Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Why do you think the Bible is wrong by your definition?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I know who I would nominate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Stop saying it and demonstrate it.

This is what I mean when I recognize that you are doing what you claim "Peers" do. This fits your description of "Peers". Don't look at the evidence, believe what you say even if it makes no sense and defies the evidence. Believe that all observed change is sudden. Peers know more than people that study these things. You are telling us you know everything and more than those that actually study these subjects. By ignoring evidence to the contrary, you are manifesting your straw man into reality and assuming that role for your own.

 

[cladking]

OH. I bet you're talking about those wiki links and referrals to children's text books!

I DON'T CARE ABOUT OPINIONS OR WIKI.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

The moths didn't change suddenly. Selection caused the population to shift to a dark form that existed as a minor subset of the pre-industrial population. That subset became dominant. It wasn't a magical change from white to black. This illustrates perfectly how little you understand the subject.

You claim to know everything, but reveal that you know hardly anything. That is a "Peer" position according to your own flawed definition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OH. I bet you're talking about those wiki links and referrals to children's text books!

I DON'T CARE ABOUT OPINIONS OR WIKI.

Why are you shouting? Are you mad?

What children's textbooks? I know for a fact that people have posted links and citations from genuine science articles and you continue on as if nothing were offered to you. The contradiction in your claims and reality is so stark that bats can see it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OH. I bet you're talking about those wiki links and referrals to children's text books!

I DON'T CARE ABOUT OPINIONS OR WIKI.

According to your description of "Peers", this is how I would expect them to react to anyone rejecting their revealed truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Claims made to date with no evidence or reason for consideration.

All observed change in living things at all levels is sudden.

There was a language 40,000 years ago that had no words.

Bottlenecks create diversity.

There was science 40,000 years ago.

Egyptology is not a science.

Consciousness is life.

All living things have consciousness.

Peers in science are a mysterious, authoritarian cabal that is part of a global conspiracy of science to decide what is truth and to dispense the fictitious conclusions of those decisions.

Speciation is caused by changes in behavior or result from changes in behavior or they change because of some new behavior.

Taxonomy is not real.

I could go on, but why bother. None of these were explained, supported or argued. They are just claimed and repeated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

You have nothing. You have nothing on steroids.

Nope, you did not. You forgot all of the times that your claims were refuted with specific examples.

Now are you willing to learn what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence? You cannot demand something that you cannot understand. Others recognize when a demand is not genuine.

 

[cladking]

I know who I would nominate.

The world would be a much better place if stupid and religious people just shuffled away.

 

[cladking]

Egyptology is not a science.

Egyptology isn't even linguistics. They never noticed the religion they are trying to understand breaks Zipf's Law, has almost no words and most are nouns, has no taxonomies, no abstractions, no word to denote thought or belief, and has a literal meaning!! They'd have to progress for centuries at this pace to become art.

Imagine studying a language for a century and a half and never noticing it has a literal meaning!!! I consider myself thick as a brick but Egyptologists are thicker than any pyramid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Egyptology isn't even linguistics. They never noticed the religion they are trying to understand breaks Zipf's Law, has almost no words and most are nouns, has no taxonomies, no abstractions, no word to denote thought or belief, and has a literal meaning!! They'd have to progress for centuries at this pace to become art.

Imagine studying a language for a century and a half and never noticing it has a literal meaning!!! I consider myself thick as a brick but Egyptologists are thicker than any pyramid.

I can't take the word of a "Peer" on that. I'll have to find the evidence, since none is offered and decide for myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, you did not. You forgot all of the times that your claims were refuted with specific examples.

Now are you willing to learn what the scientific method is and what is and what is not evidence? You cannot demand something that you cannot understand. Others recognize when a demand is not genuine.

That claim about sudden change has been easily refuted with evidence numerous times. It's just too easy.

 

[gnostic]

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.

It really depends on the matter of perspective, and whether you viewing the sky from the surface on the ground, or when you are onboard spacecraft or viewing it on the space station.

It only appeared blue, because of how the sunlight bend, refract, reflect, absorb the gases in Earth's atmospheres.

It is not blue at night time, isn't it, when the Earth isn't facing towards the Sun?

And what about outside the Earth's atmosphere. Is sky "blue" when you look into space?

Sure, the ancient people can say the sky is blue. The Bible can say the sky is blue, and they are not wrong, however they don't have any understanding what cause this color. Nor do they ever understood atmosphere itself.

Heck even modern people say the sky is blue when they are standing outside in the sunny cloudless day, and they won't be wrong...

BUT the blueness come from the EM waves (light) interacting with these atmospheric gases. The sky is no longer blue when you fly beyond the Earth's atmosphere, and it doesn't blue when you on the other side of the Earth, not facing the sun.

So the sky only appear blue, but out in space, space appeared black, not blue.

 

[gnostic]

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

Again, evidence, please.

You are only expressing your opinion. You need evidence to support your claims, not just adding more claims.

So where are evidence or the data?

If you are not going to provide the evidence & data, then you must cite your source that should have the evidence & data.

The only reason we keep circling around and around, and back again, is because you have no idea what physical evidence is.

Evidence are physical, not words...and in your case, empty words.

Do you think I am only the one asking for evidence?

Every one of us, keep asking for evidence, and all you do, is just make more claims. Claims are not evidence.

And btw, Natural Selection (finally you are using the right word for the mechanism) is not random at all.

And beside that Natural Selection, explained why there can be so many different species in a genus, or in a family. Most biologists study and research current extant species. Here, they test DNA and chromosomes of species, studying the different physical morphology, comparing anatomies, etc.

For example, the majority of biology courses, only study specific fields, such as botany, studies involving one of these - insects, reptiles, marine animals, and so on. Most who study human biology, either go one way, eg human genome project, while students go into medicine.

The majority of biologists don't study fossils of extinct organisms, as paleontology is a very specialized field that also require understanding of geology and minerals. Most universities don't offer paleontology as a course, or the majority of biology courses don't even offer paleontology as a minor, because most campuses are not equipped to teach such subject.

 

[gnostic]

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

A zombie Darwin?

That would be ghastly.

Darwin: "I am going to EAT your brain. grrrr..."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A zombie Darwin?

That would be ghastly.

Darwin: "I am going to EAT your brain. grrrr..."

From what I gather, the people that win his awards already have significantly less brain to start with.

 

[cladking]

I can't take the word of a "Peer" on that. I'll have to find the evidence, since none is offered and decide for myself.

I've linked to the numbers before. I've shown how few words are in the language. You can read it yourself and see there are no abstractions etc.

 

[cladking]

Again, evidence, please.

You refuse to even consider my definition and you have no definition and then you ask me to prove something fits my definition!!!

You see no problem with this?

I'm not even asking you to accept my definition but merely to try it on and see if it fits. Once you do then I can point to evidence and logic to support it.

People have a habit of attributing behavior in other species to "instinct" but in reality animals simply think differently. They act on what they know and we act on what we believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've linked to the numbers before. I've shown how few words are in the language. You can read it yourself and see there are no abstractions etc.

Ah yes, the mysterious "I have linked those numbers before" answer without an attempt to link them now. It would seem so easy to link them again right here. Since I cannot read this "previously linked" material myself, not knowing where it is. But that is the entire point of a response like that isn't it. It just keeps the game alive so that peers can continue defining reality for us.