Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

Do you also think that snow and hail falling from clouds should be considered design by cloud people? Do you think that the formation of organic molecules such as ethyl formate, methanol, ethanol, vinyl alcohol (ethenol) and butyronitryl (propyl cyanide) in the Sagittarius B2 interstellar cloud - Sagittarius B2 - Wikipedia - should be considered design by interstellar cloud people?

" think"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Since 99% of all species got extinct, and that is actually fully in agreement with evolution, what makes you think that our alleged self destruction defeats evolution?

Ciao

- viole

I don't think I said the purported pollution of the earth causing problems by humans defeats evolution. But I do believe that the planet is being hurt (harmed) by mankind's disregard for the qualities of the earth. I was just watching a documentary about dolphins and how their immune system seems to be waning, they are having serious problems with their health. I am not a scientist, but I figure that mankind's tampering with the oceans and the heating up of the elements cannot have a good effect on the dolphins.

 

[cladking]

That was your response to, "I doubt that you could produce an example of a demonstrably irreducibly complex biological system." So, no then to you being able to do that. You've just repeated your unsupported claim.

We don't know what consciousness even is. We don't know if it's even a "system". We don't know what gave rise to it or where it resides. We can neither reproduce nor reduce it.

But so far as we know it exists solely in living things and not in any science or species.

 

[cladking]

Now we know for a fact that there is no such thing as simple life, and we also know that there is no such thing as nonliving organic molecules that keep increasing in complexity slowly over a long period of time, without getting decomposed /disintegrated.

This is a point that believers in Darwin overlook. No life is simple.

A more important point being overlooked by believers is that all life is individual. We don't get sick from a staph infection but rather billions of tiny little organisms each interfering with systems in unique ways at unique times. "Rabbits" never ate anyone's garden but individuals we call "rabbits" often eat bits and pieces of it.

Foxes don't evolve but rather they in time give rise to a brand new species. Believers merely imagine that the time is prolonged and the cause is survival of the fittest but this is not what we actually observe in real life or in the "fossil record".

 

[cladking]

We can neither reproduce nor reduce it.

We can't even define it which means by definition that it is irreducibly complex.

 

[cladking]

We can't even define it which means by definition that it is irreducibly complex.

This means all biological niches are also irreducibly complex and more importantly the causes of changes in these systems and the individuals which compose them are also irreducibly complex. Scientific observation can provide some insights but there can exist no theory, no "theory of Evolution", until every relevant term is defined and experiment exists.

Darwin is "Look and See Science". It is not real nor based on anything real. It is not science at all. Certainly the state of the art fulfils some characteristics for the term "science" but this science has moved beyond Charles Darwin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't know what consciousness even is. We don't know if it's even a "system". We don't know what gave rise to it or where it resides. We can neither reproduce nor reduce it.

Then what you are you doing raising that unknown as if it validates your point?
Do you have an example of what @It Aint Necessarily So asked for or not?
It seems like you don't or you would have done so by now.

Try staying on point. Focus.

But so far as we know it exists solely in living things and not in any science or species.

More specifically, in living things with a some sort of neural system in the form of a physical brain.
Not that it matters off course, as it is not an answer to the question you are responding to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can't even define it which means by definition that it is irreducibly complex.

LOL!!!!!

If you can't even define it then the only thing you can conclude from that by definition is that you don't know.

For crying out loud.................................

 

[cladking]

Then what you are you doing raising that unknown as it validates your point?

I'm sure you aren't joking.

I just gave three examples but could come up with thousands more related to life.

consciousness
every niche
changes in niches including changes in species

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Foxes don't evolve but rather they in time give rise to a brand new species.

LOL!!!

"language doesn't evolve but latin over time turned into spanish and french"


~cladking logic. Fantastic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This means all biological niches are also irreducibly complex and more importantly the causes of changes in these systems and the individuals which compose them are also irreducibly complex. Scientific observation can provide some insights but there can exist no theory, no "theory of Evolution", until every relevant term is defined and experiment exists.

Darwin is "Look and See Science". It is not real nor based on anything real. It is not science at all. Certainly the state of the art fulfils some characteristics for the term "science" but this science has moved beyond Charles Darwin.

Your self-contradictory drivel is noted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sure you aren't joking.

I just gave three examples but could come up with thousands more related to life.

consciousness
every niche
changes in niches including changes in species

None of those are examples.

They are self-refuting bare claims.
The most blatant one being the first one of "consciousness". You yourself said we don't know anything about. This literally means that it isn't an example of ANYTHING, except of an unknown.

Sheesh dude.

 

[cladking]

If you can't even define it then the only thing you can conclude from that by definition is that you don't know.

In your thinking defining something is the same as understanding it. Like "gravity" which everyone understands so perfectly yet nobody knows what causes it or how it relates to other forces. Until recently we didn't even know its speed but believed 32 ft/s/s was enough to be omniscient.

Mebbe gravity is irreducibly complex as well but at least we can define it and even use equations to predict its magnitude and some of its effects.

By definition in our language anything that can't be defined can not be reduced to experiment or science.

This is the simplest metaphysics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We don't know what consciousness even is. We don't know if it's even a "system". We don't know what gave rise to it or where it resides. We can neither reproduce nor reduce it.

We must resist the impulse to turn to magical "answers."

We can't even define [consciousness] which means by definition that it is irreducibly complex. all biological niches are also irreducibly complex.

Irreducibly complex means containing elements arranged in ways that blind nature coud not achieve, meaning intelligent oversight was invoved. It doesn't apply here.

Foxes don't evolve but rather they in time give rise to a brand new species

That's biological evolution you just described.

Believers merely imagine that the time is prolonged and the cause is survival of the fittest but this is not what we actually observe in real life or in the "fossil record".

It's what the scientific community and a large swathe of scientifically literate people see in the evidence. You don't apparently. OK.

there can exist no theory, no "theory of Evolution" until every relevant term is defined.

Yet we have an excellent theory of evolution anyway. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. That's more than good enough to say that the theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

Darwin is "Look and See Science". It is not real nor based on anything real.

All science is look and see (begins with the evidence of the senses), which is what distinguishes it from non-empirical methods, and nothing is more real than the cosmos, the source of this evidence.

 

[cladking]

You yourself said we don't know anything about. This literally means that it isn't an example of ANYTHING, except of an unknown.

Wow!!@!

So if you ignore the cause of art, science, life, and evolution you can just go ahead and reduce abstractions to theory!

 

[cladking]

We must resist the impulse to turn to magical "answers."

I fully agree. But Darwin was just the oldest accepted magical answer.

Life is far more complex than we can understand and reality is infinitely more complex than even life.

 

[cladking]

Irreducibly complex means containing elements arranged in ways that blind nature coud not achieve, meaning intelligent oversight was invoved. It doesn't apply here.

Even if I accept your definition (I don't) the fact remains that if we don't understand something it ill behooves us to postulate we will in the future. Maybe we'll find that consciousness (what ever it is) could have arisen naturally or maybe we'll find that it could not. I am not assuming it could not but darwinists are STILL assuming it could.

This is beyond unscientific all the way to anti-scientific.

 

[cladking]

That's biological evolution you just described.

I'll resist the urge to use a smiley face since it's not funny.

You see "evolution" everywhere you look because you believe in Evolution. I do not. I believe species change suddenly at bottlenecks and foxes became foxes very suddenly at a bottleneck. I do not believe in Evolution or Darwin.

 

[cladking]

Yet we have an excellent theory of evolution anyway. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. That's more than good enough to say that the theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

I understand this. Kuhn understood it. All God's(') child'n understand this.

I believe there is a far simpler explanation that ties all the evidence together much better. All life is individual and cooperates changing only when population pressure forces the appearance of less important genes very very quickly because these genes manifest as a new species of individuals.

Nature doesn't twiddle her thumbs for millions of years waiting for the right species to "evolve". New species arise when new niches arise.

Across the board Darwin was simply wrong.

All science is look and see (begins with the evidence of the senses), which is what distinguishes it from non-empirical methods, and nothing is more real than the cosmos, the source of this evidence.

You're describing hypothesis formation. "Science", all science, is based on experiment and no experiment supports Darwin. Only a paradigm supports Darwin and this paradigm doesn't even include a definition for the most important driver of change in species; consciousness!!!

Paradigms are NOT science but are always mistaken for science by believers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Darwin was just the oldest accepted magical answer.

Darwin's theory was science, not magic. It has all of the features of a scientific theory. It's falsifiable, it's based in observation (empiricism), and it makes predictions that have been confirmed empirically. That's science.

the fact remains that if we don't understand something it ill behooves us to postulate we will in the future.

There's the claim. Where's the case? We postulate that abiogenesis occurred naturalistically, and fund the research to investigate that, which, though incomplete, has generated useful science already. It was postulated that the coronavirus would become better understood by studying it, and that paid dividends. We postulated that we could get to the moon and back - another postulate that repaid us for the effort.

Maybe we'll find that consciousness (what ever it is) could have arisen naturally or maybe we'll find that it could not. I am not assuming it could not but darwinists are STILL assuming it could.

You're not saying couldn't, they're saying could. How are those different? Have you ever noticed that maybe and maybe not aren't opposites, but the same thing? You're not disagreeing.

You see "evolution" everywhere you look because you believe in Evolution.

You're describing a faith-based confirmation bias. That's irrelevant in science, which is no part faith. We know evolution occurs empirically, and we know why empirically.

I believe species change suddenly at bottlenecks and foxes became foxes very suddenly at a bottleneck. I do not believe in Evolution or Darwin.

You're describing evolution consistent with the theory.

I believe there is a far simpler explanation that ties all the evidence together much better. All life is individual and cooperates changing only when population pressure forces the appearance of less important genes very very quickly because these genes manifest as a new species of individuals.

What are less important genes? And how does that contradict the theory?

New species arise when new niches arise. Across the board Darwin was simply wrong.

That's also consistent with the theory - predicted by it, in fact.

"Science", all science, is based on experiment

What experiments are astronomers and cosmologists doing? What experiments did Hubble and Einstein perform? What are the experiments done in the science of plate tectonics?

Only a paradigm supports Darwin

and this paradigm doesn't even include a definition for the most important driver of change in species; consciousness!!!

Not needed. Nor is consciousness the most important driver of change in species. Genetic variation subjected to natural selection is. This occurs even in unconscious life.

Paradigms are NOT science

Scientific theories are paradigms (narratives unifying observations). The theory of evolution is such a paradigm. If it is ever falsified, it will be replaced by a modified paradigm - intelligent design. That's what the creationists at the Discovery Institute were attempting to do, albeit unsuccessfully - change the scientific paradigm to one of intelligent design. Of course, ID doesn't require a supernatural intelligent designer exist. According to the parsimony principle in hypothesis formation, the new paradigm would become a race of extraterrestrial intelligent designers themselves the result of natural processes that began long before earth or the sun existed on some remote world, not supernaturalism.