Darwin's Illusion

[John53]

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?

I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion from @gnostic post unless you're trolling.

 

[John53]

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

Unfortunately the proper information has been posted numerous times to no effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

You do not seem to have understood his post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unfortunately the proper information has been posted numerous times to no effect.

There's that water and the ducks back again.

I suppose if I believed that I knew everything and was holding back the foundations of knowledge from damning conspiracies that aren't there, maybe I could concoct my own version of science based on half remembered concepts and things imagined into existence. But why would I want to when the real thing is so much more interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately the proper information has been posted numerous times to no effect.

It has been shown countless times that creationism is an irrational belief. Irrational beliefs survive by believers ignoring evidence.

If creationists learned the basics of science, if they paid attention to the refutations that they are given. And most important if they can be honest with themselves, then there would not be any more creationists.

 

[cladking]

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

I'm going to have to put you back on "ignore". Goodbye.

 

[cladking]

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

Yes. The concept of progress is derived from language. It is false. It underlies Darwin's circular reasoning and it is false.

Progress is not a part of that. *You're* injecting that concept into the theory.

Correct. But the concept that each species enters a brave new world populated by the offspring of the most fit is part of his beliefs and is false.

Darwin did not believe that populations were stable.

He did. And said so in the forward to a later edition to which I have previously linked multiple times. This assumption drove his circular reasoning and is false.

He didn't believe in the actual cause of change in species even BEFORE he began his work. His premises and assumptions were all wrong.

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

Such is human progress. But this progress for the last several hundred years is created by SCIENCE and science is experiment, its metaphysics. Experiment keeps science from going in circles, not scientists who must die for science to change.

People don't seem to read these posts.

I'm sure you do but surely you know what I'm going to say by now. Address that!!!

Once again, that doesn't describe my experience.

Homo omnisciencis. We by definition and nature fill in all the gaps in our knowledge. We can't see gaps in our knowledge or anything we don't believe. Darwin didn't know this or understand metaphysics.



Darwin made many assumptions and you have unsuccessfully challenged or gainsaid a few of them here.

All Darwin's assumptions have been shown to be wrong by experiment in the last 200 years.

 

[cladking]

I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion from @gnostic post unless you're trolling.

Please read the posts you quoted.

There's a little arrow next to each quote to observe the thread.

 

[John53]

Please read the post you quoted.

I did and the way you interpreted is completely wrong. Like I said I have no idea how it is possible for you to come to the conclusion you did unless you're trolling.

 

[cladking]

I did and the way you interpreted is completely wrong.

Did I also wrongly interpret his use of the word "metaphysics".

I have defined this word at least 300 times in the last year even though I can't believe anyone doesn't take my meaning after all these times. Most have been is response to this very poster. And he still parses it incorrectly!!!!!!!

It's impossible to communicate with someone who chooses his meaning for your words. I do wish to try to untangle the miscommunication involved here.

 

[John53]

Did I also wrongly interpret his use of the word "metaphysics".

I have defined this word at least 300 times in the last year even though I can't believe anyone doesn't take my meaning after all these times. Most have been is response to this very poster. And he still parses it incorrectly!!!!!!!

It's impossible to communicate with someone who chooses his meaning for your words. I do wish to try to untangle the miscommunication involved here.

He gave his interpretation which is the dictionary definition. Trying to insist on your own definition is ridiculous and not how language works.

 

[cladking]

Experiment keeps science from going in circles, not scientists who must die for science to change.

Such is life. Science progresses when ideas change and they can change only by means of funerals.

Experiment shows bits and pieces of reality when properly designed. These bits and pieces stop circular reasoning dead in its tracks but people don't change their beliefs even in light of facts, evidence, logic, or even experiment. Young people whose minds can change take over and carry the ball another 10 yards for a first down.

This is the nature of homo circularis rationatio and while most people worship and pray to Peers their greatest contribution may be just shuffling off the mortal coil. This is really the nature of life in general. We each have our time and when it's up we are replaced by someone younger who is also a product of his time and place. But it's a new time and often a new place more relevant to life and consciousness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. The concept of progress is derived from language. It is false. It underlies Darwin's circular reasoning and it is false.

Normally, I have you on ignore, but this needs correcting. The concept of progress is not part of the theory of evolution as it exists now or when Darwin first formulated it. There is no evidence of circular reasoning found in Darwin's formulation of the theory or as currently exists.

Correct.

Are you saying that you did inject this into the theory for no good reason? That doesn't make any sense to do so.

But the concept that each species enters a brave new world populated by the offspring of the most fit is part of his beliefs and is false.

That is a complete misconception that isn't based on anything published by Darwin or any subsequent scientific publication.

He did.

Sigh!

He did not. That doesn't even make sense. It isn't something you can support.

And said so in the forward to a later edition to which I have previously linked multiple times.

Not that I ever saw even once.

This assumption drove his circular reasoning and is false.

This is a completely unestablished claim. Unestablished, because it simply wrong.

He didn't believe in the actual cause of change in species even BEFORE he began his work.

This doesn't even makes sense. It's just words without meaning or cohesion.

His premises and assumptions were all wrong.

And yet, all this time and you haven't been able to post one of those assumptions except to post one that wasn't an assumption.

Such is human progress. But this progress for the last several hundred years is created by SCIENCE and science is experiment, its metaphysics. Experiment keeps science from going in circles, not scientists who must die for science to change.

Science is not just experiment and it is not metaphysics.

No matter how many times you chant that mantra, it answers nothing and means nothing. Science changes with each new observation as our knowledge grows.

People don't seem to read these posts.

Unfortunately for you, people do read your posts. It isn't missing them that is the problem. It is that they are overstuffed with bad information and bad reasoning.

I'm sure you do but surely you know what I'm going to say by now. Address that!!!

More baseless nonsense I suspect.

Homo omnisciencis.

I was right. Your made up name for Homo sapiens.

We by definition and nature fill in all the gaps in our knowledge.

Not by any definition, but by the actions of rational inquiry.

We can't see gaps in our knowledge or anything we don't believe.

Yes we can. Science was created to find and fill those gaps and provide better understanding.

Darwin didn't know this or understand metaphysics.

It doesn't matter. You claim to and it does nothing for you except send you in meaningless directions on beliefs about the natural world that are not science and not supported by any evidence, observation or experiment.

Darwin made many assumptions and you have unsuccessfully challenged or gainsaid a few of them here.

No one but you challenges and gainsays the assumptions of Darwin and by the evidence of this very long thread, you don't even know what those assumptions are.

All Darwin's assumptions have been shown to be wrong by experiment in the last 200 years.

Not one of them has. Never. Good grief! You've never shown one of his assumptions and never shown one to be wrong.

Back to ignore. You have a great day!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Such is life. Science progresses when ideas change and they can change only by means of funerals.

This doesn't make sense. It is a meaningless claim repeated. Ideas change when their is evidence to change them. No one has to die for that to happen.

Experiment shows bits and pieces of reality when properly designed. These bits and pieces stop circular reasoning dead in its tracks but people don't change their beliefs even in light of facts, evidence, logic, or even experiment. Young people whose minds can change take over and carry the ball another 10 yards for a first down.

Is there to any substance with your unsupported personal pondering and empty asserting?

This is the nature of homo circularis rationatio

Another made up name of a species that doesn't exist outside of your thinking.

and while most people worship and pray to Peers

No one does in science. This is just another pooh-pooh claim for you to assert when your unsupported claims are dismissed, rejected, corrected and shown to be without merit.

their greatest contribution may be just shuffling off the mortal coil.

I would be happy if you picked up a science book and actually learned what science is and does.

This is really the nature of life in general.

I don't agree and know of no reason to think life progresses by people waiting around for others to die.

We each have our time and when it's up we are replaced by someone younger who is also a product of his time and place.

So what. That doesn't add any weight to your empty assertions, redefinition of established terminology, gainsaying, semantic arguments and lack of any experimental evidence.

But it's a new time and often a new place more relevant to life and consciousness.

Despite your oft repeated claim, life is not consciousness. Some living things have consciousness, but not all. Consciousness is not known to be involved in speciation. Speciation is not change in the behavior of an individual that is suddenly a new species. All living things are not equally fit. That doesn't make any sense in light of the evidence. Certainly, it isn't something you have demonstrated and can't given it is incorrect. All change in all living things is not sudden. Another empty claim you cannot support and has been refuted numerous times. Speciation does not occur at bottlenecks and not due to consciousness. Another empty assertion much refuted. Fitness is not might makes right or kill em all or the smart, rich, handsome, strong, fast ones are the only survivors. Fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of a genotype/phenotype. The theory of evolution does not support the idea of population genocide. I could keep enumerating the claims you are wrong about, but surely this is enough. Please read some books on science and stop manufacturing it based on what you believe and what you want it to be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which definition have you chosen?

Unless you are here to acknowledge your many errors, I see nothing profitable in trying to talk with you.

 

[cladking]

I looked for Darwin's own words where he said populations tend to remain steady but found this on a quick search;

• Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).

This is false. Species undergo numerous local and worldwide bottlenecks which is when speciation occurs.

In later editions of the book, Darwin traced evolutionary ideas as far back as Aristotle;[7]

that is, he saw increasing specialisation within large stable populations as continuously

Quammen advised that later editions were weakened by Darwin making concessions and adding details to address his critics, and recommended the first edition.[183]

In this chapter Darwin expresses his erroneous belief that environmental change is necessary to generate variation.[120]

Even though the book did not explicitly spell out Darwin's beliefs about human origins, it had dropped a number of hints about human's animal ancestry[209] and quickly became central to the debate, as mental and moral qualities were seen as spiritual aspects of the immaterial soul, and it was believed that animals did not have spiritual qualities.

Obviously they believed that understanding things like souls and consciousness were irrelevant.

Darwin had all of the prejudices and assumptions of the early 19th century British and then he reasoned in circles as we all do.

All of Darwin's many many assumptions were false and have shown to be false for 200 years. Yet we still maintain the belief in survival of the fittest and gradual change in species wholly independent of souls and consciousness. We believe life is competition where in reality all life/ consciousness cooperates. Progress is not linear. Species change rather than evolve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did I also wrongly interpret his use of the word "metaphysics".

Since you don't provide any definitions and you don't seem to be able to agree with anyone, even when they are clearly correct.

I have defined this word at least 300 times in the last year even though I can't believe anyone doesn't take my meaning after all these times. Most have been is response to this very poster. And he still parses it incorrectly!!!!!!!

I don't know that you have ever defined it. When asked to define terms you usually resort to some semantic dodge about parsing words and everyone believes what they want or drifting off on your unrelated personal opinions about some greater meaning that has nothing to do with anything and doesn't define the terms or just claim you did or you do nothing.

It's impossible to communicate with someone who chooses his meaning for your words.

That is what you have done with many scientific terms. You have some secret meaning for terms that doesn't match the definition as it is used in science.

I do wish to try to untangle the miscommunication involved here.

In my opinion, the miscommunication is from you. And it seems intentional.

 

[John53]

Unless you are here to acknowledge your many errors, I see nothing profitable in trying to talk with you.

Seems the post you responded to has been deleted.

 

[John53]

Since you don't provide any definitions and you don't seem to be able to agree with anyone, even when they are clearly correct.

I don't know that you have ever defined it. When asked to define terms you usually resort to some semantic dodge about parsing words and everyone believes what they want or drifting off on your unrelated personal opinions about some greater meaning that has nothing to do with anything and doesn't define the terms or just claim you did or you do nothing.

That is what you have done with many scientific terms. You have some secret meaning for terms that doesn't match the definition as it is used in science.

In my opinion, the miscommunication is from you. And it seems intentional.

I can't for the life of me work out what the point is of changing the definition of words and then complain you're misunderstood!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I looked for Darwin's own words where he said populations tend to remain steady but found this on a quick search;

• Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).

You need to provide the source so that we can know what this quote really is.

This is false. Species undergo numerous local and worldwide bottlenecks which is when speciation occurs.

False. Species do not undergo numerous local and worldwide bottlenecks (whatever that is supposed to be). Bottlenecks are not when speciation occurs. You claim this constantly. You have been corrected at least as often. You have never once been able to refute the corrections and support your claim.

Obviously they believed that understanding things like souls

Why would this belief be needed for a scientific theory? It is something that is obviously unnecessary.

and consciousness were irrelevant.

Consciousness is irrelevant to the theory. It is a theory of evolution and not a theory of consciousness. You mention it constantly without being able to establish the necessity. There is none.

Darwin had all of the prejudices and assumptions of the early 19th century British

So what.

and then he reasoned in circles as we all do.

No he didn't. Just continually claiming it doesn't make it so. It isn't an incantation to change reality.

All of Darwin's many many assumptions were false and have shown to be false for 200 years.

No they have not. If that were true, you could list them and show how they were wrong. To date, you haven't done this. The closest you came was the erroneous claim about populations being stable. Darwin did not assume that. There is no sensible reason for that assumption in the theory.

Yet we still maintain the belief in survival of the fittest

Natural selection--Darwin's original term--is poorly described by survival of the fittest. You can't seem to get over that and obsess on it.

and gradual change in species wholly independent of souls and consciousness.

Not at all. If this were an established fact, you could demonstrate it and cite research and experiments. You have never done that for the reason that there is nothing to support the claim.

We believe life is competition where in reality all life/ consciousness cooperates.

More unsupported opinions with not one shred of evidence or experiment to sustain it beyond your imagination.

Living things compete, they cooperate, the infect, they prey...it various with the context of the relationship.

Progress is not linear. Species change rather than evolve.

Change in species is evolution. More of your magical semantics and secret redefining of terms. Good grief. It's as if you have no idea what you are doing.

Change in the environment does drive evolution. That is natural selection. How do you make so many elementary errors and at the same time, speak as if you are the greatest expert on the subjects of Darwin and theory of evolution?

You make and repeat a lot of empty assertions. Followed by empty assertions that you supported the previous empty assertions. Then semantic arguments, followed by appeals to irrelevant moralistic drivel and then a repeat of the original empty assertions. This has been your pattern for the entire thread.