Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

You're agreeing with me here, so why the word "No" there?

Because prediction must be both consistent and extrapolatable. It must fit with known science to be "understood". The causation must be understood.

I don't have any problem expressing myself there, but we probably have different definitions of truth.

Yes, I'm sure. There is truth and most of us can see some but anyone can deconstruct our words in such a way that they are false.

I'm not sure what you mean, but much is comprehensible by examining it at the smallest scales. This is how we understand molecular disease like sickle cell anemia. It's how we understand infectious disease and how antibiotics work.

"Reduction" is understanding something by coming to understand al of its component parts. Many things like anaemia can be understood in this way. Obviously we lack total understanding. But we can not reduce something we can't even define such as "consciousness". We can't reduce many many things at this time. In the future much more will be possible but it might be centuries before we even have a good outline of reality, consciousness, or even the nature of gravity. How would you study synchronicity or the effects of chaos on the microscopic world? How do come to predict the weather in twenty years? No computer will ever be powerful enough to use our models for such a task.

Most of reality including everything important to individuals is simply irreducible with known science.

 

[cladking]

If that's what you think evolution is then you should do a bit of study on it before attempting to discuss it.

How many times have I said Darwin is wrong??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Darwin's beliefs are based on 19th century assumptions and many of those beliefs persist. Human knowledge and progress is NOT linear. Science can be wrong for centuries before it is caught. There is no evidence for gradual change in species etc etc etc.

 

[cladking]

It wasn't Darwinian evolutionary thinking bruh. It was a big phat navy. That allowed one little island, to become a global superpower for centuries.

Britain had to rule the waves to bring their civilization to the entire world that was less evolved. They needed to exploit the lands and less evolved people for their own benefit. Today workers can earn hundreds of thousands per year doing very little work in the right countries but in the wrong countries the pay might be a more modest 8c per hour. And these countries might have a cost of eating of 80 or 90 cents per day.

Bosses who don't understand why workers make 100,000 a year often don't even know how their own company works and make 10 million a year to invent ways to ruin products and wreck the company and steal the pension funds. Does this sound like a system that values human life or considers all individuals equally fit? What justification can there be and what beliefs underlie the culture?

It's a dog eat dog world where the weak are killed and the strong promoted. We talk about equality but it's obviously just talk because the most fit take it all and provide bread and circuses to the masses (in the right country).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If that's what you think evolution is then you should do a bit of study on it before attempting to discuss it. Just the basics would help you immensely.

I agree with you. Many of the claims I have seen lodged against Darwin and even the theory as we now understand it are perplexing, but consistent in their obvious lack of understanding of what Darwin did and how he did it and where the theory is at now.

His assumptions were sound and no one has demonstrated otherwise. Natural selection has been demonstrated by experiment. Change in populations has been demonstrated by experiment. The theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in all of science and has stood the test of time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If that's what you think evolution is then you should do a bit of study on it before attempting to discuss it. Just the basics would help you immensely.

Given that there is literally volumes of evidence supporting the theory and the phenomenon of evolution--many important examples have been posted on this and other threads more than once--I can only conclude that denial of that evidence, observation and experiment is willful based on personal belief, ignorance or some other, much deeper condition. Perhaps some combination of those conditions is what we see manifested.

 

[John53]

Given that there is literally volumes of evidence supporting the theory and the phenomenon of evolution--many important examples have been posted on this and other threads more than once--I can only conclude that denial of that evidence, observation and experiment is willful based on personal belief, ignorance or some other, much deeper condition. Perhaps some combination of those conditions is what we see manifested.

I have no problem with people disagreeing or finding fault with ToE, in fact it's a good thing in my opinion. But when it's obvious they have no understanding of the theory by posting stuff like evolution is why the British Empire succeeded then a sensible conversation is impossible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no problem with people disagreeing or finding fault with ToE, in fact it's a good thing in my opinion.

I agree. Unlike some, I learn from new information that is presented and don't come up with the stories of a vivid imagination or semantics to avoid that learning.

But when it's obvious they have no understand of the theory by posting stuff like evolution is why the British Empire succeeded then a sensible conversation is impossible.

I'm no longer sure there is anything to discuss with those that hold such positions and make such extraordinary and outlandish claims.

 

[gnostic]

Correct. But is is a basic tenet of that era (and this) that humans are continually and continuously improving and becoming increasingly intelligent. It is also fundamental to his thinking that the fit which survive are breeding increasingly fit new species given a very long time. Obviously a four legged whale is not superior to one that swims in the sea but still the latter is a culmination of what came before as naturally selected for fitness. This is the same thinking that kept Britain ruling the waves and subjugating people all over the world despite the consequences to the people.

As I have previously explained to you before, Evolution, such as ”fitness“ is about biologically populations being adapted to the changed environments, where physical traits are inheritable through their genes…so DNA would pass the traits to the following generations. Hence “fitness” is about the ability “to reproduce”, as reproduction is the only way that DNA will pass on traits to

Your last sentence have nothing to do with biological evolution mechanism (eg Natural Selection), as I have already told you before, Evolution is biology, not about human politics and their ability to make policies to pursue wars. Evolution have nothing to do with killing, such as murders, genocide, wars, expanding territories through conquest or invasion, etc. Humans killing humans have no impact on changing species, as there no physical traits that would make the Brits or Germans more evolved than their enemies they have conquered or killed.

Once again, you have deviated Evolution to something else, something that have nothing to do with Evolutionary Biology. You are actually focusing on philosophy of sociology that Herbert Spencer who coined the word “survival of the fittest“ for Social Darwinism that he invented, not Darwin. Yes, Spencer was one who applied “survival of the fittest“ to Natural Selection, that was first mentioned in Spencer’s book Principles of Biology, but it was also applied to his Social Darwinism which have to do with human cultures, especially in sociology and politics.

Darwin wasn’t a sociologist or politician or military general. You are making Darwin into something that he is not (sociologist, politician, general), he wasn’t trying to create social or cultural changes, he wasn’t to change government policies or legislating new laws and he wasn’t directing strategy and tactics of armies or navies.

He was a naturalist in biology field and geology field, and he was working at universities and geological society, not at parliament or in war room. His friends and associates were biologists and geologists, not ones with political status (eg parliamentarians or noble) or not those with military ranks.

Once again, it is just another one of your absurd conspiracies.

 

[gnostic]

I have no problem with people disagreeing or finding fault with ToE, in fact it's a good thing in my opinion. But when it's obvious they have no understand of the theory by posting stuff like evolution is why the British Empire succeeded then a sensible conversation is impossible.

I'm no longer sure there is anything to discuss with those that hold such positions and make such extraordinary and outlandish claims.

Wars and empires have existed long before Britain and Nazi Germany, centuries and millennia. Darwin didn’t invent politics or warfare, @cladking have always something to blame Darwin.

But Darwin isn’t the only one he blame. Cladking also have exhibited anti-Egyptologist sentiments. Biology and astronomy (or cosmology of universe), he would blame these on Egyptology. He doesn’t care if they are unrelated.

Cladking is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[gnostic]

If that's what you think evolution is then you should do a bit of study on it before attempting to discuss it. Just the basics would help you immensely.

try that. He refused to understand, and he refused to ask for help, because he knows everything…and he refused to be corrected.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Correct. But is is a basic tenet of that era

The idea of progress is older than Darwin, and it's not part of his theory as you suggested.

It is also fundamental to his thinking that the fit which survive are breeding increasingly fit new species given a very long time.

That is also not part of his theory, but that does describe what became of the tree of life over geological time. Still, it's not necessary that the population filling any niche ever change to survive if the environment remains stable and no genetic variation generates a form that can outcompete it (replace it). Darwin's thinking was that populations vary genetically over geological time as they are subject to natural selection. Progress is not a part of that. *You're* injecting that concept into the theory.

I've listed many times what Darwin's errors were and even when i provide links it is simply ignored. Remember he believ4ed 8in stable populations and that we don't need to understand consciousness.

Darwin did not believe that populations were stable. He believed they evolved. Once again, that's your idea, not Darwin's. Regarding Darwin believing that we don't need to understand consciousness, [1] I'm unaware of any opinion of his in that area [2] nor that that's an error. Error means demonstrably wrong and often results in undesirable consequences, although one can be in error with their being no adverse outcome, as when he believes that it's the sun moving when he observes a sunrise or even that the earth is flat until he does something that distinguishes between a flat and a spherical earth, like try to go east by heading west and either succeeding or falling off of the earth.

We always and can only end up at our assumptios exactly like Darwin did. It is simply impossible not to reason in circles for our species unless experiment can derail our one dimensional train of thought.

That doesn't describe my experience. I don't reason in circles. My reasoning has been productive.

Most of reality including everything important to individuals is simply irreducible with known science.

Once again, that doesn't describe my experience. If science is the accumulation of ideas that accurately anticipate assorted aspects of nature through experience, which is also called empiricism, then that is exactly how we all accumulate useful ideas about reality (trial and error). If you mean laboratory and observatory science, which we can call formal science to distinguish it from the garden variety empiricism of daily life, or informal science, then yes, very little of my useful knowledge comes from formal science.

 

[cladking]

Your last sentence have nothing to do with biological evolution mechanism

I DIDN'T SAY IT DID!!!

I don't believe killing less fit people for sport or profit is in any way related to evolution. Remember I am the one who doesn't believe that less fit individuals dying causes speciation. That is Darwin. Darwin believed that less fit individuals dying led to speciation and more fit individuals. I believe all individuals are equally fit.

I am saying it is a belief that results in people being killed like this. i am the one saying "homo omnisciencis" BELIEVES he knows everything but doesn't really. Darwin BELIEVED he knew what causes change in species because he believed his many assumptions that led him to it. Homo circularis rationatio.

Our species act solely on belief after adopting any beliefs we want. Adolf Hitler wanted to believe that he could create a perfect society through murdering the weak and those otherwise less fit. We operate on beliefs and nothing else. Freud had a dalliance with his sister in law and the id was born as an intellectualization, an excuse, for what he believed was bad behavior.

The world is suffering still because of 19th century foolishness and our perverse nature to believe we know everything and to reason in circles. It is what we do and it is an artefact not of consciousness or science but rather of language. The Bible gets many things right not because it is religion, or God's word but because the Bible is (at least in part) an artefact of ancient science, which while primitive, was a product of the logic of nature which applied to humanity and consciousness itself.

You want all this all in simple words a child can understand and then you won't even read what I write and still believe I mean "magic" by "metaphysics". I can't spoon feed you. I can lead you to water or point out what you don't want to see but I can't see for you and I can't read my words for you. It is YOUR job to parse my words as I INTEND.

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe killing less fit people for sport or profit is in any way related to evolution. Remember I am the one who doesn't believe that less fit individuals dying causes speciation. That is Darwin. Darwin believed that less fit individuals dying led to speciation and more fit individuals. I believe all individuals are equally fit.

Fitness isn’t about individuals dying, it is about the ability to reproduce and passed on traits necessary to continue to reproduce in future generations.

individuals don’t evolve, populations do. And speciation don’t occur on individual level.

on both counts, you are wrong.

Evolution is focused on population, not individuals. And time referred to generations, not within a single lifetime.

Even with bacteria, they don’t immediately evolve. As each individual bacteria has short lifespan, they have the tendency to reproduce in shorter period of time than more complex multicellular organisms. So within a single day, there can be already 50 to 70 generations. Within a week, there would be hundreds of generations. Within a month, tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations.

the evolution, particularly with regards to speciation, don’t instantly occur among humans. A single human don’t evolve…the type of evolution you are talking about is science fiction or comic book evolution, it is pseudoscience.

 

[gnostic]

You want all this all in simple words a child can understand and then you won't even read what I write and still believe I mean "magic" by "metaphysics". I can't spoon feed you. I can lead you to water or point out what you don't want to see but I can't see for you and I can't read my words for you. It is YOUR job to parse my words as I INTEND.

I am not calling metaphysics “magic”. Again with the strawman.

I have always argued that metaphysics Is PHILOSOPHY, not science.

i have also pointed out that metaphysics is overrated. Using metaphysics alone, isn't science. As there are no experiments and evidence involved with metaphysics, hence not science.

Metaphysics alone, is just rationalising, without the needs to pass the requirements of FALSIFIABILITY and SCIENTIFIC METHOD, metaphysics don’t require any model to be testable and tested.

Evidence and experiments required the phenomena to be physical and observable (as well as testable). Science do use logic, especially mathematics to help aid in explaining the model, but it doesn’t rely on logic or reasoning alone. Logic and reasoning are not true, until the models have been tested, through observations (eg experiments, evidence, data).

The problems with metaphysics is that solutions have the tendency to be abstract, hence no experiments are required to test any model.

Methodology Naturalism, on the other hand, required every models in a hypothesis or existing scientific theory, to be falsifiable and tested in the testing stage of scientific method. No hypothesis or existing theory should be exempted from testing.

I did not say metaphysics means “magic”. All I have been saying to you, for years now (since you started the Ancient Reality thread) that metaphysics is philosophy, not science.

Methodological Naturalism, as are Empiricism and Logical Positivism, are all philosphies just as Metaphysics is. However, it is Methodological Naturalism that propose testing every models than relying on abstract reasoning of Metaphysics.

That’s what you don’t understand about Metaphysics is, using reasoning alone, without substantiating it with evidence & experiments.

 

[gnostic]

A question or few, @cladking

If someone, an individual exhibits physical traits that he or she didn’t inherit from either side of his or her parents, AND none of his or her traits pass on to his or her children and descendants.

Would you call this “Evolution”?

Does it mean that individual person “evolved” or a representative of “new species”?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wars and empires have existed long before Britain and Nazi Germany, centuries and millennia. Darwin didn’t invent politics or warfare, @cladking have always something to blame Darwin.

But Darwin isn’t the only one he blame. Cladking also have exhibited anti-Egyptologist sentiments. Biology and astronomy (or cosmology of universe), he would blame these on Egyptology. He doesn’t care if they are unrelated.

Cladking is a conspiracy theorist.

I continue to see evidence of the limited education and understanding of science reflected in the claims and statements of those holding creationist views or other, even more radical views. One wonders why they believe they have a voice in these discussions when they know so little of the subject matter.

 

[John53]

I continue to see evidence of the limited education and understanding of science reflected in the claims and statements of those holding creationist views or other, even more radical views. One wonders why they believe they have a voice in these discussions when they know so little of the subject matter.

Fell into the post lag trap I see

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fitness isn’t about individuals dying, it is about the ability to reproduce and passed on traits necessary to continue to reproduce in future generations.

individuals don’t evolve, populations do. And speciation don’t occur on individual level.

Why, I wonder, is this so difficult for some to understand? We've only known about it for 150 years.

on both counts, you are wrong.

Evolution is focused on population, not individuals. And time referred to generations, not within a single lifetime.

It seems that no matter how many times these facts are stated, the knowledge does not seem to seep into minds in denial or under the influence of the illusion that they know everything.

Even with bacteria, they don’t immediately evolve. As each individual bacteria has short lifespan, they have the tendency to reproduce in shorter period of time than more complex multicellular organisms. So within a single day, there can be already 50 to 70 generations. Within a week, there would be hundreds of generations. Within a month, tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations.

the evolution, particularly with regards to speciation, don’t instantly occur among humans. A single human don’t evolve…the type of evolution you are talking about is science fiction or comic book evolution, it is pseudoscience.

I don't even understand where someone comes up with the idea that speciation occurs instantly in a single individual in their lifetime. There are no experiments or evidence that would lead anyone to that conclusion if they are aware of the body of work evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fell into the post lag trap I see

It seems so, but having proper information posted twice may be a good thing. Though I deleted one of the duplicates anyway.

 

[cladking]

Fitness isn’t about individuals dying, it is about the ability to reproduce and passed on traits necessary to continue to reproduce in future generations.

Maybe you don't understand what you believe. First you tell me that fitness is defined as anything that results in more offspring then you suggest that being dead isn't going to prevent offspring.

What do you believe. Is natural selection only for the dead now?