Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Darwin's theory was science, not magic.

More words!@!!! All believers have is just words and no argument at all.

You just ignore the fact that I clearly stated all theory is based on experiment and Darwin performed no experiment. There is no theory.

Now I'll read the rest of the post and confirm you ignored my every point and responded to words. Semantics are no argument.

 

[cladking]

You're not saying couldn't, they're saying could. How are those different?

You are taking the natural origin of consciousness not only axiomatically but as unnecessary to life and change in species. I don't know!!! I am taking as little as humanly possible as being axiomatic. Essentially my only axiom is that reality exists.

I weigh possibilities and Darwin loaded the dice.

Your way of parsing could is like convicting a defendant for being five minutes away from a crime that happened five minutes earlier. Neither law nor reality work this way.

 

[cladking]

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

Every individual has countless millions of genes that govern its consciousness. Some starving fish will swim upstream to seek food and some downstream. Most genes and their expression are simply irrelevant to the species. But when nature kills almost every individual those surviving will be exhibiting very similar behavior and this behavior is driven by consciousness which is an expression of its genes and its experience. None of these things that actually drive change in species is even defined by Darwin. The complexity of change in species is an infinite number of orders of magnitude more complex than Darwin imagined. Reality only seems simple to reductionistic science. You can not understand any change in species by pondering fossils or finches. You might gain insights but these insights are framed within your belief system.

 

[cladking]

Nor is consciousness the most important driver of change in species.

Make this assumption and the fittest survive and voila; ToE.

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.

This is not politics. Darwin is wrong but the creationists might be wrong as well.

To begin to address whether they are wrong or not we need to actually understand a change in species and consciousness. After all, what is "intelligent design" if not a claim that consciousness created life and reality. You can't dismiss an hypothesis on the basis that you are unable to define its terms.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You just ignore the fact that I clearly stated all theory is based on experiment and Darwin performed no experiment

I didn't ignore that. I falsified it. I pointed out that some science is observational only, not experimental. I asked you "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?" You must not have seen that, since you didn't post anything that suggests you had.

You are taking the natural origin of consciousness not only axiomatically

No, I am not. That's one of two possibilities, the other being supernaturalism. I've eliminated neither from my list of candidate hypotheses. Why did you think I had? What comment from me suggested that to you?

but as unnecessary to life and change in species.

Yes, there is no evidence that consciousness is necessary for either life or its evolution. You keep insisting otherwise, but once again, I've seen the claim, but the not the case in support of it.

Every individual has countless millions of genes that govern its consciousness. Some starving fish will swim upstream to seek food and some downstream. Most genes and their expression are simply irrelevant to the species. But when nature kills almost every individual those surviving will be exhibiting very similar behavior and this behavior is driven by consciousness which is an expression of its genes and its experience. None of these things that actually drive change in species is even defined by Darwin. The complexity of change in species is an infinite number of orders of magnitude more complex than Darwin imagined. Reality only seems simple to reductionistic science. You can not understand any change in species by pondering fossils or finches. You might gain insights but these insights are framed within your belief system.

I asked, "What are less important genes? And how does that contradict the theory?" I don't see answers to either of those questions there.

You can't dismiss an hypothesis on the basis that you are unable to define its terms.

Sure I can. In fact, I should. It's not my job to define the words in somebody else's hypothesis. If the meanings aren't standard and clear, then the claim can't be evaluated critically and is necessarily disregarded. What else can one do. I still don't know what the word consciousness means to you if you claim that all living things possess it. I can't evaluate that claim for that reason. How can I possibly agree or disagree?

Are you familiar with ignosticism?

"Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition."

 

[cladking]

"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?"

There are far too many of these experiments to list. Are you aware there was for many years (still?) apparatus in Brazil measuring the speed of the separation from Africa in real time? There is a great deal of established fact about these subjects. But as I have pointed out on several occasions it is not theory that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps because all theory is founded in experiment but Darwin is not. I don't believe that nature is beholden to law nor that it can be expressed mathematically. I don't believe that our math is based on logical axioms.

Yes, there is no evidence that consciousness is necessary for either life or its evolution.

Yes and no. If you accept the existing axioms then you're right. I DO NOT ACCEPT THEM. I have been pointing out both which specific axioms I don't accept and the evidence to support my beliefs yet Darwin's axioms continue to be accepted on faith.

I asked, "What are less important genes? And how does that contradict the theory?" I don't see answers to either of those questions there.

There are billions of genes. Some determine important things like which side of the ribcage the heart grows on and most are invisible like whether the individual prefers carrots or cupcakes. Billions of them. Some are trivial until every individual without that silly gene dies. (Not that genes are funny either)

This is a very simple concept but if you believe consciousness is irrelevant and only the fit survive it is harder to see.

Sure I can. In fact, I should. It's not my job to define the words in somebody else's hypothesis. If the meanings aren't standard and clear, then the claim can't be evaluated critically and is necessarily disregarded. What else can one do. I still don't know what the word consciousness means to you if you claim that all living things possess it. I can't evaluate that claim for that reason. How can I possibly agree or disagree?

YOU can't define consciousness. I have defined it many many times. What is the meaning of E = M * C ^ 2 if the speed of light is assumed to be infinite? You can not dismiss theory because you refuse to acknowledge its terms. Your paradigm is founded in shifting sand and semantics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More words!@!!! All believers have is just words and no argument at all.

You just ignore the fact that I clearly stated all theory is based on experiment and Darwin performed no experiment. There is no theory.

Now I'll read the rest of the post and confirm you ignored my every point and responded to words. Semantics are no argument.

You were given evidence but you only ran away from it. I am still willing to discuss the evidence with you providing that you first learn what is and what is not evidence and the scientific method. You do not understand either of these as you constantly demonstrate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are far too many of these experiments to list.

I didn't ask for a comprehensive list.

So you choose to provide no supporting evidence for your claim that all science is experimental, which I consider falsified by the examples of observational sciences I provided? That hasn't changed, obviously won't given your odd response, which seems a lot like deflection. I was looking for rebuttal, but I got the above. I'm content to consider the issue resolved and to move on.

YOU can't define consciousness.

Sure I can. I can define any word I use. Why did you think otherwise? Do you think you asked me for my definition?

What I said is that I don't know what YOU mean by the word. I've told you that before along with a few other words, like science. I can't only guess what you mean when you say that it depends on experiment. It's not what I mean by science.

You can not dismiss theory because you refuse to acknowledge its terms.

You've moved the goalpost. I've not refused to acknowledge anything. What I said was that I must perforce disregard any poorly formed or vague claim the way I'd have to ignore one in a foreign language unfamiliar to me if I couldn't get a translation. You, too.

As I indicated, when referring to poorly formed or vague god claims, the name for this attitude is ignosticism. Just as the word agnosticism can be used to describe ones attitude about any claim ("I don't know"), this word can be expanded to describe one's attitude about any poorly formed or vague idea whether about gods or otherwise.

 

[cladking]

I'm content to consider the issue resolved and to move on.

So your contention is no science is based on experiment.

i suppose it revealed to adepts.

Sure I can. I can define any word I use. Why did you think otherwise? Do you think you asked me for my definition?

I'm looking for a scientific definition and you offer more words and more semantics.

You've moved the goalpost. I've not refused to acknowledge anything.

I think you're playing in a different stadium. It's one where theory is reality and consensus is theory.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So your contention is no science is based on experiment.

No. My contention is that some sciences aren't experimental.

I'm looking for a scientific definition.

You didn't ask for a definition. Your words were, "YOU can't define consciousness." I disagreed without providing a definition. My definition of consciousness isn't relevant to this discussion. I mentioned that I didn't know what YOURS was other than it could not be mine, since whatever consciousness is to you is in organisms I call unconscious, like plants, fungi, protozoans, bacteria, and simple animals like sponges, sea stars, and jellyfish.

 

[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]

You didn't ask for a definition. Your words were, "YOU can't define consciousness."

More semantics. Every word that exists has a definition. Everything and every abstraction that is known to exist has many words for it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In your thinking defining something is the same as understanding it.

No. But if you can't even define something, you sure as hell won't be able to understand it either.

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.

Speak for yourself.

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.

Your insistence on appeals to ignorance are noted. And subsequently handwaved away as the fallacious garbage that it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow!!@!

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

You're the one making claims here about consciousness, while simultanously saying you don't know anything about it.
I'm just pointing out the self-refuting nature of such silly statements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

There's nothing magical about simple natural processes.

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

Your appeals to awe / complexity (aka: ignorance) are noted. And subsequently handwaved away as the fallacious garbage that it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

If you don't assume that it is possible to understand X, you have no incentive to study X and try to understand it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

This is the equivalent of saying that you don't believe in gravity but agree there is a force that makes objects with mass attract other objects with mass.

it's beyond retarded.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

More words!@!!! All believers have is just words and no argument at all.

The projection is hilarious.

 

[cladking]

No. My contention is that some sciences aren't experimental.

Ouija bord science is not experimental.

Real science is based in experiment. It's frightening that so many people now days accept such things as "science" and revealed truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't want to understand that this demonstrates that it was a concocted experiment showing these objects have a reaction with elements introduced by people. It didn't happen without human intervention and set-up. It certainly does not demonstrate that life started naturally from non life. Argue away... your conclusions are meaningless. But if you want to say this means life came naturally from non life obviously you will. Have a good one. Your argument does not make sense.

This has already been addressed (f course), and no, it doesn't demonstrate that.
You don't understand chemistry.
You don't understand scientific experimentation.
You don't understand evolution.
Your conclusions may be meaningless, as they don't rest upon the evidence, as those in science do.