Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Too bad that you can't support your errant beliefs at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I looked at these before and won't do it again unless you specify one that actually shows what you claim it does.

I have already explained multiple times how the fossil record supports the predictions of the model describing gradual evolution. I even gave you an analogy with pictures of Tom Cruise explaining the same principle of gradual aging.

Maybe you should look at the posts again. It seems you missed more then half of their contents.

You are merely interpreting the fossil record to show a gradual change instead of a series of sudden changes.

No. There's a model of how evolution works. This model makes predictions. The fossils match those predictions. That makes them evidence of the model.

Where's your falsifiable model?
What are the predictions that naturally flow of said model?
How do the facts match those predictions?

"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.

It's just another bare claim.
Where's the evidence that supports this?

I certainly admit my knowledge of the ToE is very shallow

Really? I didn't notice that at all.

(that was sarcasm, btw)

I don't believe in Evolution so never saw much point in learning more than I needed for tests in school.

Wonderful.

And here, you just acknowledge your intellectually dishonest position.
You barely know anything about the subject, but nonetheless you have decided that it is false.

Fantastic.

With that, you really are done.

You merely believe my evidence is irrelevant

I have no clue what your evidence is, because you have yet to 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?


Until you answer these question, there is no way to evaluate those things you claim are evidence.

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

What argument?
Answer the questions, then we can talk about arguments and evidence.
Until then, there's nothing to talk about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've already stated a few of these in the past

Where?
Repeat it here.

All your questions here look like you are just ignoring my theory altogether.

LOL!

The questions are LITERALLY asking what your theory is!!!!!!
You have yet to present it.

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.

No. I want you to answer the questions.
You say that "all the evidence" supports your thesis.
If that's the case, then there is no need to "devise an experiment", since in that case the evidence is already abundant.

But 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?

...we have no way to evaluate your claim that all facts, observations and experiments support your case.
Because we don't even know what your case is!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What is that explanation?
And please, no bare claims.

Instead, answer these:

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?

 

[cladking]

And here, you just acknowledge your intellectually dishonest position.
You barely know anything about the subject, but nonetheless you have decided that it is false.

I understood the belief they were purveying. But I also knew how they had arrived at it because I was familiar with the theory long before I saw it in school. I was also familiar with some experiments and didn't see how they excluded other interpretations or in other words I saw no proper experimentation. I might also add that I didn't run into the theory only once in 9th grade but saw it a few times.

They've cobbled together from dead bits and pieces a literal frankenstein's monster of a theory. One might think they put an abbynormal brain in it because nothing about modes of life can be reduced and least of all consciousness. "I think therefore I am" is poppycock and stuff. Only properly defined experiment can lead to proper understanding.

If you want to disprove spontaneous generation then where is your expertise in it? I know Peers did it for you so now you can continue to ride their coattails. You can pull yourself up from your boot straps and see what the world looks like from their shoulders. Never mind the evidence when you already have the answers and Peers to sooth you to sleep.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understood the belief they were purveying. But I also knew how they had arrived at it because I was familiar with the theory long before I saw it in school. I was also familiar with some experiments and didn't see how they excluded other interpretations or in other words I saw no proper experimentation. I might also add that I didn't run into the theory only once in 9th grade but saw it a few times.

They've cobbled together from dead bits and pieces a literal frankenstein's monster of a theory. One might think they put an abbynormal brain in it because nothing about modes of life can be reduced and least of all consciousness. "I think therefore I am" is poppycock and stuff. Only properly defined experiment can lead to proper understanding.

If you want to disprove spontaneous generation then where is your expertise in it? I know Peers did it for you so now you can continue to ride their coattails. You can pull yourself up from your boot straps and see what the world looks like from their shoulders. Never mind the evidence when you already have the answers and Peers to sooth you to sleep.

Sorry, but your claims about understanding are constantly refuted by you when you write posts that tell us that you have no understanding at all.

And as you just demonstrated you still do not understand the scientific method or even the burden of proif.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understood the belief they were purveying.

You have just said that you don't, by acknowledging your knowledge and interest on the subject is severely lacking.

We all know the implication. It's the same implication as with every creationst.

The fact is that you don't care, because you have already decided in advance what your position is going to be. And the ONLY reason is because you believe something else religiously.

That's all.

You are as done as you can be.

But I also knew how they had arrived at it because I was familiar with the theory long before I saw it in school. I was also familiar with some experiments and didn't see how they excluded other interpretations or in other words I saw no proper experimentation. I might also add that I didn't run into the theory only once in 9th grade but saw it a few times.

They've cobbled together from dead bits and pieces a literal frankenstein's monster of a theory. One might think they put an abbynormal brain in it because nothing about modes of life can be reduced and least of all consciousness. "I think therefore I am" is poppycock and stuff. Only properly defined experiment can lead to proper understanding.

All you are doing is confirming your (willful) ignorance on the matter.
These are the typical conclusions of someone who WANTS it to be false (for religious reasons) and will grasp at any straw to make that point. And you won't go into detail because deep down you know how it's devastating to your beliefs.

If you want to disprove spontaneous generation then where is your expertise in it? I know Peers did it for you so now you can continue to ride their coattails. You can pull yourself up from your boot straps and see what the world looks like from their shoulders. Never mind the evidence when you already have the answers and Peers to sooth you to sleep.

For crying out loud......


So when you go to a doctor, do you first go through 7 years of medical school before you trust his expert opinion?

 

[gnostic]

I understood the belief they were purveying. But I also knew how they had arrived at it because I was familiar with the theory long before I saw it in school. I was also familiar with some experiments and didn't see how they excluded other interpretations or in other words I saw no proper experimentation. I might also add that I didn't run into the theory only once in 9th grade but saw it a few times.

Excuses me...but what are your qualifications?

And what are your fields of experiences?

The later is about your work experiences, hence jobs, careers...but I am wondering if you have some expertise in some scientific fields.

So, to be more precise with my last questions, do you have fields in sciences that you are experienced in your works?

None of us, know what you do or did for living in sciences.

So again, what are your qualifications and experiences?

 

[cladking]

You have just said that you don't, by acknowledging your knowledge and interest on the subject is severely lacking.

ROFL.

You have no idea. I've been interested in the nature of thought since almost before I commanded English which I still use very similarly to the way I did then. This study led straight to science and metaphysics. Without understanding how and why science works and to a lesser extent how it came to be, you don't really understand science at all.

I don't believe in Evolution. I never really did though when I was very young it seemed like it made sense. But at that time I barely understood metaphysics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ROFL.

You have no idea. I've been interested in the nature of thought since almost before I commanded English which I still use very similarly to the way I did then. This study led straight to science and metaphysics. Without understanding how and why science works and to a lesser extent how it came to be, you don't really understand science at all.

I don't believe in Evolution. I never really did though when I was very young it seemed like it made sense. But at that time I barely understood metaphysics.

Wow!! You commanded English? When and how did you do that? Please fill us in with all of the details.

 

[cladking]

You have just said that you don't, by acknowledging your knowledge and interest on the subject is severely lacking.

I don't like taxonomies. I don't like inductive reasoning at all except to invent hypothesis. I'm not good at it anyway. Even if I ever did believe you can step into the same river twice or that a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit I still don't like inductive reasoning. I don't like the ToE so why should I try to become an expert in it?

I like life and how it changes and evolves.

These are the typical conclusions of someone who WANTS it to be false (for religious reasons) and will grasp at any straw to make that point.

I only want to understand. Consciousness IS the desire to understand. Life IS consciousness and consciousness IS life. Animals all understand such things. We do not because we want to maintain our places at the top of the food chain as the crown of creation. We want to believe that science is a product of intelligence so we can each be intelligent as well but science is a product of language and our language is so illogical we had to invent experiment. Now since people believe science works on intelligence rather than experiment we are abandoning experiment in favor of Peers who are believed to obviously be the smartest among us.

Science went off the rails in the 1800's and now more than ever people see science as the Creator and worship technology. The irony, hubris, and nihilism would startle Caligula and make Shakespeare catatonic.

So when you go to a doctor, do you first go through 7 years of medical school before you trust his expert opinion?

Lol.

 

[cladking]

So, to be more precise with my last questions, do you have fields in sciences that you are experienced in your works?

I am a self taught generalist who some have referred to as a "nexialist".

Like everyone I tend to employ everything I believe all the time which certainly made for interesting work experiences.

I have no relevant expertise in Darwin except a lifetime of observation.

I believe modern humans are wholly in the dark about the nature of life on virtually every parameter other than its mechanics. We have confused anatomy with how and why life exists. We reduce individuals to their constituent parts and induced that consciousness doesn't exist or isn't worthy of study since it can't be dumped into formaldehyde. We employ a reductionistic science and don't even recognize that every important thing in the universe can not be reduced. Then some people want to live, become, the reduced reality that is science.

We each reason in circles and always end up at our premises whether we do this as individuals or as Peers. Biology went off the tracks trying to pull out of Darwin Station.

 

[gnostic]

I am a self taught generalist who some have referred to as a "nexialist".

Like everyone I tend to employ everything I believe all the time which certainly made for interesting work experiences.

I have no relevant expertise in Darwin except a lifetime of observation.

I believe modern humans are wholly in the dark about the nature of life on virtually every parameter other than its mechanics. We have confused anatomy with how and why life exists. We reduce individuals to their constituent parts and induced that consciousness doesn't exist or isn't worthy of study since it can't be dumped into formaldehyde. We employ a reductionistic science and don't even recognize that every important thing in the universe can not be reduced. Then some people want to live, become, the reduced reality that is science.

We each reason in circles and always end up at our premises whether we do this as individuals or as Peers. Biology went off the tracks trying to pull out of Darwin Station.

Ok, so you have no qualifications beyond high school.

You say you have “interesting work experiences”, but you are being rather vague.

I am not asking what you believe in, because that’s all you have given me, which is very vague in the details about your personal beliefs/opinions, no evidence and certainly no facts.

But I like I said I don’t care what you believe in, because you have already made plenty threads and posts about your claims and beliefs. I didn’t ask for them.

Let try again, what was your jobs or career, your fields of expertise, work experiences?

Please be more specific this time. No more vague generalities.

Btw, there is no such thing as a nexialist. It isn’t a job of any kind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no idea.

I do have an idea. You gave it to me, by saying it.

I've been interested in the nature of thought since almost before I commanded English which I still use very similarly to the way I did then.

The topic is biology. Not the "nature of thought".

This study led straight to science and metaphysics.

Maybe, maybe not.
The topic however is evolutionary biology in particular, which you have acknowledged to know very little about and even aren't actually interested in.
Yet, you insist on arguing against it.

Without understanding how and why science works and to a lesser extent how it came to be, you don't really understand science at all.

I don't believe in Evolution. I never really did though when I was very young it seemed like it made sense. But at that time I barely understood metaphysics.

The topic is evolutionary biology.
You know... that field about which you said to know very little and aren't actually interested in, yet insist on arguing against.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't like taxonomies. I don't like inductive reasoning at all except to invent hypothesis. I'm not good at it anyway. Even if I ever did believe you can step into the same river twice or that a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit I still don't like inductive reasoning. I don't like the ToE so why should I try to become an expert in it?

If you are going to insist on arguing against it, the least you can do is learn the basics.

I only want to understand. Consciousness IS the desire to understand. Life IS consciousness and consciousness IS life. Animals all understand such things. We do not because we want to maintain our places at the top of the food chain as the crown of creation. We want to believe that science is a product of intelligence so we can each be intelligent as well but science is a product of language and our language is so illogical we had to invent experiment. Now since people believe science works on intelligence rather than experiment we are abandoning experiment in favor of Peers who are believed to obviously be the smartest among us.

None of this matters to the point at hand and is all just blablabla.

Science went off the rails in the 1800's

Yeah. I guess that's why technology and overall knowledge about nature and its processes advanced exponentially ever since.

and now more than ever people see science as the Creator and worship technology.

Only in your strawmanning mind.

The irony, hubris, and nihilism would startle Caligula and make Shakespeare catatonic.

More blablabla.

Hey, btw.... meanwhile... through all this blablabla, you still haven't answered my three 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?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am a self taught generalist who some have referred to as a "nexialist".

Like everyone I tend to employ everything I believe all the time which certainly made for interesting work experiences.

I have no relevant expertise in Darwin except a lifetime of observation.

I believe modern humans are wholly in the dark about the nature of life on virtually every parameter other than its mechanics. We have confused anatomy with how and why life exists. We reduce individuals to their constituent parts and induced that consciousness doesn't exist or isn't worthy of study since it can't be dumped into formaldehyde. We employ a reductionistic science and don't even recognize that every important thing in the universe can not be reduced. Then some people want to live, become, the reduced reality that is science.

We each reason in circles and always end up at our premises whether we do this as individuals or as Peers. Biology went off the tracks trying to pull out of Darwin Station.

In other words:

- You have no relevant credentials
- You have no relevant education
- You have no relevant qualifications
- You have no relevant experience.

All you have are "beliefs".

 

[cladking]

The topic however is evolutionary biology in particular, which you have acknowledged to know very little about

No. I said there is no such thing as "Evolution". You are confusing change in species associated with consciousness with Evolution caused by survival of the fittest.

Yeah. I guess that's why technology and overall knowledge about nature and its processes advanced exponentially ever since.

Physics is pretty close. It's stuck in the 1920's instead of the 1820's.

 

[gnostic]

I do have an idea. You gave it to me, by saying it.




The topic is biology. Not the "nature of thought".




Maybe, maybe not.
The topic however is evolutionary biology in particular, which you have acknowledged to know very little about and even aren't actually interested in.
Yet, you insist on arguing against it.




The topic is evolutionary biology.
You know... that field about which you said to know very little and aren't actually interested in, yet insist on arguing against.

The problems with @cladking posts, is that most of his claims or beliefs revolved around humans, particularly on consciousness and on thoughts and intelligence.

I will get back to these terms, later.

The first problem is that cladking has that is, is that he refused to understand that the Theory of Evolution, including Natural Selection, is only concerned with biology.

The 2nd problem is that he mostly focusing only on human biology and human evolution, but Natural Selection focused on all life, all organisms, not just humans. He refused to understand this.

3rd problem, instead of focusing on Natural Selection, or on Evolution in general (which included other mechanisms, like Genetic Drift, Mutations, etc), he often strayed into social and psychology aspects of human cultures, hence Social Sciences , which are outside the scopes of Evolution, which is biology subject. He keep going off-topic outside the scopes of biology.

4th problem, then he keep going on and on about “consciousness”, especially consciousness in relationships to intelligence, the way humans think, intelligence and thinking are again outside the scopes of Evolution.

Intelligence and thinking are Social Sciences subjects or Humanities subjects, not biology. Plus Evolution isn’t just about humans, but also about other organisms, where some have no brains, therefore no consciousness, no thinking.

On the subject of consciousness, there are biological and clinical definitions and explanations. While consciousness isn’t itself physical, therefore it has no anatomy, it can be explained to be part of physiological functions of the physical brain. Consciousness about awareness of one’s surroundings, hence sentience, and how humans and become aware, is through sensory perceptions of the physical nerves in the physical eyes, ears, noses and nerves in the layer of tissues, the skin. What we sense, eg see, hear, smell and touch, these sensations we received, go from our sensory perceptions, through the nervous system, then to the brain, which process the sensation.

That’s a summary of the biology of the brain and sensory perceptions in connection with consciousness. But not all organisms have brains, so there are no consciousness for some organisms, eg plants, fungi, bacteria & archaea.

Even some animals have no brains, like some of the invertebrates, eg sponges, corals, some molluscs (eg mussels, clams, oysters), jellyfishes, starfishes, etc.

Jellyfish, starfish and those molluscs I have mentioned do have nerves, but no central nervous system, like no brains.

Anyway, those are biology.

The intelligence, thinking, have more to do with mental processes, and falls more under Social Sciences (eg social interactions of humans, psychology, etc) than on biology like Evolution.

Sure we can explore on the intelligence of animals, like chimpanzees and other primates, dogs, dolphins, octopuses, etc. But cladking have only been focused on human consciousness and human intelligence.

The points being that not organisms have consciousness, so cladking making sweeping generalizations that “all life” have consciousness, is wrong.

And since not all organisms have consciousness, consciousness don’t factor in for the “evolution” of these organisms.

That the last problem cladking has.

 

[cladking]

The problems with @cladking posts, is that most of his claims or beliefs revolved around humans, particularly on consciousness and on thoughts and intelligence.

No. You should try reading my posts.

I said there's no such thing as "intelligence" in every species and that every individual is conscious. I said "thought" is an artefact of abstract analog language.

"Evolution" occurs in no species.

The first problem is that cladking has that is, is that he refused to understand that the Theory of Evolution, including Natural Selection, is only concerned with biology.

No. All individuals are alive and conscious and equally fit (or, for you, equally worthy of being selected).

3rd problem, instead of focusing on Natural Selection,...

No. There is no such thing as "natural selection" and it is a belief among a social group called "Peers" by believers.

4th problem, then he keep going on and on about “consciousness”, especially consciousness in relationships to intelligence, the way humans think, intelligence and thinking are again outside the scopes of Evolution.

It is impossible to hold any belief or model outside thought. Once you learned language as a child you could not go back and hold knowledge in any other way.

Even some animals have no brains, like some of the invertebrates, eg sponges, corals, some molluscs (eg mussels, clams, oysters), jellyfishes, starfishes, etc.

Indeed! Some individual consciousness is very simple. But unlike a rock it is still alive and "aware" of its function.

The points being that not organisms have consciousness, so cladking making sweeping generalizations that “all life” have consciousness, is wrong.

No. All life IS consciousness. This is by definition.

And since not all organisms have consciousness, consciousness don’t factor in for the “evolution” of these organisms.

Every individual is different. If the only oak trees that survived a solar event were growing in rocky crags then they would breed a new species that, you guessed it, preferred rocky crags. Put one of their acorns (if they still had them) in good soil and you'd probably get a cottonwood.

 

[gnostic]

No. There is no such thing as "natural selection" and it is a belief among a social group called "Peers" by believers.

There you go again with the conspiracy theory.

You know that many of the biologists don't go around writing to the peer-review publishers unless they have something new to bring into biology or to update, modify or expand what are already known.

So most of them do their works without publishing anything, and you think they don't know anything about biology, because it is controlled by the "Peer" organisation. And you think that all biologists don't know what they are doing.

That's truly idiotic conspiracy theory.

You have admitted to yourself, you don't have any no qualification in this area, and no expertise and experiences. So you expect everyone you believe what you write, someone who can't himself, but make up ridiculous stories about biologists who don't know biology and dark organisation of peers make things up.

Everything you write are works of mad fictions, claims without evidence and without logic.