Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

But everyone refuses to tell me what test exactly proves a gradual change. Or shows natural selection/ survival of the fittest.

No one has refused this. When it has been done, you just ignore it and claim that it was never offered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No...

I am suggesting that people need to look at ALL the evidence afresh and with a new perspective. I'm suggesting that if you entertain the possibility that my definitions and axioms are correct that experiment and observation make more sense. I'm suggesting this is because Darwin was under several delusions. Of course he was 19th century so he had a great excuse for being so wrong.

Your message as I see it, is to reject all that we know and accept any wild tale that comes along. In this case, your wild tales. All that we know does not mean we know all or claim to. Another straw man.

Largely, the evidence of your posts reveal arguments buoyed up by unsupported claims and logical fallacies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you don't. This is not "Intelligent design". My theory doesn't exclude the possibility of a Creator but such a thing is not in any way necessary. It is entirely within the realm of reason that consciousness arose naturally in tandem with life. Just as the first life was hardly life at all it was also hardly conscious at all. what you call "Evolution" caused life and consciousness to arise together.

You see, unlike you I don't know that there is or is not a Creator. I'm perfectly happy to not be able to know. But I wager our understanding of God arose from ancient science and not from hucksters trying to fleece the gullible. i believe that ancient science didn't employ a God or Gods either but that homo omnisciencis misinterpreted the ancient writing and invented "God" thereby. We MUST believe in something and without science the survivors of the tower of babel just emulated their ancestors who were powerful and wise.

If all change in living things at all levels is sudden, then it should be easy for you to provide the references that support this claim. If every observation shows this suddenness, it should be a triviality to provide the evidence. That you never have is telling.

If homo omnisciencis is valid, then it should be a piece of cake for you to reference the papers and provide the evidence supporting the use of the term.

If bottlenecks are not near-extinction events that reduce variation in a population, it should be easy for you to show us that.

That you never have is a big problem for you.

 

[syo]

I'm with Darwin here.

 

[gnostic]

First I actually believe that for most practical purposes that life and consciousness are the exact same thing.

Second I believe that it is almost axiomatic. In order to study consciousness it will be necessary to define it as the means by which all individuals prosper. Deviation between the terms will simply need to be noted until a simpler paradigm arises to embrace all the new learning. I believe even cosmology is stuck because of the inability to understand consciousness. This would be a baby step to the "final" solution of the unified field theory.

All life would include, not just humans, not just animals (eg mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects and invertebrates). All life would also include plants and fungi, and the microorganisms from the Bacteria domain and Archaea domain.

The points being if you think that all life have consciousness, then must be able to present EVIDENCE that support each and every one of these organisms have consciousness.

There are biologists that specialized plants or specialized in mammals of different families, genera or species), reptiles, birds or marine life, and some even who specialized in bacteria.

I have no problems whatsoever that all life don’t have consciousness, only some of these, mostly vertebrate animals, but less so among the invertebrate animals, because only these have brains.

Not all invertebrates have brains or central nervous system, and I have mentioned a few already, eg sponges, coral, jellyfish, starfish, I am quite sure there are lot more that I don’t know about.

But plants, fungi, and bacterial microorganisms have no brains, therefore no consciousness. BUT IF YOU REALLY THINK THEY DO HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, by all mean, present EVIDENCE or peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC SOURCES that can verify your claims?

I can wait, but I definitely won’t be holding my breath for you to do so, because you have never presented any, pages ago.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

You still haven’t grasp that if you’re going to make grand-sweeping generalized claims that contrary to current tested scientific knowledges, then as a claimant of alternative concepts, you are the one needs to support your claims.

You can do it one of two ways:

1. If you are scientist yourself, then you should provide the relevant EVIDENCE & DATA to support your claims.
2. If you are not a scientist, then you can cite one peer-reviewed and source or more, who would have these EVIDENCE & DATA.

They are the only ways we can verify your claims.

If you are serious at all about offering alternative concepts, then you need to give us something that can verify your claims.

But not once have you done this, not in this thread and not at other threads.

All you have done is made additional claims that all evidence support your theory.

Making claim don’t equal to having evidence, cladking.

 

[cladking]

No. That is not true. You have been given examples countless times and you only deny them. That is why you lost the right to demand evidence.

And you have said this from the very first time.

Instead of evidence I get peppered with moths that change suddenly as evidence of gradual change. Instead of survival of the fittest I get e coli experiments that aren't relevant to the point and aren't properly controlled in almost all probability.

I get pictures of whale flippers that are believed to have gradually Evolved.

I get referred to wiki and to the fossil record.

I get lots and lots of gainsaying and even more semantics but what I don't get is any experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by any sort of survival of the fittest.

And endless steam of words and handwaving and accusations I'm engaging in your tactics.

Where is your rebuttal to any of any arguments and where can I find your argument?

 

[cladking]

The Tower of Babel is evidence that you are mixing science and religion in much the same way that more well-known versions of intelligent design have tried to do.

How do you figure that? No, don't answer; if the Bible says the sky is blue then you know it isn't. No matter that other ancient sources not related to the Bible say the same thing because the Bible is wrong by definition.

 

[Viker]

Sometimes, I wish Darwin was alive and handing out awards.

 

[cladking]

If you are scientist yourself, then you should provide the relevant EVIDENCE & DATA to support your claims.

All observed change is sudden. All observed non-random "natural selection" involves consciousness at least indirectly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you have said this from the very first time.

Instead of evidence I get peppered with moths that change suddenly as evidence of gradual change. Instead of survival of the fittest I get e coli experiments that aren't relevant to the point and aren't properly controlled in almost all probability.

I get pictures of whale flippers that are believed to have gradually Evolved.

I get referred to wiki and to the fossil record.

I get lots and lots of gainsaying and even more semantics but what I don't get is any experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by any sort of survival of the fittest.

And endless steam of words and handwaving and accusations I'm engaging in your tactics.

Where is your rebuttal to any of any arguments and where can I find your argument?

Incorrect. There are specific examples that I have given to you. There are specific examples that others have given to you.

If you want evidence to be given to you you first must be willing to learn the scientific method and the concept of evidence.

Are you willing to learn? If not then your demands for evidence need not be answered.

 

[cladking]

YES!!! That is exactly what you are doing. You prescribe us to reject all that we know and embrace all that you claim without benefit of any evidence or reason to accept your claims. Those prescribed parameters fit the description of "Peer" that you have been pedaling.

No.

I am suggesting you think for yourself and take a fresh look at the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

I am suggesting you think for yourself and take a fresh look at the evidence.

But you do not even understand the concept.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

I am suggesting you think for yourself and take a fresh look at the evidence.

Something new. Interesting.

I do that all the time. You should try it. At least make that first look at it.

 

[cladking]

Incorrect. There are specific examples that I have given to you. There are specific examples that others have given to you.

I JUST LISTED EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT ARGUMENT ANYONE HAS PROVIDED AND YOU ARE GAINSAYING MY LIST.

You have nothing. You have nothing on steroids.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

I am suggesting you think for yourself and take a fresh look at the evidence.

It does seem like you advise us all not to look behind the curtain and just accept what you claim as fact.

 

[cladking]

No one has refused this. When it has been done, you just ignore it and claim that it was never offered.

I DARE YOU TO DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I DARE YOU TO DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DARE YOU TO DO IT FOR ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I DARE YOU TO DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A poster asks you for sources that you use to draw your conclusions. You post an irrelevant quote that has nothing to do with his request. I constantly ask you for evidence to support your claims. You ignore those requests or say you provided it. You never have.

I and others explain why your use of scientific terms is erroneous and manifests semantic arguments. You claim you never said those things. Then in later posts you repeat those claims you say you never say.

Is this all just a game? Are you in character? Is it a joke? Is it something more than that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I JUST LISTED EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT ARGUMENT ANYONE HAS PROVIDED AND YOU ARE GAINSAYING MY LIST.

You have nothing. You have nothing on steroids.

There is that handwaving again.

You have nothing. That you do not bother to defend your position and instead try to shift the burden of proof to others says you have nothing. Your nothing doesn't require steroids. It is nothing without need of any enhancement.