Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

First, are you aware that the works of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany?

If this is true I'd wager it's because he didn't want to admit Arians were descended from monkeys. Everybody picks and chooses his beliefs. It's not always one from column A and one from column B. Many people can use doublethink and pick two from one column and one from another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to present evidence because all observation and experiment support the contention. It is your duty to yourself et al to show evidence, observation, or experiment to the contrary.

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. It is your turn now.

 

[cladking]

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. It is your turn now.

So you agree with the observation!!?!

Good! That's a start.

Now all we need is some kind of evidence that change in species is gradual. Whatcha got?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you agree with the observation!!?!

Good! That's a start.

Now all we need is some kind of evidence that change in species is gradual. Whatcha got?

No. Your claims have been refuted countless times. You have as yet to provide any evidence for them.

And remember, until you agree to learn what is and what is not evidence your demands for evidence do not have to be respected.

Are you ready to discuss the concept of evidence yet?

 

[gnostic]

I don't need to present evidence because all observation and experiment support the contention. It is your duty to yourself et al to show evidence, observation, or experiment to the contrary.

You got it wrong.

If you are claimant to alternative model (eg theory, or hypothesis) to the current knowledge of science, eg Evolution, then as claimant you would need to present your evidence & data, to show that your model actually work. And then you would have to present these same evidence & data with your alternative model before independent scientists so they can analyze and even test if your model work.

But you refuse at every turns, which make everyone think you don’t have observations, evidence or experiments to begin with.

Observations are evidence and experiments.

So if it was true that they “all” support your claims, then why are you so afraid to even present one?

I have not reject or dismiss any evidence you have, because you have not shown and not demonstrated that you have evidence.

And you have no evidence where anyone can verify your claims.

So zero evidence means that your theory is merely an “unfalsifiable” claims, pseudoscience opinions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure, divinely created life is necessarily a manifestation of extreme intelligence and must have the intrinsic capability to adapt and respond intelligently to the variables within an environment. But again, if the origin is divinely created, then everything that emerges from it is necessarily created. Acceptance of the principle of divine creation would be a total change of the mindset.

There is no reason to conclude that divinely created life could not evolve by existing natural means. You have an opinion, but that doesn't rate as evidence.

Nothing is random. Neither mutations nor the variables at play in nature.

You keep saying it, but you don't demonstrate this. In fact, you seem to stray from getting into depth on this whole directed mutation thing. Could it be that you have become aware that directed mutation has not been demonstrated? It hasn't been.

Did you ever wonder what defines the nature or the calibrated behavior of the natural laws itself (level B per #490)? Doesn’t it demand an explanation as well?

Are you talking about fine tuning? Why the crypsis? Are you thinking it won't pass the smell test?

Why do I need any tactic at all? Is it to deceive myself or deceive others to believe something that I don’t? Would that make any sense? Think about it.

I don't know. You shouldn't in honest debate, but there are inconsistencies that mirror tactics I have seen used numerous times by strict creatoinists and ID proponents.

I have thought about it. The same answer keeps coming up.

Why would an intelligent design proponent want to push science that they do not agree with? Why would someone claim that the evolutionary synthesis a basis for immorality, but the EES is not? Why bombard the forum with voluminous posts that make it difficult for an audience to follow or respond to? Why the logical fallacies? Like the no true Scotsman. If we don't listen to you we are lying to ourselves or not supporting science like you. Why imply that this science is preconceived and offer no evidence to that effect? Why would a creationist argue for a naturalistic theory of evolution when you insist that divinely created life would not follow that pattern? There is too much to ignore and much to challenge your credibility.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin said almost nothing about humans. He knew that such a radical view about humans would damage his general argument about evolution. But in his Descent of Man (1871), he applied his theory of evolution to humans to complete his original argument in the Origin of Species. He focused entirely on the evolution of human beings. In his Descent of Man, Darwin attempted to explain everything human as an effect of natural or sexual selection. Morality was no exception. He wanted to address skepticism regarding natural selection being insufficient cause to account for human’s moral and intellectual capacities.

Darwin argued that natural selection was the cause of morality as certain traits proved beneficial in the struggle for survival. Which is self-contradictory in the sense that the allegedly evolved trait “sympathy” acts against natural selection but Darwin argued that in a tribal competition or conflict, the tribe with more sympathetic faithful members who aid and defend each other succeed and conquer the other. HE MADE TRIBAL AND RACIAL CONFLICT THE ENGINE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION. A very dangerous principle that legitimizes racial extermination as the natural law to move forward not just in the past, but the future as well.

He predicted that along with driving “the anthropomorphous apes” to extinction, the more evolved races furthest from the apes will continue to exterminate the less evolved savages closer to the apes. He expressed that clearly in his words ”At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

He observed that as a result, “the break will be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

In the closing lines in “The Descent of Man.” Darwin wrote: “ For my own part I would as soon be descended from ….a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions. Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen…..to the very summit of the organic scale ; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future.”

Darwin advanced the notion of a hierarchy of races, endorsed the eugenic theories of his half cousin Francis Galton and approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin was among the progenitors of so-called scientific racism.

Darwin is considered to be a scientist, social philosopher and shaper of modern consciousness. Anyone who has glanced at “The Descent of Man” (second edition) could make such an assertion that racism was evident in Darwin’s writings.


The 2017 article below published by the Royal Society stated:
“There cannot be much doubt that biological ideas on evolution have greatly influenced the social sciences and philosophy.”

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

See the link below for New York Times article “Darwin in Full” with respect to racism in Darwin’s writings.

Darwin in Full - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

See the link below for “The Descent of Man.”

The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (darwin-online.org.uk)



False generalization. Not all knowledge is equal. Some knowledge can be false and with a damaging influence.



Irrelevant nonsense, I’m not arguing that Darwin invented the atomic bomb. I’m arguing that Darwin’s ideas especially with respect to the so-called scientific racism, negatively impacted humanity and inspired false justifications for wars/genocide in the sense that humanity should embrace the natural course of history.

See the link below for the article “What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany?” I don’t want hear any nonsense of the kind it wasn’t Darwin but the blame is on Herbert Spencer. It’s irrelevant. The issue at stake is the damaging influence of the evolutionary ideas, not people who contributed to that influence or people who committed the actual crimes.

What Is Social Darwinism and How Was It Used in Nazi Germany? | History Hit

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on World War

Social Darwinism | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1) (1914-1918-online.net)

See the link below for the impact of ToE/Social Darwinism on Nazi Germany

Social Darwinism - HISTORY



Irrelevant argument. This can be totally another discussion. You’re making a False Dichotomy.



False. Further synthesis is advocated by the top synthesis in the field not me. My concern is limited to informing others of the status of the ToE (MS) today which can be summarized that the modern synthesis was disproved and no other theory was established. This is the current status of the ToE today. Obsolete contradicting fragments that had been disproved.



Nonsensical wishful thinking, why don’t you enlighten me and tell all of us what is your understanding or imagination of this alleged agenda? Speak your mind if you will.

There is a lot of handwaving buried in your responses. You hand wave a relevant point about the impact of religious texts that is much more significant on society than the theory of evolution. Not only that, the purpose of those writings is intended to have an impact. I saw no false dichotomy in his words. Things like that lead me to doubt your stated position.

I have spoken my mind. Why do you think I haven't? Are you implying something? You imply a lot. Of course there is so much thrown at us that it easily gets overlooked. Is that something you intend?

Appeals to authority aside, there are top evolutionary biologists that don't agree we need to revamp the theory or that it has been disproved. What about them? You aren't giving them any time. Why is that do you think? You just drop the same names and then declare it is dead.

My favorite thing of all is that you are advocating a purely naturalistic revamping that would not alter the moral impact on society if any. Thus rendering your entire argument along that line as moot. Totally irrelevant to the theory as it stands or as you propose. It is like you are inventing reasons to get rid of the current theory. Perhaps you really have doubts about the viability of this EES that you "stand behind".

 

[gnostic]

How can you make such a claim? Eugenics is inspired by Evolution and would not exist without Evolution.

If that was true, then you could say the Bible have inspired people to murder their siblings (eg Cain and Abel), to sacrifice their children (eg Abraham and Isaac), to commit gang rape (eg the Levite and concubine in Judges), to commit adultery (eg David and Bathsheba), massacre people (eg again the Levite, Jericho in Joshua and the Amalekites in 1 Samuel).

Why should Darwin be blame for something he didn't do simply because of inspiration, and make exception with the Abrahamic stories have inspiring been inspiring Muslims and Christians committing horrible events occurred like all the wars, crimes and tortures, throughout their respective histories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you have any evidence an individual dinosaur took millions of years to hatch, reproduce, or die.

I had a date once where dinner seemed to last forever but turns out I was still home before 8:00 PM.

Have I claimed anything so ridiculous as dinosaurs taking millions of years to hatch, reproduce or die? No. I have not. Therefore, I have no reason to look for evidence for such ridiculous things.

You on the other hand have made a series of claims you repeat constantly, but never, ever, ever support with any evidence. That is your responsibility in this. You are supposed to support your claims. Not me. Not others. Ridiculous questions like you are asking are clearly stalling and diversion. I can see no other reason for them.

Please show me some respect and provide me with the evidence supporting your claim that all observed change in living things at all levels is sudden. If you cannot, then extend us the courtesy of desisting from the extensive repetition of the claim.

Maybe you should have told your date you were fluent in 40 million year old language that has no words.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't need to present evidence because all observation and experiment support the contention. It is your duty to yourself et al to show evidence, observation, or experiment to the contrary.

You do need to present evidence. Very much so. It is just that cannot, because you do not have it.

It is your duty and responsibility to provide the evidence that supports your claim.

I feel that your refusal to provide any evidence in support of that claim or any other is a strong indicator that you are aware that you cannot and your claims are unsupportable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am pretty sure she did.

But like all observed change it was sudden in hindsight.

Like all change and all potential change it was very sudden.

There are no observed exceptions. This is the nature of life. Gradual changes are geological or glacial or other processes that don't directly involve life.

So you have a semantic argument where you have changed the definition of sudden to mean something else without revealing that new meaning. Either you don't have evidence, which you do not, or you have to alter the meaning of words and render them useless. Well done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@LIIA after reading through your latest posts, I'm wondering about a few things.

You cite Denis Noble a lot, which makes me wonder...do you agree with him that evolution occurs, universal common ancestry is true, and humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates?

You quote S.J. Gould as saying that there are no transitional fossils, which makes me wonder....have you ever run across this quote of his?

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."---“Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History”, p.260,​

You've been harping on the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were motivated by Darwinism, which leads to a few questions. First, are you aware that the works of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany? Also, are you aware the Hitler justified his atrocities by appealing to Christianity and building on the pervious anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther? And is it your argument that the validity/accuracy of an idea is based on the what it's used to justify? If not, what exactly is your point?

I see no reason why the extended synthesis proposal would offer any reason it would somehow change the moral implications that are being claimed for the theory of evolution. It is sort of ridiculous to condemn the theory of evolution for reasons beyond the scope of the theory and then pretend that any new theory would magically be different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't need to present evidence because all observation and experiment support the contention. It is your duty to yourself et al to show evidence, observation, or experiment to the contrary.

Are you claiming that you came to your notion of suddenness without evidence? If you did not have any evidence to give you reason to make the claim, why are you making it? If you do have evidence, then why not present it. It makes no sense either way.

 

[LIIA]

Directed mutations are not known to occur and no one has verified that they do occur.

Is it because you said so? You ignore provided evidence and when I tried to keep things simple for you by focusing on a single point, you continue to act as if you didn’t see it.

If you want to be taken seriously, respond to the last single item in # 1029.

The false argument that it is guided change versus random change does not support your cause. The change in living things over time is not fully random. You know this. You avoid discussion of that and other topics like the plague.

Nothing is random.
I didn’t avoid any thing relevant to my argument but you continually act as if you didn’t see it.

You have offered nothing that says that life has to have a specific sort of origin for evolution to occur.

Are you serious? These are the basics. You can’t be that ignorant of the basics! Are you?

An organism that is alive with the ability of growing and reproducing is an absolute prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. Without a living organism that can pass changes to offspring, no evolution would exist.

Meaning, life is allows evolution (or more correctly adaptation) to exist, not the other way around. Is that clear enough?

 

[LIIA]

Evolution is a natural process that exists. Your argument amounts to blaming thirst for genocide.

Social Darwinism & Eugenics are both product of the evolutionary concept.

Social Darwinism & Eugenics itself are among the negative impacts of the evolutionary concept on humanity.

 

[LIIA]

You aren't informing anyone about science when you declare your opinions to be facts. The current status of the theory of evolution is that it is the accepted theory. See, now you are informed.

With respect to the ToE, I never declare opinions. I provide substantiated facts.

Here is some of what Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

You may argue that the paradigm shift didn’t occur yet, but cannot argue about the very serious challenges against the MS that entirely disproved all of its central assumptions.

See # 160 and # 911. Stop acting as if you didn’t see it. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Social Darwinism & Eugenics are both product of the evolutionary concept.

Social Darwinism & Eugenics itself are among the negative impacts of the evolutionary concept on humanity.

Genocide itself is among the negative impacts of a belief in God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With respect to the ToE, I never declare opinions. I provide substantiated facts.

Here is some of what Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

You may argue that the paradigm shift didn’t occur yet, but cannot argue about the very serious challenges against the MS that entirely disproved all of its central assumptions.

See # 160 and # 911. Stop acting as if you didn’t see it. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

So what? He is not denying that evolution is a fact. He is not advocating for a God. He merely wants some more factors considered when it comes to evolution.

This is called shooting oneself in the foot.

 

[LIIA]

In context of evolutionary biology, ones lineage extends some 4 billion years into the past.

The point is about the specific understanding of an ancestor in the context of evolutionary biology. Not the general meaning in the language.

As opposed to what? Descendants that lived millions of years later? Yeah, they are different species (sub-species, to be specific). Kind of like how Spanish and French are different languages from Latin, yet both came from Latin and at no point in history did a Latin speaking mother raise a Spanish speaking child.

In the context of evolutionary biology, transformation takes place gradually through speciation. If speciation happens, the ability of interbreeding with original species is lost.

If by "species" you mean "inability to interbreed", then yes they were the same species.

Yes, in the context of evolutionary biology, distinct species is characterized by the inability of interbreeding with other different species. Otherwise the alleged speciation as the mechanism through which one species gradually transforms into another, would be false.

If there is no speciation as characterized by the inability of interbreeding, then there is no mechanism of transformation, there is no evolution.

See? Again, it's a dynamic / fluent thing, this species line.
If interbreeding is a criteria, then 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
Yet 5 =/= 1

Thus we end up in a contradiction.

Yes, The ToE doesn’t provide a coherent explanatory framework but rather contradictory concepts.

Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160 & #753

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

 

[LIIA]

First, that's quite a claim. Can you support it?

Simple, variables at play in nature follow rigid natural laws. Mutations are directed as explained numerous times.

See #781.
Darwin's Illusion

If #781 is very long to read, then see this short YouTube video.

If you don’t trust a short video and want to see the entire lecture, here it is. See 7:09 about non-random mutations.

To clarify: mutation is random with respect to fitness. You get that, right?

The claim of randomness is with respect to being functionally relevant. The modern synthesis assumes random changes with respect to physiological function. See 6: 21, 6:57 of the lecture below

2013 Birmingham, UK, Professor Denis Noble delivers the IUPS President's Lecture.
Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube

If you want the written version of the lecture, here is the link.
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134

Because your rejection of evolution is religiously inspired and you need a "tactic" to ignore / dismiss the evidence of evolution in order to drag it down to your level of make-belief so that you then can say that your creationist beliefs are "at least" just as viable.

Yes, it’s definitely religiously inspired but not mandated. With respect to evolutionary biology, I don’t provide opinions or claims; these are not my claims as numerously substantiated.

Again, a tactic could be a means of deception but why would I need that? If I don’t see the legitimacy of my argument, why would I bother to argue in the first place? On my end, I see widespread misinformation that needs to be cleared up.