Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The actual problem that anyone has with your theory is that you don't have a theory. Empty assertions are not a theory. Circular reasoning is not a theory.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it does not include things that there is no evidence for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The actual problem that anyone has with your theory is that you don't have a theory. Empty assertions are not a theory. Circular reasoning is not a theory.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it does not include things that there is no evidence for.

I think the he knows that. Creationists tend to run away from discussions on evidence because they know that if they learned what evidence is they would have to admit to not having any.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think the he knows that. Creationists tend to run away from discussions on evidence because they know that if they learned what evidence is they would have to admit to not having any.

I agree with you and we both have seen that. But I'm uncertain if creationism covers the steadfast, enduring belief in things that defy evidence and are seen to exist without evidence. I know that covers creationism as well, but I think it is more than just mere belief for ideological reasons. It is all so one-sided. No attempt to address the facts or reality seems to work. I am losing interest in continuing the...well discussion isn't the right term here...but for lack of a better one it will do. I don't see the point of posting only to myself.

 

[rational experiences]

Man's human origin status.

O earth rock.
Heavens mass that he isn't personally.

Biological man free moving through space on the ground position as proof....as heavens isn't a solid.

Exactly advised.

A gas when burnt disappears sacrificed is a humans science teaching as it's not an energy mass solid.

For science as dummies.

To test. O planet natural. No machine exists. No lying by men allowed.

The natural test...yes all natural advices are natural as a human test.

Liar machine builder Ai status.
Liar...machine controlled by its designers mind the biological human. Ai status. Man's AI confession I am owner AI

Rest of natural humanity family however are not. What you personally lied about.

In thesis all humans stand with the humans pushing machine buttons.

In human greed reality only the owners of machines attacking experimenting on biology today by transmitters claim by greed I'm personally safe. I'm not Ai.

As the subject by thesis intent shifts. By choice.

Reality of the test.

Transmitters already cooled by life's bio saviour the ice. Why it unnaturally melted as no man is God. The hierarchy God earths conditions. Saving life.

To test by machine the status I'm applying AI as a human.

Test in natural life human natural observation is first.... doesn't tell lies.

 

[rational experiences]

Naming.

Using words to coerce and trick human family.

A human is the human.

A human isn't a theist. The theist said I give my human self this word name.

A human says I'm a creationist pretending they created anything by words.

So a theist says I'm not a creationist by word coercion as the theist knows only a human gave themself permission to think the way they did.

So using titles blame each other by all wrongs to natural presence first.

What coercion is. To use blame to change the subject of identify why humans thinking is chosen wrong behaviour.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't see the evidence.

Because you aren't giving any.
Yes, we can't see that which you do not provide.

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.

It's not my job to make models for YOUR thesis (which you also still haven't shared).
That's your job.

I've asked you multiple times. You still refuse.

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

I have just written post after post showing you how the fossil record supports gradual evolution. You have yet to explain how it doesn't and how it supports "sudden change" instead.

To do so, you first need a falsifiable thesis with expectations and testable predictions. Next you need to show how the facts and observations match those predictions.

You have not even tried to do this.

It is very very extensive evidence and no matter how many times I've delineated dozens and dozens of examples

Not once have you given an example.
And it's not by lack of being requested to share such evidence.
It's pure refusal on your part.

It's almost like you don't have a falsifiable thesis that makes testable predictions, with evidence matching those predictions. Almost.

that we each have directly or indirectly experienced, you can't see it because you believe Peers are right by definition

I can't see it, because you have never given it.

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

No.

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

No.

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.

No.

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

Evidence required. Got any?

So you say I have no evidence.

I'm asking you for the evidence.
You're refusing to give it. Not my fault.

Again: before we can even discuss evidence, we need a thesis so that we know what exactly the evidence is supposed to support....

So I can only repeat myself:

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?
2. What are the expectations and testable predictions that flow naturally from this thesis?
3. How do the facts, observations and experiments match these expectations and predictions?


If you plan on replying once again with nothing more or less then again the bare assertions "all change is sudden!! everything is evidence!!", then don't bother.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic human chosen applied science.

As I live I move around walking.

I come into contact with billions of diverse living bodies.

I'm a man.
I'm a human.
I'm a theist.
I choose to apply my thesis to what I see at my side.

On earth. The name I gave. As I said it was God also.

I compare my human life body to what's at my side.

I say it's science. Data. Yet I'm comparing natural biological life forms myself. As the human.

What I identify is I own dominion by body status genetics and also consciousness human.

As it's unnatural conscious behaviour to compare inequality. I behave versus balanced consciousness.

As consciousness is innate just to a natural balanced self survival.

My scientific behaviour first does not follow natural communicative survival awareness.

Hence by my human man ego only I began to self idolise my human ideas.

As superiority.

As a realisation I saw my human self exhibiting. I write a warning to my own self.

Don't self idolise.

 

[cladking]

I have just written post after post showing you how the fossil record supports gradual evolution.

But you decided not to post them.

Not once have you given an example.

You're like a drowning man drinking water and asking to have the fire hoses turned on him.

You have yet to explain how it (fossil record) doesn't and how it supports "sudden change" instead.

The fossil record merely shows that species change. It does not show why or how. It is your belief that change is gradual and caused by survival of the fittest.

 

[ppp]

You're like a drowning man drinking water and asking to have the fire hoses turned on him.

He is like a guy sitting in a chair on dry land watching you wave your hand and trying to convince him that he is actually in a lake.

 

[cladking]

He is like a guy sitting in a chair on dry land watching you wave your hand and trying to convince him that he is actually in a lake.

Maybe you're seeing an mirage where there is an ocean.

Circular reasoning is not a theory.

As I've said before ALL reasoning by all homo omniciencis is circular. This certainly includes me and my theory.

But it also includes all scientific thinking and every single paradigm ever devised. If you understood how or why science works you would know this but you think it depends on intelligence and derives from evidence as defined by Peers. This is simply wrong. The reality is that it is strictly dependent on Observation > Experiment and derives from its definitions and axioms. "Peers" would be irrelevant even if they could be scientifically defined. Now you can call this word salad and gainsay it. You'll find no need to address any part of this any more than you address any part of any other argument that doesn't fit your assumptions.

Some times I think I need to coin a new name for our species. "Circular Reasoning Man" would be a good start.

 

[ppp]

Maybe you're seeing an mirage where there is an ocean.

Nah. You're just bloviating.

 

[cladking]

Nah. You're just bloviating.

The only thing nay sayers have is saying nay.

What EXACTLY are you disagreeing with?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you decided not to post them.

I'm very tempted now to just call you a liar...

Darwin's Illusion | Page 57 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 56 | Religious Forums

And it's not the first time either. Look at these post from 2 months ago:

The Believabliltiy of Evolution | Page 114 | Religious Forums

The Believabliltiy of Evolution | Page 112 | Religious Forums

You're like a drowning man drinking water and asking to have the fire hoses turned on him.

And still no evidence. Just meaningless and dishonest one-liners and bare assertions.

The fossil record merely shows that species change. It does not show why or how.

I explained at length how the fossil records supports the predictions of gradual change.
Ignoring it, does not make it go away.

It is your belief that change is gradual and caused by survival of the fittest.

No. The model of evolution says that, based and backed by observation and evidence.

Meanwhile, still no answer to my questions.
From this post onwards, I shall include them in every reply to you on this particular subject until you actually at least make a half decent attempt at rising up to the challenge:

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?
2. What are the expectations and testable predictions that flow naturally from this thesis?
3. How do the facts, observations and experiments match these expectations and predictions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The only thing nay sayers have is saying nay.
What EXACTLY are you disagreeing with?

There is nothing to disagree OR agree with, until you answer these questions:

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?
2. What are the expectations and testable predictions that flow naturally from this thesis?
3. How do the facts, observations and experiments match these expectations and predictions?

Your bare assertions are dismissed at face value.
Because what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[ppp]

What EXACTLY are you disagreeing with?

Short term memory issues? It the second thing to go.

#1169

 

[cladking]

I'm very tempted now to just call you a liar...

Darwin's Illusion | Page 57 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 56 | Religious Forums

And it's not the first time either. Look at these post from 2 months ago:

The Believabliltiy of Evolution | Page 114 | Religious Forums

The Believabliltiy of Evolution | Page 112 | Religious Forums

I looked at these before and won't do it again unless you specify one that actually shows what you claim it does. You are merely interpreting the fossil record to show a gradual change instead of a series of sudden changes.

"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."

Rather than actually responding to this you gainsaid it.

I certainly admit my knowledge of the ToE is very shallow but as I've said many times, I don't believe in Evolution so never saw much point in learning more than I needed for tests in school. I've read a little but I've never found the "theory" convincing because I don't find it logical or in accord with other things I know. I never believed people when they told me babies can't communicate and animal are not conscious. I never liked taxonomies and have studied metaphysics preferentially to science since a young age. I know most people misapply math and theory to their daily lives because most people can compare reality to only one or two models simultaneously.

You merely believe my evidence is irrelevant because you already know the answer. I don't know but it appears that there are poor definitions and erroneous premises all over. This leads to poor paradigms that distort how we interpret experiment and construct models.

There is always an assumption that humans can't be too wrong about anything. But we very much can. we can be absolutely and sincerely wrong about anything and everything.

We've been through some of these before or I would have commented. You need evidence to show that a change was gradual. I will stipulate that there are changes. I have shown cause to believe that changes were sudden MANY MANY times but no one has ever shown evidence for gradual change. I believe this is simply because gradual change is very rare or even nonexistent in nature because niches don't last long enough to generate a gradual change. Mutations come along far more frequently than changes in niches. I suppose there are probably instances of a series of small sudden changes being mistaken for gradual change but nobody has even bothered to present this!

Why ignore the argument and pretend it's been won?

 

[cladking]

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?

I've already stated a few of these in the past and more are apparent. Our theories are very very different so experiments are easily invented.

All your questions here look like you are just ignoring my theory altogether. You want me to devise an experiment that assumes a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest and publish the results for Peer review. I can't do this because your assumptions are all wrong and Peers have no interest in evidence, logic, and experiment brought out by a different paradigm.

Frankly I wouldn't even bother to start with biology since it's more difficult to employ experiment. I would start with the hard sciences applied to things more easily defined and measured.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe you're seeing an mirage where there is an ocean.


As I've said before ALL reasoning by all homo omniciencis is circular. This certainly includes me and my theory.

But it also includes all scientific thinking and every single paradigm ever devised. If you understood how or why science works you would know this but you think it depends on intelligence and derives from evidence as defined by Peers. This is simply wrong. The reality is that it is strictly dependent on Observation > Experiment and derives from its definitions and axioms. "Peers" would be irrelevant even if they could be scientifically defined. Now you can call this word salad and gainsay it. You'll find no need to address any part of this any more than you address any part of any other argument that doesn't fit your assumptions.

Some times I think I need to coin a new name for our species. "Circular Reasoning Man" would be a good start.

I think reasoning by homo omnisciencis is rectangular. Or it could be anything, since it is made up.

I think I am finished talking with you. You don't listen. You don't discuss. YOU DON'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE. You do not understand science or biology. You don't have a theory, at least in any rational, scientific sense. Yet you seem to believe you know everything and want to redefine reality for us with your revealed truth. All the diversion and deflection to avoid addressing the points of others has become wearisome.

I believe I will put you on ignore for offering no compelling reason to continue what has all the feeling of a one-sided exchange.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To sum up some of the learnings from this thread.

Individuals in a population have varying fitness. All individuals in a population are not equally fit as claimed by believers.

Change in living things is variable. Peers may define reality as all change in life at all levels as sudden, but that would be wrong relative to the evidence. Redefining sudden to mean any particular rate of time renders the meaning of sudden, suddenly useless.

Believers use semantics rather than established definitions. For instance, a bottleneck event is not a selection event no matter how much a believer may want to redefine reality to establish that erroneous idea.

Survival of the fittest is a poor definition of natural selection. Outside of an historical footnote, it has no place in a modern conversation of evolution.

An argument is a persuasive discussion where a person makes a claims and backs it up with reason, explanation, definition of terms and evidence. Making empty claims is not an argument, theory or evidence for the claims.

Directed mutations have not been demonstrated.

The theory of evolution, in much the same way as any science, religion, philosophy, idea, concept, or explanation can be perverted and employed to rationalize evil. That people do this does not mean that the theory, concept, religion, etc. is inherently evil.

There is a proposal by a group of scientists to extend the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution. It is a controversial area of science even among the proponents of this extension. While the work cited to support this idea is interesting and may some day warrant extension as an addition to or replace of existing theory, it is too early to make that claim. The majority of evolutionary biologists do not support or see the need for replacement at this time.

None of the illusions purported to belong to Darwin have withstood scrutiny. Not that it matters, Darwin is historically significant and important for formulating the basis for our modern understanding of evolution, but scientists have long since moved on from Darwin. Attacking him makes little if any sense, having no impact on the theory. Besmirching a dead man in hopes of damning a scientific theory has no possibility of success with knowledgeable members of the community.

There is no evidence that could be or has been used to hold up a claim of some ancient science or ancient language alleged to have existed 40,000 years ago.

Homo ominsciensis is not reality. It offers no value or meaning for inclusion in a scientific conversation.

E. coli developing antibiotic resistance in 11 days is an example of the pace of evolution and not a falsification of gradualism. The mode of evolution varies with species, selection, mutation rates, and the environment. A lab colony of E. coli has a generation every 20 minutes. In 11 days, that is almost 800 generations. That would be 16,000 to 26,000 years for a human population depending on the generation time used. Neither is an outrageous example of the fixation of a single trait into a population under heavy selection.

 

[cladking]

Yet you seem to believe you know everything and want to redefine reality for us with your revealed truth.

No. I don't know anything unlike everyone else who knows everything.

There is one thing I know and that is that there exist far better explanations for change in species other than gradual changes driven by survival of the fittest.