Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Are you serious? You haven't provided any evidence that demonstrates directed mutations. Just because you keep saying it does not make it so.

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

Maybe I missed it in the swamping, but I doubt it.
Because you say so? Not hardly.

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

Good grief! Are you serious? Your opinion is not the basics. There is nothing known that would prevent evolution from occurring on living things from either divine or natural origin. All that is required is living, reproducing organisms with heritable variation.

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.

Has anyone been arguing against that or are you just going for random statements that are not a point of contention?

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

No it isn't clear. What are you going on about? Why include this when it doesn't answer anything I posted?

Life evolves through the action of natural selection on heritable variation. So you agree with the evolutionary synthesis after all. Glad we could get that sorted out before you bury us under another massive barrage of posts of your opinions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

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



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.

There are no observations of mutations that occur in anticipation of future need (directed mutation). There are no valid mechanisms known that would result in this. Simply put, directed mutations have not been observed. Just because you say so is not evidence that they have been observed.

 

[rational experiences]

Men in science today seem to forget men of science were told by natural man you're wrong. Human life continuance.

As humans.

As living humans placed legal orders against humans living as scientists. A practice of a human choice only.

Science tried to infer God science theists were wrong theists as humans.

God humans legal position natural healers medical realisation was against science itself. Human choice human practice a human theist.

You try to say God theists as human theists are wrong which is only ever just a human man and men agreeing in human only reasoning. Theists history itself. Any human as a scientist.

Biology living owning life human Inherit to live living is by a supported heavenly balance only.

Not inferring any other type of unnatural detail that is science already caused by human choice unnatural use of metals by machines own history.

Why the legality is natural human rights versus human scientist.

It was never about a human god theist being wrong as they were old scientists human terms. Theist thinkers.

Why arguing today was about a humans legal natural position of human rights itself.

As earth we named as the God owning it's own heavens.

Is just a human living on planet earth with no thesis stated first.

Human consciousness first position a human. A self aware human. A human telling just human stories

The legal standing.

 

[gnostic]

No. I'm not defining reality as telling you how I define things like consciousness, reality, math, metaphysics etc.

Do you know what?

You keep saying scientists don’t know what consciousness is, blah, blah, blah...thinking all scientists are bloody stupid.

You keep going on and and on about the very important role consciousness play in evolution, blah, blah, blah.

And yet when I think back on the things you say in your posts in recent threads, NOT ONCE DID YOU EVER BOTHER TO EXPLAIN or DEFINE WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS!

You’ve hand-waved and rejected what biologists say, you have constantly dismiss any neurological explanations.

Ok, then, you think you are the smarty-pants, then please, explain what you think consciousness is.

Do you care to give it try, without being your evasive self?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you believe in a conspiracy?

No. That is why I cannot accept your "Peer" straw man. That and there is no evidence to support it. It is just your opinion and nothing more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I don't understand how you cannot see that this is what you do. You makes claims based on your opinions. You offer no evidence even when repeatedly asked for evidence. You offer no reason or evidence why we should consider your opinions to be more than that. Then you repeat the claims. And on and on and on and on and on and on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.



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.

You got fallacies within fallacies here. I see a "no true Scotsman". False equivalency. I'm sure there are more.

 

[rational experiences]

Any human who just by human words only is organic biology that unlike metal dies completely removed. Metal returns to dusts.

By organisation support attacks another human in word use says.....I am studying human consciousness.

As a human only.

I want you to tell me what it is as I state I'm a God says a theist. I want God in consciousness

Yet he's just a human by micro biology that says so dead microbes his life span is finished.

Is affected by his machine metal AI designed transmitters as metals are burnt out in space void light gas above.

Metal is sealed in a stones earth seam origin.

He's possessed by his own machines history unnatural metals above ground himself. That he placed to affect his thin king concepts by his biological organic man's choice

Historic taught.

Physical biology. Consciousness plus psyche is in exact review as biology human. Biology human mind changed concepts by metals.

No human is metal... just a theist human same ideas but would not by intent self experiment in self.

As the biology thinker believer itself.

In any science thesis as the human.

Claim I do not experiment by machines on myself. I would get hurt.

Instant human conscious teachings advised exact...would be hurt.

Biology.

Ignored.

Is why he argues by theme bio ego and human organisation status.

Knowing the answer already direct in his bio thoughts. Uses machines as a weapon to hurt family.

As he's allowed.

Is the conscious human biological answer correct conscious advice.

Earth is sealed by water ice history. Isn't a machine in any human science terms.

 

[rational experiences]

Galileo jailed as old man's criminal science sun theist. Criminal.

A biological healthy human. Who theories a body exact position burning metal mass the suns number one position fixed.

Owned historic two humans first only as humans adult parents.

Exact science advice of the human.

As monkeys don't apply human science thesis as living biology.

Never is a single human self it's human parent. Sex owned biology life continuance.

Theist says. I compare a metal is why a lesser healthy biology and consciousness lives now. Direct metal thesis.

Why do they own life?

By human sex. As the human today is not the first humans. And first humans are dead. First humans were not a human science theist either.

So he wants a metal to be linked to biology as he says biology owns chemical human bio electrical impulses.

Yet the explanation isn't real as he puts all worded terms upon biology himself. Reality a bio organic human just lives. What a theist ignores.

So if I understand healthy human advice by a sick human I'm safe. As healthy life. I want gods earth mass connections to biology.

Yet sex owned their life. They instantly lied. As a human.

Instead studying mental patients and chemical drugged minds. Historic. Mind in human spying mind control coercions. They said a metal is compared to biology. As reasons why.

And mean what they say.

I'm safe they claim.

Yet as sex and not a metal owns biology they theoried the destruction of the type of human biology they owned as family human sick and their own. As biology lives biologies mutation.

Not any metal. Damaged biology only.

As neither types exist in the presence of exact a metal mass.

Is how a scientist was termed a criminal thinker. As we live family human biological first equality as natural life on earth. No science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

he or she is a Muslim creationist.

“Creationists”, whether they be Christian creationists or Muslim creationists, they think alike: they use the same tactics and propaganda, use the same misinformation, misunderstand the same things about Evolution, and when they have no evidence they will shift the burden of proof on everyone else instead of supporting their claims.

Did you notice how LIIA use the same Social Darwinism and the Nazi Holocaust argument, trying to pin the blame on Darwin, as Christian creationists do, which have nothing to do with Natural Selection?

Lol, didn't even realize @LIIA was muslim.
Indeed, they all fish in the same cesspool of fallacious apologetics.

Like that guy... what's his name. Hamza Tzortzis or something like that.
A muslim apologetic. If you watch his "debates", it's like he's a graduate from the William Lame Craig school of dishonest debate techniques.

It's like he took WLC's routine, copy pasted it and then used the find/replace function to change Bible / Jesus / Jawhe into Quran / Mohammed / Allah.

It's insane.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything we see is exactly what we'd expect to see if I am right.

There's plenty of new experiments that can be run to show that like all change in life change in species is sudden as well.

And again all we get from you is vaguery, bare assertions and the mere declaration that you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

Imagine you going to court accusing someone of a crime. The judge asks you to present your evidence. And you then reply similar to the above: "everything is evidence!!!". Do you think a jury will be convinced by that?

Be specific.

1. what's your thesis? what is your proposed mechanism of change?
2. under that thesis, what are the expectations of observation?
3. From that thesis, what are the testable predictions that flow from it?

As I already told you, before you can even begin to point out potential evidence, those 3 questions need answers.

If you can't, or won't, answer those questions, then don't bother replying. It is a waste of time, energy and webspace.

Well... ...you do a much better job of actually addressing an opposing argument than most believers. Yes, that is damning you with faint praise but most of the actual evidence and attempts that have been presented to counter my arguments have been by you or one other poster.

You have not presented any arguments.
All you have done is present bare assertions and mere declarations that you are correct.
Not once have you actually tried to make a proper case.
Not once have you actually tried to present your thesis, let alone what the expectations and predictions are that flow from it.

Not once.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Usually the child species bares significant resemblance to the parent species. It does not have to be so. Even when differences are extreme I believe there will usually be a strong superficial resemblance. This is a corollary of the idea that all individuals are fit and function follows form. If only fit individuals produce a new species then one would expect that new species to strongly resemble the parents.

Bare in mind I know virtually nothing about any change in species other than theoretical and experiential knowledge. This is exceedingly shallow because change in species is orders of magnitude even more complex than even "consciousness". It is believers who know everything about "Evolution", not me.

I'm still waiting on actual examples.
I'm not interested in more vaguery.

What is your thesis? What mechanism of change are you proposing?
What are the expectations of such mechanism?
What are the testable predictions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm citing evidence but you are not

Not once have you provided any evidence.
As said so many times, you can't even begin to present evidence because you still haven't given us a proper thesis which is a necessary pre-requisite to even be able to recognize what is and isn't evidence.

Without a model that includes expectations and testable predictions, there is nothing there to support with evidence.

I'm saying all observed change in all life is sudden

And yet you can't give a SINGLE example of such.

I keep asking for it. You keep failing to provide it.

If all observed change is sudden then it takes some pretty powerful evidence to counter this

Funny how apparently "all" observed change is supposedly "sudden", yet you can't give a single actual example of such.

I can only ask again: please give an example of a "sudden change" akin to a land mammal's feet turning into flippers in only a couple generations and thereby giving rise a to complete new species.

After all, when I gave you that series of fossils, which spanned several 10s of millions of years, showing the development of "feet to flippers" in the whale lineage, your reply was that "those changes were sudden!" (yet another bare declaration). So please, show us some real world documented examples of such.

I won't be holding my breath.

The fossil record is most assuredly NOT evidence to the contrary because a gradual change is an interpretation of the fossils.

I already explained to you how the fossil record is evidence supportive of gradual change.
I even gave you an analogy with pictures of Tom Cruise's face.

There is no "interpretation" there.
It's a testable prediction. In the example I gave you of whale / dolphin skulls:
The older the fossil, the more to the front the nostrils will be.
The younger the fossil, the more to the top of the head it will be.

This is exactly what we see in the fossil record.
Hence, the fossil record matches the predictions of gradual evolution.
Hence, the fossil record is evidence in support of gradual evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you know what?

You keep saying scientists don’t know what consciousness is, blah, blah, blah...thinking all scientists are bloody stupid.

You keep going on and and on about the very important role consciousness play in evolution, blah, blah, blah.

And yet when I think back on the things you say in your posts in recent threads, NOT ONCE DID YOU EVER BOTHER TO EXPLAIN or DEFINE WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS!

You’ve hand-waved and rejected what biologists say, you have constantly dismiss any neurological explanations.

Ok, then, you think you are the smarty-pants, then please, explain what you think consciousness is.

Do you care to give it try, without being your evasive self?

I have never gotten anything from any request I have made. I don't recall seeing that anyone has.

I know there are places beyond Dunning/Kruger. I often wonder if we are glimpsing one of those places.

 

[cladking]

All individuals in a population do not have equal fitness. How can populations have genetic diversity and equal fitness?

You are confusing "fitness" with the ability to survive. You do this because you believe that the fit survive or because nature selects individuals which are best genetically suited.

If you factor in consciousness everything changes because every individual can adapt and apply its strengths and weaknesses to best suit the environment in which it finds itself. It's not weakness or bad genes that are the achilles heel but rather miscalculation. But your issue here goes much deeper than merely refusing to understand my argument or not understanding the nature of consciousness in life; you simply believe that nature selects the strong and that Peers are incapable of being wrong.

Maybe if you ever tried to catch a rabbit with your bare hands you'd see the point that all individuals are fit. Ask any fox once you teach them English and they will tell you the same thing; there are slower rabbits and dumber rabbits but they are all hard to catch. You can go for weeks without finding the sick or lame and not even a moronic rabbit and you have to eat more often than that.

Each rabbit is simply different even if they have very little genetic diversity because each consciousness is different and leads to different experiences which in tandem with genetics is the primary driver of behavior in all species except homo omnisciencis. If a rabbit prefers some food that grows in the open it can be more susceptible to predation even if it is fastest and smartest rabbit on earth. Even if it has great experience with every predator in its niche it can catch a bug and die. The tiniest wound might become infected and kill it.

This is why and how every rabbit is fit. Each rabbit can prosper under the condition that are best for that individual rabbit with its individual consciousness. You can't see this because you believe that conditions are forever "evolving" leaving only the rabbits most suited to the changing conditions but you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. In reality most niches remain relatively unchanged for many years until everything is changed including whatever used to be "rabbits". Farm fields give way to suburban sprawl and then rabbits don't run even when approached in the open. When they do run they go a few feet and stop. It's a new kind of rabbit though, of course, the differences are slight, based largely on consciousness, and it is ill suited to areas where they are hunted or killed by humans. But this new species of rabbit will survive in the cities where no other can and if and when these breed back into the general population they will provide new genes that make the species of "rabbits" more diverse, more robust, and less likely to become extinct. None of the new rabbits are less fit, they are merely different not only from each other but from all other rabbits.

You insist on thinking of "fitness" as the ability of a species to survive but there's no such thing as "species" because every individual is very very different. They often look the same and almost all taste the same but they each have their own individual consciousness and their own individual genes that serve to define that consciousness and define what experiences they have. Every morning nature sends all its bees out in a highly complex experiment to see which consciousnesses lead to the most desired outcomes all within the confines of things like luck, genes, and individuals characteristics of each of the little observers.

Even the simplest life is still far too complex for reductionistic science to understand. we lack even the formatting for understanding life. I am simply providing that formatting. Consciousness is life and all life is individual. It's a far more complex world than almost any Peer can imagine. Reductionistic science is the only kind we have right now but we are misusing it and it is leading to highly destructive beliefs. It is leading to incorrect beliefs.

 

[cladking]

Not once have you provided any evidence.

You can't see the evidence.

People see only what they believe and can see nothing they don't believe. This is how the our minds work on modern languages. I can't change this equation but you can make your own models to at least see what I'm talking about if you CHOOSE to make those models. We each believe what we want to believe so we choose what we want to see without ever knowing it.

When I say "all observation shows all changes in life and consciousness are sudden", I mean it literally. THAT IS THE EVIDENCE. It is very very extensive evidence and no matter how many times I've delineated dozens and dozens of examples that we each have directly or indirectly experienced, you can't see it because you believe Peers are right by definition. You believe that everything is slow because people grow up and everything "Evolves". You believe peppered moths changing colors is proof of gradual evolution no matter how quickly it occurs. You see a skull of an homo erectus and you can see a gradual change into more modern species despite the fact that it's all a vast collection of missing links. Your beliefs are unshakeable so you can't even parse the sentence correctly; "all observation shows all changes in life and consciousness are sudden".

So you say I have no evidence.

 

[cladking]

The actual problem believers have with my theory has nothing to do with the theory they obviously can't understand. The problem is that it doesn't exclude the possibility of God or some force that created reality and life. Ironically the ToE doesn't really exclude God either but they've massaged their models until they do.

Reality is even more complex than believers think life is and life in reality is actually many orders of magnitude more complex than the rest of reality. We have some little understanding of the formatting of non living reality but we don't even have the formatting for understanding life. We poke and prod a few brains and gaze at fossils and think we know everything.

 

[Jose Fly]

he or she is a Muslim creationist.

“Creationists”, whether they be Christian creationists or Muslim creationists, they think alike: they use the same tactics and propaganda, use the same misinformation, misunderstand the same things about Evolution, and when they have no evidence they will shift the burden of proof on everyone else instead of supporting their claims.

Did you notice how LIIA use the same Social Darwinism and the Nazi Holocaust argument, trying to pin the blame on Darwin, as Christian creationists do, which have nothing to do with Natural Selection?

Yep, the denialism is the same regardless of the specific faith from which it stems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are confusing "fitness" with the ability to survive. You do this because you believe that the fit survive or because nature selects individuals which are best genetically suited.
.

No, I am not. That is what you do. I have never said anything to that effect on here.

I actually know what biological fitness is and have defined it for you numerous times to correct your errors. I had hoped that you would be able to put 2 and 2 together by mentioning the fact that populations have genetic diversity which would preclude uniform fitness. But you don't understand biology or science and just go with whatever you make up at the time.

If you factor in consciousness everything changes because every individual can adapt and apply its strengths and weaknesses to best suit the environment in which it finds itself. It's not weakness or bad genes that are the achilles heel but rather miscalculation. But your issue here goes much deeper than merely refusing to understand my argument or not understanding the nature of consciousness in life; you simply believe that nature selects the strong and that Peers are incapable of being wrong.

All individuals in a population are not equally fit. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. Most of this appears to be made up with no factual basis.


You don't really make arguments. You make claims to define the world for others and offer them as if you are never wrong. Apparently, you believe you know everything.

Maybe if you ever tried to catch a rabbit with your bare hands you'd see the point that all individuals are fit.

Individuals within a population have fitness. All individuals in a population are not equally fit.

I doubt that you have ever tried to catch a wild rabbit by hand and have no idea what that would take.

Ask any fox once you teach them English and they will tell you the same thing; there are slower rabbits and dumber rabbits but they are all hard to catch.

I should ask a fox. It might actually provide evidence for its claims.

You can go for weeks without finding the sick or lame and not even a moronic rabbit and you have to eat more often than that.

Foxes eat several pounds of food a day and not going to go weeks without eating and survive that.

It is amusing that you are now contradicting your opening claim. You do that a lot. It is highly indicative of a lack of understanding of biology as well as what you believe. There is no teaching you anything. Rabbits that cannot outrun or hide from the fox are fit, fit right in the foxes belly.

Each rabbit is simply different

Yes. Different fitness. Different genetics.

even if they have very little genetic diversity because each consciousness is different and leads to different experiences which in tandem with genetics is the primary driver of behavior

Empty assertion without evidence regarding rabbit fitness.

in all species except homo omnisciencis.

A made up name for Homo sapiens.

If a rabbit prefers some food that grows in the open it can be more susceptible to predation even if it is fastest and smartest rabbit on earth. Even if it has great experience with every predator in its niche it can catch a bug and die. The tiniest wound might become infected and kill it.

Because fitness varies in the population. You got it. You just don't understand or won't admit it to save face.

All individuals in a population are not equally fit.

This is why and how every rabbit is fit. Each rabbit can prosper under the condition that are best for that individual rabbit with its individual consciousness. You can't see this because you believe that conditions are forever "evolving" leaving only the rabbits most suited to the changing conditions but you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. In reality most niches remain relatively unchanged for many years until everything is changed including whatever used to be "rabbits". Farm fields give way to suburban sprawl and then rabbits don't run even when approached in the open. When they do run they go a few feet and stop. It's a new kind of rabbit though, of course, the differences are slight, based largely on consciousness, and it is ill suited to areas where they are hunted or killed by humans. But this new species of rabbit will survive in the cities where no other can and if and when these breed back into the general population they will provide new genes that make the species of "rabbits" more diverse, more robust, and less likely to become extinct. None of the new rabbits are less fit, they are merely different not only from each other but from all other rabbits.

This is just more word salad with more empty assertions that contradict previous empty assertions of yours.

You insist on thinking of "fitness" as the ability of a species to survive but there's no such thing as "species" because every individual is very very different.

I have defined fitness and at no time have I defined it as the ability to survive. That is you. You constantly refer to fitness in relation to selection as "survival of the fittest". You just forgot because you don't understand any of this.

They often look the same and almost all taste the same but they each have their own individual consciousness and their own individual genes that serve to define that consciousness and define what experiences they have. Every morning nature sends all its bees out in a highly complex experiment to see which consciousnesses lead to the most desired outcomes all within the confines of things like luck, genes, and individuals characteristics of each of the little observers.

Even the simplest life is still far too complex for reductionistic science to understand. we lack even the formatting for understanding life. I am simply providing that formatting. Consciousness is life and all life is individual. It's a far more complex world than almost any Peer can imagine. Reductionistic science is the only kind we have right now but we are misusing it and it is leading to highly destructive beliefs. It is leading to incorrect beliefs.

The rest of this just looks like more word salad not worth reading. The main take home message is that all individuals in a population are not equally fit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can't see the evidence.

Of course not. How can someone see what is not there. We don't see your evidence, because you do not provide evidence.

People see only what they believe and can see nothing they don't believe.

I stand corrected. You do provide evidence, it just isn't for the purpose of evidence to support your claims. I believe I know an example that fits your description.

This is how the our minds work on modern languages. I can't change this equation but you can make your own models to at least see what I'm talking about if you CHOOSE to make those models. We each believe what we want to believe so we choose what we want to see without ever knowing it.

More empty assertions. Got any evidence.

Hey, did you know that not all individuals in a population are equally fit.

When I say "all observation shows all changes in life and consciousness are sudden", I mean it literally.

You've moved the goal post to include consciousness now. As usual, you have no evidence to support the addition or claims about it you are making. It is literally wrong that all change in living things at all levels is sudden. I literally mean that literally.

THAT IS THE EVIDENCE.

Now we have the circular reasoning. Your assertions are the evidence for you assertions. Try asserting you have money and see how that spends.

It is very very extensive evidence and no matter how many times I've delineated dozens and dozens of examples that we each have directly or indirectly experienced, you can't see it because you believe Peers are right by definition.

You have provided no evidence at all and are now just gainsaying and handwaving.

You believe that everything is slow because people grow up and everything "Evolves".

No one is saying or has said that all change in living things at all levels is all slow. You really don't understand any of this do you? All we have asked is for your evidence to support your claim. You don't provide evidence, because you do not have it and thus this diversionary tactic to shift fault for you failure to provide evidence to us. It isn't working. You still need to provide actual evidence for your claim.

You believe peppered moths changing colors is proof of gradual evolution no matter how quickly it occurs.

This has been explained to you. The peppered moths did not change color. Both light and dark forms exist in the population. Because of the conditions, the light form predominated. When the industrial revolution ensued, the resulting pollution darkened the trees where the moths hung out. Being dark provided a fitness advantage and the darker forms became the dominant form in the population. You don't even know the material you are attempting to use to claim others are wrong. Good grief.

You see a skull of an homo erectus and you can see a gradual change into more modern species despite the fact that it's all a vast collection of missing links.

Gradual change would not be determined by looking at a single individual skull of any group.

Your beliefs are unshakeable so you can't even parse the sentence correctly; "all observation shows all changes in life and consciousness are sudden".

Part of your belief system that you believe with an unshakeable rigidity that rejects all logic, reason and evidence while failing to provide for what you believe.

So you say I have no evidence.

You have no evidence. It isn't just saying so. You never provide it. Your opinions and erroneous narratives are not evidence.

Did you know that not all members of a population do not have equal fitness?

Did you know that all change in living things at all levels varies in duration?