not a Christian why can’t you get it? The influence of the bible is irrelevant to my argument about the influence of the ToE. You insist to use the forth grader argument. “You did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”, it’s illogical.

Natural Selection don’t just involve changes in human biology, but also all other living organisms, evolving of bacteria, archaea, fungi, plants and all other non-human animals. Do you think these other organisms have government policies to start wars or commit genocide?

All you want to assign blame for everything on Darwin, but as I said to Natural Selection isn’t anthropological or sociological study, and it don’t involve racism or politics or wars.

We are discussing the specific impact of the evolutionary concept on humanity, why do you involve other organisms?

Again, for the third time, Darwin definitely involved racism and wars when he said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

Darwin’s statements above clearly involved racism, politics and wars between humans. Do you think he was talking here about other living organisms or humans specifically? His statements are clear. Stop the nonsense.

If you want to blame for Darwin to inspiring Spencer for writing Social Darwinism, then if I was to use your twisted logic, then shouldn’t you also blame the Bible for their stories that inspired countless centuries of racism, slave trade, murders, wars and genocide?

I am using your faulty logic that the Bible inspired people to do horrible things to each other.

Why do you involve the Bible in an argument about the ToE? This is a False Dichotomy. Whether the Bible inspired conflicts or not, It’s not relevant to the ToE.

Sorry, Herbert Spencer wrote Social Darwinism (SD), Charles Darwin played no part in writing SD - inspiration or not.

You seem to be very excited about Herbert Spencer, It’s not about names or terminology, not even Darwin himself, Jean Lamarck, Alfred Wallace, Herbert Spencer or anyone that may or may not have contributed to the ToE concept or coined a specific terminology. It’s irrelevant.

The issue at stake is the negative impact on humanity as a result of the evolutionary concept that changed the general perceived concepts of the world. The ToE impact is not limited to evolutionary biology, it impacts societies, human identity/social behavior, social psychology, religious beliefs, our understanding of reality and the rules that controls our very existence.

Only an ignorant would deny that impact. You cannot deny it. It’s a fact.

 

[LIIA]

Natural Selection in Darwin’s time, have been updated to include modern genetics and improved testing, like DNA. Natural Selection have gone beyond Darwin’s works.

Indeed that already happened in the mid 20th century in the Modern Synthesis then all assumptions of the Modern Synthesis became disproven by the latest finds of molecular biology. See# 753

Denis Nobel said,“Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

Sciences should focus mainly on the current tested knowledge.

Agreed, just keep in mind that the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis were disproved but no new theory is agreed upon to replace the obsolete MS yet.

 

[cladking]

No one is immune from bias, Neither creationists nor evolutionists. When we hold tight to a false premise, bias is inevitable. We never start our judgment from a neutral position but rather from an inclined position to one side or another.

But people who are right don't understand this. Nobody is holier than thou than any believer in Evolution and Survival of the Fittest. You can't even get a real argument out of them because they just refer you to "-links".