Darwin's Illusion

[Polymath257]

Sorry, my reaction is whatever...

So you either don't understand or don't care about what this says about evolution. OK.

The point is in the last quoted line: the two mutations in the same gene strongly indicate a common ancestor.

 

[Polymath257]

I am pretty certain science is not wrong about everything. But then I'd have to look at every assertion science makes and I don't have the time. (Neither do scientists. They usually stick to one aspect.)

The 'it' was referring to the issue of whether gorillas existed 20 million years ago and whether all modern gorillas are descended from animals alive at that time.

This is NOT 'every assertion science makes'. It is a specific claim that you can research and verify or make an argument that science is wrong. It has to do with questions directly related to the discussion at hand and whether species can change over time to produce new species (do non-gorillas only have non-gorillas as descendants?).

And yet you claim that science got this stuff wrong (am I wrong in this statement?).

 

[leroy]

Thanks for that.

Not your point, but the meaning of word human has become a little vague. Feline refers to many species, and is derived from the genus name, Felis. By analogy, human might mean of the genus Homo. Or, it can refer to just Homo sapiens sapiens, to Homo sapiens including Neanderthalis but not other Homo sp.,

One might go further and the call the entire human branch after the bifurcation occurring following the last human-pan common ancestor, that is all hominins including Australopithecus sp. and other pre-Homo hominins.

The OP is an argument. I rebutted it in as much detail as was needed for the rebuttal to be thorough and understood. I gave a list of candidate hypotheses to resurrection and I explained why they were all better than the supernaturalistic hypothesis. That's a complete treatment of the topic. And it's my typical answer - a list of candidate hypotheses as ordered as possible in terms of likelihood. It's how medical diagnosis is done. A differential diagnosis of all conditions consistent with the evidence (candidate hypotheses) ordered by likelihood and time sensitivity of diagnosis, that is, we look for common things and things that need to found quickly if present even if uncommon first.: "A differential diagnosis is a list of possible conditions that share the same symptoms that you described to your healthcare provider. This list is not your final diagnosis, but a theory as to what is potentially causing your symptoms."

Here's one such "differential diagnosis" on the relationship of mind to matter:

"That's the position of materialism regarding the relationship of mind and matter. It's one of four logically possible relationships between A and B if A (mind) and B (matter) both exist: A derives from B (materialism), B derives from A (idealism), they both derive from C (neutral monism), and they are unrelated (Cartesian dualism)."

Here's one on why the universe exists:

"Consider your list of candidate hypotheses for the history of the universe, which had only one element: God. Mine looked like the following. How did you get from mine to yours? You either never considered several of these logical possibilities, or else you dropped them for no reason valid reason:

The universe:

I. Had no prior cause
1. Always existed
2. Arose uncaused from nothing

II. Had a source which also either always existed or arose from nothing uncaused
1. Unconscious substance (multiverse)
2. Conscious (deity)"

I just ran into one of the posts you say doesn't exist while doing the searches that found the two above. I've edited it to remove much of my answer for the same reasons I did so last time. If you want these answers, you need to find them yourself or get somebody to help you as you should have when the idea was first proposed:

"Will you ever stop it with the misidentification and turn to other naturalistic explanations such as my preferred one - [content deleted]. That one is a bout [content deleted]% likely to be correct. Explanations that [content deleted] are essentially all of the other [content deleted]%, and supernaturalism is 0+%. Please address that position."

As usual, you didn't address it when asked to, and now you can't find it.

I also found this, also written to you, which addresses one of the subcategories of answers I gave you - ones that include witnesses reporting seeing a resurrection:

"What did they see to convince them of resurrection? Candidate answers include, the [content deleted], the [content deleted], a [content deleted]"


You told me you looked and couldn't find the posts. How many times have I written those words like "you say the posts don't exist" since? A dozen? All of a sudden, you COULD find the posts, but they didn't meet your expectations. I don't believe you, Leroy, but it doesn't matter what you actually did at this point. You didn't do what was asked of you in a timely manner, and even now, you still have never referred to the RF search function or explained why you didn't do that.

When you start paying attention to the words of others, you might get what you want from them more often.

Why are you persisting with this? I have no intention of relenting, and as I told you, even if you find those posts and apologize, I've lost interest in discussing them with you. It's actually more than that. I have a barrier to discussing them with you now. I would feel that I was abandoning my principles and was enabling you in this behavior. I would be embarrassed to do either, and it would feel immoral to me as well. If you understood that, you might realize that you will never get what you wan from

Thanks for that.

Not your point, but the meaning of word human has become a little vague. Feline refers to many species, and is derived from the genus name, Felis. By analogy, human might mean of the genus Homo. Or, it can refer to just Homo sapiens sapiens, to Homo sapiens including Neanderthalis but not other Homo sp.,

One might go further and the call the entire human branch after the bifurcation occurring following the last human-pan common ancestor, that is all hominins including Australopithecus sp. and other pre-Homo hominins.

The OP is an argument. I rebutted it in as much detail as was needed for the rebuttal to be thorough and understood. I gave a list of candidate hypotheses to resurrection and I explained why they were all better than the supernaturalistic hypothesis. That's a complete treatment of the topic. And it's my typical answer - a list of candidate hypotheses as ordered as possible in terms of likelihood. It's how medical diagnosis is done. A differential diagnosis of all conditions consistent with the evidence (candidate hypotheses) ordered by likelihood and time sensitivity of diagnosis, that is, we look for common things and things that need to found quickly if present even if uncommon first.: "A differential diagnosis is a list of possible conditions that share the same symptoms that you described to your healthcare provider. This list is not your final diagnosis, but a theory as to what is potentially causing your symptoms."

Here's one such "differential diagnosis" on the relationship of mind to matter:

"That's the position of materialism regarding the relationship of mind and matter. It's one of four logically possible relationships between A and B if A (mind) and B (matter) both exist: A derives from B (materialism), B derives from A (idealism), they both derive from C (neutral monism), and they are unrelated (Cartesian dualism)."

Here's one on why the universe exists:

"Consider your list of candidate hypotheses for the history of the universe, which had only one element: God. Mine looked like the following. How did you get from mine to yours? You either never considered several of these logical possibilities, or else you dropped them for no reason valid reason:

The universe:

I. Had no prior cause
1. Always existed
2. Arose uncaused from nothing

II. Had a source which also either always existed or arose from nothing uncaused
1. Unconscious substance (multiverse)
2. Conscious (deity)"

I just ran into one of the posts you say doesn't exist while doing the searches that found the two above. I've edited it to remove much of my answer for the same reasons I did so last time. If you want these answers, you need to find them yourself or get somebody to help you as you should have when the idea was first proposed:

"Will you ever stop it with the misidentification and turn to other naturalistic explanations such as my preferred one - [content deleted]. That one is a bout [content deleted]% likely to be correct. Explanations that [content deleted] are essentially all of the other [content deleted]%, and supernaturalism is 0+%. Please address that position."

As usual, you didn't address it when asked to, and now you can't find it.

I also found this, also written to you, which addresses one of the subcategories of answers I gave you - ones that include witnesses reporting seeing a resurrection:

"What did they see to convince them of resurrection? Candidate answers include, the [content deleted], the [content deleted], a [content deleted]"


You told me you looked and couldn't find the posts. How many times have I written those words like "you say the posts don't exist" since? A dozen? All of a sudden, you COULD find the posts, but they didn't meet your expectations. I don't believe you, Leroy, but it doesn't matter what you actually did at this point. You didn't do what was asked of you in a timely manner, and even now, you still have never referred to the RF search function or explained why you didn't do that.

When you start paying attention to the words of others, you might get what you want from them more often.

Why are you persisting with this? I have no intention of relenting, and as I told you, even if you find those posts and apologize, I've lost interest in discussing them with you. It's actually more than that. I have a barrier to discussing them with you now. I would feel that I was abandoning my principles and was enabling you in this behavior. I would be embarrassed to do either, and it would feel immoral to me as well. If you understood that, you might realize that you will never get what you wan from me.

The facts remain

1 I asked you to develop a specific hypothesis hypothesis and explain why is that hypothesis better than the resurection

2 you didnt do that (but rather made a list)

 

[YoursTrue]

I am pretty certain science is not wrong about everything. But then I'd have to look at every assertion science makes and I don't have the time. (Neither do scientists. They usually stick to one aspect.)

So you either don't understand or don't care about what this says about evolution. OK.

The point is in the last quoted line: the two mutations in the same gene strongly indicate a common ancestor.

The 'it' was referring to the issue of whether gorillas existed 20 million years ago and whether all modern gorillas are descended from animals alive at that time.

This is NOT 'every assertion science makes'. It is a specific claim that you can research and verify or make an argument that science is wrong. It has to do with questions directly related to the discussion at hand and whether species can change over time to produce new species (do non-gorillas only have non-gorillas as descendants?).

And yet you claim that science got this stuff wrong (am I wrong in this statement?).

I believe science makes claims but do not know the verification of everything they say.

 

[YoursTrue]

The 'it' was referring to the issue of whether gorillas existed 20 million years ago and whether all modern gorillas are descended from animals alive at that time.

This is NOT 'every assertion science makes'. It is a specific claim that you can research and verify or make an argument that science is wrong. It has to do with questions directly related to the discussion at hand and whether species can change over time to produce new species (do non-gorillas only have non-gorillas as descendants?).

And yet you claim that science got this stuff wrong (am I wrong in this statement?).

I am saying that it is a projection regarding what may have happened.

 

[John53]

You need to do a little more research...have a good one.

So they can run faster if the harassed person finally loses their cool?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ill take that as an admition t

The facts remain

1 I asked you to develop a specific hypothesis hypothesis and explain why is that hypothesis better than the resurection

2 you didnt do that (but rather made a list)

3 you lied when you said you did answered to my request.

You are complaining on the wrong thread.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I asked you to develop a specific hypothesis hypothesis and explain why is that hypothesis better than the resurection

I rebutted the OP - falsified it's argument - and also provided alternate hypotheses as well as an explanation as to why they were preferred to supernaturalism. That was a complete and thorough answer. You missed it. That's your fault. And you haven't found it even after being told how. That's also your fault. You have no legitimate complaint about me.

you lied when you said you did answered to my request.

No, you're lying now, and the evidence for that is available to you, although not from me.

At this point, I am curious to see how long it takes you to either do that digital search or move on. A week? A month? A year?

I remember a bird that once flew into my bedroom through an open French door under a half-moon piece of glass. It kept flying into the glass even though the door was open a foot or two lower. I got him out with one of those dusters on a long pole by pushing him down from the glass to the open doors so that he wouldn't hurt himself and to relieve his terror, but if it wouldn't have harmed him, I might have let him solve the problem himself.

 

[YoursTrue]

The 'it' was referring to the issue of whether gorillas existed 20 million years ago and whether all modern gorillas are descended from animals alive at that time.

whether all modern gorillas are descended from animals alive at that time? If you're asking me to verify that, my answer is...what?

 

[YoursTrue]

So they can run faster if the harassed person finally loses their cool?

Lol...bye again

 

[YoursTrue]

No, do tell.

But let me have 1 guess 1st. They evolved longer legs so it's easier to walk door to door harassing people with their religious beliefs?

John, when you do a little more research then perhaps we can talk more.

 

[John53]

John, when you do a little more research then perhaps we can talk more.

I've worked it out I think. Makes them taller so it's easier to shove their religious dogma down the victims throat?

 

[John53]

I am pretty certain science is not wrong about everything. But then I'd have to look at every assertion science makes and I don't have the time. (Neither do scientists. They usually stick to one aspect.)

They're only wrong about the bits that don't agree with your religious beliefs?

 

[Polymath257]

I am saying that it is a projection regarding what may have happened.

And is currently the best explanation consistent with the evidence we have. Furthermore, the claim of species stasis was a *previous* view that was discarded because the evidence contradicted it.

 

[Polymath257]

whether all modern gorillas are descended from animals alive at that time? If you're asking me to verify that, my answer is...what?

What is the confusion? Either animals alive today are descendants of those alive 20 million years ago or they are not. If they are, and there were no animals like them 20 million years ago, that is enough to establish that large scale changes are possible in animals.

Most people would say it is clear that modern animals are descendants of those that lived in the past.

 

[Polymath257]

John, when you do a little more research then perhaps we can talk more.

Maybe you should take your own advice?

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe you should take your own advice?

You're saying that neither you nor John53 know about Massai. Ok

 

[Polymath257]

You're saying that neither you nor John53 know about Massai. Ok

Yes, I am aware of the Massai. Nobody is claiming they are not human.

I am suggesting that you do a bit more research about gorillas and their ancestry. Or, for that matter, any other species. There were no humans around 5 million years ago. But there were various apes. Now, there are humans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks but in this context we are talking specifically about the majority of the relevant mutations that build say an eye from a blind creature.

Most of the have to be positive, so that you can use natural selection as a tool to climb mount improbable. (borrowing from Dawkins analogy)

As I also said, many neutral ones later on play a part in phenotype change in combination with other mutations.
So you can't really ignore those without losing track of the bigger picture of the mechanism.

I'm not really sure what your point is actually. It seems to be some attempt to try and put a blanket on an error you made instead of simply acknowledging the error.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I am saying is that in order to go from point 1 to point 2 you need positive variation (lets call it positive mutations) + natural selection.

*sure not all mutations have to be positive, you can have negative or neutral mutation, but most mutations are expected to be positive.

any disgareement at this point?

Yes, as has already pointed out. "most mutations are expected to be positive" - this is just not true, in any context.
Unless off course you wish to ignore all mutations that aren't positive, like you previously alluded to.
But why would you do that?

All I am saying is that we currently don’t know which mutations are needed to go from point a to point b, therefore we can’t test (yet) if there is a viable path or not. .......... we can´t test if there is an "irreducible complex" step

Any disagreement?

If you disagree with anything Please start your reply with “I disagree with this statement (quote my words) because xxxxxxx

Why would there be an "irreducibly complex" step?
Are you making an argument from ignorance?