Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

I didn't need to sleep on this for 20,000,o00 years to see what's wrong here.

You have fallen for Darwin's beliefs and your belief in science. You believe so strongly that you are right because Peers say they are right that you now believe they are right until I prove them wrong.

Your belief that you are right by definition couldn't be more wrong or more illogical.



Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?

You are still not showing evidence or your source.

I cannot even feign surprise, since you so predictably evade showing evidence that support your many claims.

 

[gnostic]

The influence of the evolutionary concept indeed extends way beyond biology to encompass social science, social psychology, philosophy and politics with respect of adapted ideology driven by the very evolutionary concept at the root. You may deny it as you wish, regardless, it’s a fact.

What a load of craps.

Do you understand that word “natural” in Natural Selection, means not man-made or artificial.

Everything you have just listed are artificial and don’t exist out human creations or human activities. Meaning culture, society, sociology, psychology, philosophy, politics, religion don’t exist in nature as they are artificial works of man.

When people talk of evolutionary biology, they means exactly that, biology, descendants can only be produce through reproduction, passing genetic traits through DNA or RNA.

NONE OF THEM in your list, can be passed genetically through DNA or RNA.

The only person not understanding these things is you.

Try studying biology, instead of mixing everything up.

Do you see any other animals studying sociology, anthropology, psychology, politics, etc? How about plants, fungi and microorganisms?

Are you forgetting Natural Selection isn’t just about human evolution, but other organisms too?

Your ignorance and you penchant for going off-topic into non-biology subjects are staggering. You seemed unable to focus on Natural Selection.

But that typical for creationist, even though you are a Muslim, I means that you uses exactly same predictable Christian creationist tactics: spreading misinformation only demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty as they do.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

It's nothing more than mud slinging. That's why whenever I see a creationist start talking about evolution, eugenics, and Hitler my first question is always "What exactly is your point".

 

[Jose Fly]

As I said before, I’m quoting these scientists not only because they are scientists of the highest caliber but also because they are all evolutionists without any bias to my side of the argument.

So when S.J. Gould says transitional fossils are "abundant" and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is doing so out of either stupidity or deceit, do you accept that?

I’m quoting them for their specific solid scientific arguments such as the evidence of molecular biology against the assumptions of the modern synthesis

But again, whether the modern synthesis or extended evolutionary synthesis is the most accurate, it still doesn't change the conclusion of universal common ancestry.

or the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Except as your own source made clear, such fossils are "abundant" and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either being "stupid" or dishonest.

This is an exact science but I don’t agree with claims such as universal common ancestry

Yet every one of the "scientists of the highest caliber" you've quoted agrees with the conclusion of UCA. Do you appreciate how from my perspective, it looks like you're cherry picking?

Gould’s punctuation was disputed by the proponents of gradualism, which in turn was disputed, by the proponents of punctuation. See#160, but the fact remains that neither gradualism is supported by evidence in the fossil record nor variants we see in real life support punctuation with a massive sudden appearance of genetic info. Both models are false.

Sorry, but your mere say so isn't compelling, especially given the fact that the very "scientists of the highest caliber" you've been quoting disagree with you.

The Holocaust Encyclopedia shows beyond doubt how the racial ideology of Nazi Germany was influenced by social Darwinism, which is itself a product or an influence of the evolutionary concept. See the link below.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Yet the works of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany. Seems odd to ban books about the very concept that allegedly inspired one's movement, doesn't it?

Regardless, I never claimed that the social negative impact on humanity is a refutation of the theory with respect to biology. This is what some proponents of the ToE assumed which triggered their defensive denial of the facts. It was a side argument that came up and continued mainly because of that nonsensical denial.

So again....what exactly is your point? Even if we assume your argument, I still have to wonder...."The Nazis were inspired by Darwinism, therefore......."?

The refutation of the central assumptions of the modern synthesis is through the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology not the social influence of the theory with respect to racism. See# 753 and 781.

Again this seems like cherry picking to me. You keep citing Denis Noble when he agrees with you but you reject him when he doesn't (e.g. on UCA).

Also, are you aware that Noble's claims never really went anywhere in evolutionary biology? Have you read through any of the responses from his colleagues?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't need to sleep on this for 20,000,o00 years to see what's wrong here.

You have fallen for Darwin's beliefs and your belief in science. You believe so strongly that you are right because Peers say they are right that you now believe they are right until I prove them wrong.

Your belief that you are right by definition couldn't be more wrong or more illogical.

He said nothing remotely like this.
This is just you building yet another strawman.

Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?

Another irrelevant strawman.

 

[cladking]

You are still not showing evidence or your source.

Here is mathematical and scientific proof;

"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.

cladking, Yesterday at 3:47 PM"

"Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?

cladking, Today at 8:09 AM"

I did not spend 20,000,000 years having my life change from awake to sleep and then awake again.

even though I slept and feel refreshed and my brain chemistry has changed as a direct result of this this is proof the change was not gradual.

Now you show something for which you have proof, evidence, logic, or experiment that ANYTHING to do with any living thing or any living rtype of thing did not change suddenly.


Like (almost) every other argument I won this one too, because believers have nothing but a belief in gradual change in species. All observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. there are simply NO exceptions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What a load of craps.

Do you understand that word “natural” in Natural Selection, means not man-made or artificial.

Everything you have just listed are artificial and don’t exist out human creations or human activities. Meaning culture, society, sociology, psychology, philosophy, politics, religion don’t exist in nature as they are artificial works of man.

When people talk of evolutionary biology, they means exactly that, biology, descendants can only be produce through reproduction, passing genetic traits through DNA or RNA.

NONE OF THEM in your list, can be passed genetically through DNA or RNA.

The only person not understanding these things is you.

Try studying biology, instead of mixing everything up.

Do you see any other animals studying sociology, anthropology, psychology, politics, etc? How about plants, fungi and microorganisms?

Are you forgetting Natural Selection isn’t just about human evolution, but other organisms too?

Your ignorance and you penchant for going off-topic into non-biology subjects are staggering. You seemed unable to focus on Natural Selection.

But that typical for creationist, even though you are a Muslim, I means that you exactly same predictable Christian creationist tactics: spreading misinformation only demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty as they do.

I have discovered his hidden agenda between the lines.
He/she slipped up in a previous post, where (s)he claimed that "Dawkins assumes life comes from outer space".

I know where that nonsense comes from. And knowing that source, I also understand now the obsessive focus on "social darwinism".

All that stuff, comes from the creationist propaganda gem called "Expelled! No intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein.

Prof Dawkins, along with several others like PZ Myers, were literally tricked to appear in the film, their responses edited and the premises of the questions lied about. The context of the question was literally edited out so that it appears that Dawkins believes things whereas he was actually asked to bend over backwards and entertain a ridiculous hypothetical.

Another sentence that appears in the film after they tell lie after lie after lie about evolution and nazi's:
"Creationism leads to Jesus. Evolution leads to killing people".


When I read that sentence where @LIIA references Dawkins and his supposed "belief" that life comes from aliens.... All pieces of the puzzle fell into place.

It's all at least inspried by the propaganda by Ben Stein and his cohorts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is mathematical and scientific proof;

"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.

cladking, Yesterday at 3:47 PM"

"Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?

cladking, Today at 8:09 AM"

I did not spend 20,000,000 years having my life change from awake to sleep and then awake again.

even though I slept and feel refreshed and my brain chemistry has changed as a direct result of this this is proof the change was not gradual.

Now you show something for which you have proof, evidence, logic, or experiment that ANYTHING to do with any living thing or any living rtype of thing did not change suddenly.


Like (almost) every other argument I won this one too, because believers have nothing but a belief in gradual change in species. All observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. there are simply NO exceptions.

And yet you have been given many exceptions

 

[cladking]

It's nothing more than mud slinging. That's why whenever I see a creationist start talking about evolution, eugenics, and Hitler my first question is always "What exactly is your point".

I can't speak for creationists but maybe the point is believers' holier than thou attitude of blaming the church for not only being wrong but of great evil for thousands of years is not fair. Indeed, it is far less fair because Darwin's beliefs have killed far more people than all the religions put together by a very wide margin.

But this isn't the point either since very few people are being killed in the name of God RIGHT NOW and many more are being killed in the name of Darwin.

There is a lot of inhumanity out there and most of it has nothing to do with religious OR scientific beliefs.

 

[cladking]

He said nothing remotely like this.
This is just you building yet another strawman.

Of course he did!!!

I said all observed change is sudden and he said nuh uh.

Just as you say nuh uh.

Without nuh uh believers are tongue tied.

And yet you have been given many exceptions

NAME ONE!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is mathematical and scientific proof;

"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.

cladking, Yesterday at 3:47 PM"

"Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?

cladking, Today at 8:09 AM"

I did not spend 20,000,000 years having my life change from awake to sleep and then awake again.

even though I slept and feel refreshed and my brain chemistry has changed as a direct result of this this is proof the change was not gradual.

Now you show something for which you have proof, evidence, logic, or experiment that ANYTHING to do with any living thing or any living rtype of thing did not change suddenly.


Like (almost) every other argument I won this one too, because believers have nothing but a belief in gradual change in species. All observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. there are simply NO exceptions.

Ow my.

I'm at a loss for words. I don't even know how to respond to this. It's so ... lol, I don't even know how to describe.

It's just bizar.

It's like..... huh??

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't speak for creationists but maybe the point is believers' holier than thou attitude of blaming the church for not only being wrong but of great evil for thousands of years is not fair. Indeed, it is far less fair because Darwin's beliefs have killed far more people than all the religions put together by a very wide margin.

But this isn't the point either since very few people are being killed in the name of God RIGHT NOW and many more are being killed in the name of Darwin.

There is a lot of inhumanity out there and most of it has nothing to do with religious OR scientific beliefs.

Sorry, but that appears to be false. Where did you get that crazy idea from in the first place?

 

[cladking]

And yet you have been given many exceptions

I have been shown fossils that are ASSUMED to be the result of a gradual change. What I said "show something for which you have proof, evidence, logic, or experiment".

Opinions and beliefs of Peers et al are not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course he did!!!

I said all observed change is sudden and he said nuh uh.

Just as you say nuh uh.

Without nuh uh believers are tongue tied.



NAME ONE!

Sorry, you know the rules. You first have to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have been shown fossils that are ASSUMED to be the result of a gradual change. What I said "show something for which you have proof, evidence, logic, or experiment".

Opinions and beliefs of Peers et al are not evidence.

Nope. Wrong again.

When you are ready to learn what evidence is then we can talk.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course he did!!!

He did not.

I said all observed change is sudden and he said nuh uh.

He asked you for an example. You have yet to give one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have been shown fossils that are ASSUMED to be the result of a gradual change. What I said "show something for which you have proof, evidence, logic, or experiment".

The fossil record exhibits gradual change.

Like how over a span of millions of years, we find fossils of whale / dolphin ancestors where the younger they are, the more to the top of the head the nostrils are. The older they are, the more to the front of the face the nostrils are.

This is exactly what we would expect from gradual change over long periods of time.

Same with how the limbs of the ancestral land walking mammals over time gradually turn into flippers.
When I showed you a series of such fossils, which spanned a period of millions of years, you claimed that those changes were "sudden".

As if a land walking mammal with feet would give birth to a sea dwelling mammal with flippers

The fossils fit the predictions of gradual evolution.
The known and observable processes of biological evolution provide a mechanism that results in gradual change.

It all fits together.

You..... you have yet to give a single example of something akin to a land walking creature with feet giving birth to a sea dwelling creature with flippers, and thereby giving rise to a complete new species.
You have also yet to give a single example of an observable mechanism that actually does such things.




Your continued failure to do so supports the idea that you have nothing, while mainstream biology has everything.


I already gave you this analogy once. I shall do so again.
Here's the equivalent of a series of fossils of whale ancestors, using pictures of Tom Cruise:

This series demonstrates aging. Knowing the age of each pictures, it fits the predictions of the theory of "gradual aging".

Your "rebuttal" here, is the equivalent of saying that the first 14 years of his life, he looked like picture 1. Then he went to sleep and the next morning he woke up looking like picture 2.
Then he looked like that for another few years. Then he went to sleep one day and the next morning woke up looking like picture 3. Then he remained like that for a couple more decades. Then he went to sleep and woke up the next morning looking like picture 4.



It is BEYOND ridiculous.

 

[cladking]

Opinions and beliefs of Peers et al are not evidence.

How can believers not even recognize they are incapable of showing actual evidence that isn't derived from opinion?

OK, I'll look at you last post.

 

[Jose Fly]

I can't speak for creationists but maybe the point is believers' holier than thou attitude of blaming the church for not only being wrong but of great evil for thousands of years is not fair

IOW, it's reciprocal mud slinging.

Indeed, it is far less fair because Darwin's beliefs have killed far more people than all the religions put together by a very wide margin.

But this isn't the point either since very few people are being killed in the name of God RIGHT NOW and many more are being killed in the name of Darwin.

That's certainly an interesting set of empty assertions. I'd ask to see some support, but I've been around this particular merry-go-around far too many times to have much interest.

 

[cladking]

Like how over a span of millions of years, we find fossils of whale / dolphin ancestors where the younger they are, the more to the top of the head the nostrils are. The older they are, the more to the front of the face the nostrils are.

NO. AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY YOU'RE WRONG INSTEAD OF JUST GAINSAYING IT LIKE BELIEVERS DO.

It's because in each stratum the earliest and latest versions of fossils are usually almost identical. This COULD NOT be true if Evolution existed.

This series demonstrates aging. Knowing the age of each pictures, it fits the predictions of the theory of "gradual aging".

No. AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY YOU'RE WRONG INSTEAD OF JUST GAINSAYING IT LIKE BELIEVERS DO.

Even if people still lived for 986 years one generation does not constitute "gradual change". I have repeatedly defined "sudden" as three or more generations so you are creating strawmen and moving the goal posts.


Now you can just say "nuh uh" like that's an actual argument.