Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

This is simply the nature of reality itself and life is literally reality on steroids. Reality is change.

Consciousness is reality on steroids except in humans where life is belief on steroids.

 

[cladking]

Say you did a healers assessment.

Have patients. They don't give you any advice first. They trust you. They Lie on a table are told to relax but are scared.

Then the healers ask by prayer spiritual help. Meditate. Scan the body. See spirit. Get told a huge amount of personal medical advice plus remedies.

You stop. You don't talk. You write it down. Correlate many points the same. Tell the patient. Proven real.

Now you're trusted .....

The patient so relaxed many go to sleep. Some snored.

X-rays. Bone spurs.

Proven a bone evolved past what it exists as in nature.

It disappears without surgery. Proven.

A type of evolution. But it's the human body type that changed.

What about given six weeks to heal a mass that was adhered by a medical hysterectomy. Was drawn on bodily for a colostomy bag. The surgeon went looking for it. Just a few strands only left.

No need for colostomy bag?

Body changed. Evolution of natural body type previously owned.

Proving you live you are human yet your cells evolve into different forms.

You can just inherit what you should have owned yet it also is not evolution.

As if I'm a human doing I compare my body to yours. I know what's missing in your body isn't evolution. It's grown differently.

Doing that same asserted human reasoning to animal body types is no different whatsoever.

Grown differently.

Life will out because where there is life there is hope.

 

[gnostic]

Again, you provide lots of irrelevant info about viruses, while ignoring the point of discussion about directed mutation as evident in the experiment by Harvard University. #1029

As I said before “viruses are not considered living organisms, but they’re classified as microorganisms.”. That is the way viruses are classified.

That said, it up to you if you wish to classify it differently. It’s not my concern. I’m not interested in entertaining an irrelevant argument.

It’s amazing how deep a creationist can bury his or her head in sands, with such a short neck!

Organisms are living biological entities with cells (eg multicellular organisms, unicellular organisms), and viruses don’t have cells of their own, hence viruses aren’t organisms at all.

Your lack of education in biology speaks volume of your arrogance and ignorance.

Instead of arguing with me, try do some actual reading and research.

 

[gnostic]

First, do you think that “Science” is limited to biology?

Second, do you think that all proponent of evolution are atheists? Or all theists reject evolution?

If you do, you’re wrong.

You were the one who brought up Newton and Einstein.

I was only replying to your post - as is - that

• Einstein is a physicist, biology wasn’t his speciality, and
• Newton was foremost a mathematician, a physicist and an astronomer, not a biologist; and beside that Darwin’s On Origin (1859) was over a century after Newton’s time, so clearly Newton wouldn’t know anything about Natural Selection.

Yes, they are both geniuses in their fields, but it wasn't their religions that made them geniuses.

Beside that, Einstein wasn’t a theist, which goes to show, how little you know about his life.

As to your two questions, I didn’t say they were, to both questions...so answers to both are “no”.

 

[cladking]

It’s amazing how deep a creationist can bury his or her head in sands, with such a short neck!

Egyptologists must be giraffes.

Say what you will but the belief that nature plays by God's plan is no more superstitious than that reality plays by our rulebook. Or that Peers keep this rulebook.

Newton was foremost a mathematician, a physicist and an astronomer, not a biologist;

He was a good alchemist and IMS dabbled in astrology. He was a translator (linguist) and one of the first Egyptologists or what would be called now days a 'pyramidiot".

I have no doubt he observed nature beyond the apple that fell on his head. Much of his work (like mintmaster) is poorly remembered and has been poorly reported.

 

[rational experiences]

A humans question. Where are any of your questions via the human dominion status by thoughts only?

When you don't exist.

All themes theory are plus physical observation. So you say by my dominion status which I never used myself. A human a thinker.

My data. Plus observation of physical is science. Says I use science. I don't.

Two thinking types.

Science says to science you are only correct at position machine by what a machine allows.

Position human superior is viewing. Natural.

So you quote just by your ego head a God statism.

Why says science I'm just data.

Because I need to tell myself who I am thinking as so I claim I am. As machines don't exist as natural.

Hence any term natural I impose and I know my machine is already fake and not whole holy advice. So it's not God nor am I the types I observe as bodies.

My teaching against my human theist is no man is God.

Then that theist will claim but I will prove what God is.

Evolutionist creationist theist in one humans expressions.

No human. No belief. No stories. No theory. When the theory doesn't own the subject. By a human.

A humans teaching to the human being.

Example a human sees space empty sees light existing sees clear sky dark.

They think about it first. They don't own your thoughts as they exist.

Three different terms.

Then you want to theory as just a human why they all exist.

Not the same subject at all.

You join your subject by human thoughts only.

Egotism.

Hence a human uses their position to act as a God comparing all lesser being as created by them by comparing human body types.

Yet you hadn't created anything except the machine yourself.

 

[gnostic]

He was a good alchemist and IMS dabbled in astrology.

I am well aware that Newton was religious person as well as into some occult.

Despite his genius in maths and physics, he was also man of his time, where many of his contemporaries were still mixing natural with supernatural & religions. Most of his life were before the Age of Enlightenment, which was still at infancy when Newton died in 1727.

You cannot expect him to know everything before they occurred, he lived a time before the empirical evidence and the scientific method, which really didn’t start until David Hume.

Hume was the earliest in the areas of Natural Philosophy (which Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton were all parts of but pre-Enlightenment Natural Philosophy), he was the one who rejected divine miracles and religious belief in Natural Philosophy, that ultimately resulted in the later half of the 19th century, separating scientific studies from superstitions and religions, with Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s friend and contemporary.

Huxley was responsible for keeping science subjects & classes and religious studies (eg theology) separate, in schools and universities.

As to history and archaeology, modern studies weren’t unknown to Newton, so I don’t expect him to know anything about radiometric dating methods or even stratigraphy.

You need to be reminded that was no archaeologist, he was never involved in archaeological sites in Greece and Egypt, so lot of his dates were based on classical sources, like Herodotus and Plutarch. Newton has never been to Egypt. So he was inaccurate in history, so what?

Seriously cladking, he was genius only in some areas in sciences. That doesn’t mean Newton knew “everything”! And I never expected him or anyone else to know everything.

This thread is about debunking Evolution, not about physics from Newton and Einstein, and as I said, being geniuses don’t mean they know absolutely everything, and they weren’t expert in biology.

Plus, I wasn’t the one who mentioned Newton and Einstein first in this thread. I was only replying to post by LIIA, who thought he or she could bring up Newton and Einstein being theists as a victory for theism.

Theism and religions have nothing to do with Newton’s mechanics and calculus or with Einstein’s Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and other areas in physics.

Einstein didn’t know everything too. He tried for decades trying to combine General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together, and failed; beside that others have failed too, from String & Superstring theorists to Quantum Field Physics, they still have been able to integrate them together.

Einstein made his own fair shares of mistakes, that doesn’t take away any of the this he did achieve.

I am not going to play the blame game of what people don’t know at the time or that they don’t know absolutely everything.

You and LIIA are both alike, expecting people to know everything or blaming them for some things they didn’t do. You are both irrational idealists, it is no wonder that no one take either of you seriously.

 

[gnostic]

Egyptologists must be giraffes.

Why do you insist on bringing Eygptologists into this thread?

You keep bringing up Egyptology and pyramids in almost every threads you replied to.

This thread is about debunking Darwin, whose Natural Selection Evolution, which is one of many fields in biology, which have nothing to do with archaeology and pyramids.

LIIA brought up Newton and Einstein, but their respective Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity, also have nothing to do with Natural Selection.

And both you and LIIA have also brought up Nazi and Social Darwinism, which again, have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Both of you, try again. Pick up some contemporary biology textbooks, and do you see anything that teach sociological subject (eg Social Darwinism), political subject (eg laws, legislation, government policies) or military subject (eg wars, strategy plans, tactics).

No biology lectures and classrooms teach war strategy, government policies, Social Darwinism, racism, etc, because they have nothing to do with biology.

You both are going bloody OFF-TOPIC. Man, it's like talking to bunch of 10-year old.

 

[cladking]

Einstein didn’t know everything too.

You couldn't misunderstand me more if you tried. We know hundreds of times what Einstein did and millions of times more than Newton. If we continue at this acceleration we'll know .000000001% of everything in another million years.

You cannot expect him to know everything before they occurred, he lived a time before the empirical evidence and the scientific method, which really didn’t start until David Hume.

If Newton had the internet he would have made the most stupendous of discoveries. He did all he did with only the most primitive tools and knowledge. His accomplishments were stupendous beyond measure. It doesn't matter he was wrong or failed to understand the pyramid and the material he translated because he propelled science two centuries ahead by his own hand. He was one of the two greatest geniuses of all time with only, perhaps, Imhotep being farther ahead of his time.

And both you and LIIA have also brought up Nazi and Social Darwinism, which again, have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

I never even heard of "social darwinism". I merely know people act on their beliefs and millions have died because of a belief in survival of the fittest.

Pick up some contemporary biology textbooks...

I thought I mentioned I don't believe in Darwinism. I'm interested in experiments and paradigms but this is about the limits of my interests. Frankly I care more about my own paradigm than most others so that just leaves experiment. Got any that show gradual change caused by survival of the fittest?

Maybe if you stayed on topic and actually addressed the many links that @LIIA provided or the evidence I've presented it would keep the topic from drifting.

 

[LIIA]

You don't understand the theory. But go ahead show how it is implied by the theory. Quotes and links are a must.

While eugenic principles have been historically practiced but the contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom, and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and most European countries.

Darwin’s half cousin Francis Galton was a pioneer of eugenics, coining the term itself in 1883

Francis Galton - Wikipedia

Galton researched the implications of Darwin’s theory of evolution, focusing on human genius and selective mating.

Francis Galton | Biography

Many countries adapted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants", and members of disfavored minority groups.

Eugenics policies and the genetic selection criteria were determined by whichever group has political power.

The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

No, there was no wrong done by the theory itself.

The theory itself is wrong. Its influence on humanity is damaging.

You still have not brought up one valid argument against the theory.

I did.

Oh! You mean the one that was totally beyond your understanding? Well that does not look good for you then.

I understand it. Do you?

Regardless of your meaningless denial, other readers can read it, understand it and verify the facts for themselves.

 

[LIIA]

Wow! Do you copy and paste this?

I did copy from my previous posts as a summary for the convenience of other readers.

The papers do not support your conclusions you are misinterpreting them at best.

It’s not my conclusion; it’s an established fact regardless of your meaningless denial.

By the way, where are you? Why do you only post in the dead of night?

Where am I or the convenient time for me to log in to the forum is not your concern.

 

[LIIA]

Organisms are living biological entities with cells (eg multicellular organisms, unicellular organisms), and viruses don’t have cells of their own, hence viruses aren’t organisms at all.

As I said multiple times, “viruses are not considered living organisms, but they’re indeed classified as microorganisms.” It can’t be that difficult for you to understand, is it?

1.2A Types of Microorganisms - Biology LibreTexts

Again, stop the nonsensical shift of the goalposts. Go ahead and classify the viruses in any way you wish. It’s your concern.

 

[LIIA]

You were the one who brought up Newton and Einstein.

I was only replying to your post - as is - that

• Einstein is a physicist, biology wasn’t his speciality, and
• Newton was foremost a mathematician, a physicist and an astronomer, not a biologist; and beside that Darwin’s On Origin (1859) was over a century after Newton’s time, so clearly Newton wouldn’t know anything about Natural Selection.

Did I ever claim that Newton or Einstein were biologists?

Yes, they are both geniuses in their fields, but it was their religions that made them geniuses.

Wow! Their religions made them geniuses? I can’t make such a claim. It’s amazing that you did!! I guess you didn’t mean it.

Beside that, Einstein wasn’t a theist, which goes to show, how little you know about his life.

Einstein believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza’s view was influenced by his own understanding of the principle of sufficient reason.

Einstein wrote: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Einstein explained his view on the relationship between science, philosophy and religion in his lectures of 1939 and 1941: “Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion”.

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world”. He said, "I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.”. Einstein has his own belief in God. He was definitely not an Atheist.

Einstein told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified.

On my end as a Muslim, I see that Einstein was definitely on the right track. On one hand, he acknowledged the idea of God’s causal influence on the world when he said, “There are not laws without a lawgiver”. On the other hand, he was absolutely right when he identified the problem not as God’s existence but rather the nature of God’s being. He said “but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified.”.

As Einstein said our limited minds cannot get a grasp of God’s being, It’s the most difficult problem in the world. God is neither a physical entity nor subject to the physical laws, hence his nature cannot be understood. Only his attributes can be understood through the manifestations of his being in the physical realm.

The starting point is to believe in God as the necessary being and the absolute reference for everything relative. Without the absolute, no relative may exist.

See #132 on page 7 of the thread “Necessary Being: Exists?”
Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists | Page 7 | Religious Forums

Second, once that belief is established, it wouldn’t be difficult to understand that God can and did approach humanity through messengers.

“Nothing is of his likeness; and he is the all-hearer, the all-seer” Ash-Shura, 11

“Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” Al-Ikhlas

 

[Subduction Zone]

While eugenic principles have been historically practiced but the contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom, and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and most European countries.

Darwin’s half cousin Francis Galton was a pioneer of eugenics, coining the term itself in 1883

Francis Galton - Wikipedia

Galton researched the implications of Darwin’s theory of evolution, focusing on human genius and selective mating.

Francis Galton | Biography

View attachment 63943
Many countries adapted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "deviants", and members of disfavored minority groups.

Eugenics policies and the genetic selection criteria were determined by whichever group has political power.

The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

So what? That is not the work of Darwin. And why the fixation on Darwin anyway? Yes, he discovered quite a bit with not that much information. But like all of us he made some mistakes.

But the work of others does not disprove evolution. It does not even harm it. Did the work of David Koresh refute Christianity? By your " logic" it does.

The theory itself is wrong. Its influence on humanity is damaging.

No one has come even close to showing that it is wrong. It has been confirmed millions of times. Like it or not it is reality and you are still an ape.

I did.

Nope. You have only demonstrated incredible ignorance.

I understand it. Do you?

Regardless of your meaningless denial, other readers can read it, understand it and verify the facts for themselves.

No,you didn't understand it at all. You almost certainly did not read it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did copy from my previous posts as a summary for the convenience of other readers.



It’s not my conclusion; it’s an established fact regardless of your meaningless denial.



Where am I or the convenient time for me to log in to the forum is not your concern.

Dude, I tell you what. Log on when it is convenient for me. And we can try to have a conversation. But let's get back to the article. What mechanism causes the mutations not to be totally random?

 

[gnostic]

Wow! Their religions made them geniuses? I can’t make such a claim. It’s amazing that you did!! I guess you didn’t mean it.

No, I made a mistake here.

It should read "wasn't" not "was".

It is a problem when I don't read what I have written.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did I simply say false or provided the link showing that Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record? Here is the link again.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

Ah, now you move the goalposts. Earlier you were trying to quote Gould as saying there are no transitional fossils at all, but now you've moved to him saying that a "degree of gradualism" isn't present in the fossil record. Those are two very different things.

So to repeat, as Gould said, transitional fossils are abundant and people who try to quote him as saying otherwise are doing so either out of stupidity or deceit. Thus you can stop trying to quote him as saying transitional fossils don't exist.

Now, onto the next topic....

If transitional fossils are abundant, why did Eldredge and Gould propose punctuated equilibrium in contrast with the Darwinian gradualism?

They did so because they realized paleontologists were interpreting the fossil record via a speciation model (anagensis) that was contrary to how population geneticists had determined most speciation events occur (parapatric speciation). So they raised the question....why are we paleontologists viewing the fossil record through the lens of anagenic speciation, when most speciation that occurs is parapatric?

But I have to wonder why this matters to you. Whether the dominant mode of speciation is one or the other, that doesn't change the overall conclusion of universal common ancestry via evolution. Whether it happened mostly by A or B, it still happened, so again....what is your point?

I’m quoting Ernst Walter Mayr (the Darwin of the 20th century). See # 331, page 17. In his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” He said “Indeed evolutionary biology as a science, is in many respects more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences. When drawing the borderline between the exact sciences and the Geisteswissenschaften it would go right through biology and attach functional biology to the exact sciences while including evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften.”

Here is the link for Ernst Mayr book “What Makes Biology Unique?”

What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (wordpress.com)

Um....did you actually read what you're quoting? Mayr is actually criticizing this division (emphasis mine)...

"When drawing the borderline between the exact sciences and the Geisteswissenschaften, this line would go right through the middle of biology and attach functional biology to the exact sciences while classifying evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften. This, incidentally, shows the weakness of the old classification of the sciences, which was made by philosophers familiar with the physical sciences and the humanities but ignorant of the existence of biology"​

Then in the following paragraph he talks about how philosophers who came up with this division ignored the methodologies used in the historical sciences.

So it seems you've been trying to quote Mayr as advocating putting evolutionary biology in the Geisteswissenschaften, when in reality he was criticizing doing so, just as earlier you were trying to quote Gould as saying transitional fossils don't exist, when in reality he was quite adamant that they do.

Are you familiar with the concept of "quote mining"?

Not arbitrarily at all. I’m not the one who included evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften. That was Ernst Walter Mayr (see above).

Except as has been shown, the opposite is the case.

Again, Choosing exact science over the Geisteswissenschaften is not cherry picking.

It seems to be more a case of quote mining.

As I explained above, it’s not the same domain. Evolutionary biology is not within the same domain of functional biology.

Um.....yes it is. Our understanding of how populations evolve has direct, functional applications in medicine (e.g., antibiotic resistance, new viral strains) and genomics (it helps determine genetic function) for example.

I said “Gould’s punctuation was disputed by the proponents of gradualism, which in turn was disputed, by the proponents of punctuation”.

In # 1104, you said it’s my mere say and in # 1215, I provided the link to show what the critics on both sides said. Dawkins was one of the critics who said that punctuated equilibrium was oversold by some journalists. After Gould’s passing, gradualism is back as the ruling dogma regardless of the evidence of the fossil record against it as Eldredge and Gould stated.

So? We have evolutionary biologists debating about the primary mode of speciation and how that should be applied to the fossil record. So what?

There is no religion that supports the nazi view that the Aryan race is the master race.

Are you not aware of the history of how German Christianity, and its persecution of Jews, was a major influence on Nazi ideology? Are you not familiar with the writings of Martin Luther, such as "The Jews and Their Lies"? Are you not aware of how Hitler appealed to and built on that?

The Holocaust Encyclopedia shows beyond doubt how the racial ideology of Nazi Germany was influenced by social Darwinism.

Again, even if true.....so what? Nazism was also influenced by Christianity. ISIS and Al Qaeda were influenced by Islam.

I fail to see your point.

The specific point is the damaging influence of the ToE on humanity.

So by the same token, Islam, Christianity, and pretty much all religious beliefs have been a damaging influence on humanity.

Our understanding of evolution has also provided many benefits, such as better medicine, vaccines, agriculture, and understanding of genetic function.

So is that it? Your only point in all this was "Evolutionary theory has resulted in some bad outcomes"?

Take a look at #911 again, the article stated “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

That's an assertion made with zero supporting evidence. FYI, things are not so simply because someone says they are.

Is that all you have to support your claim that those advocating for an EES constitute a majority of evolutionary biologists? No actual data?

No, it’s not some random regions.

I didn't say "some random regions". Pay closer attention.

The specific regions of the genome with the most vital genes essential for survival are protected against change with particularly effective DNA damage repair at these areas. Why/how would a mindless random process selectively protect vital areas? Playing with loaded dice, as the article said is not a random behavior.

Um....huh? We've known for a long time that DNA repair isn't random. In fact, I'm not aware that it was ever proposed that DNA repair was a completely random process.

Per the ToE, the change process was supposed to be random then advantageous random mutations are kept through selection.

Again.....huh? The mutations are indeed random, but the subsequent repair and selection processes aren't. This isn't complicated.

This is not the case; randomness is not a component of the actual adaptation process. Organisms don’t develop millions of random irrelevant changes to be purified by selection but rather develop specific purposeful/directed changes to address the variables within its environment. Such as the example of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) that the Microorganisms typically develop against the drugs designed to kill them.

Those are interesting claims. Let's see your support for them.

The article in #911 by Gerd B. Müller was published on 2017.by the Royal Society. See the references on pages 9, 10 & 11 on the PDF.

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

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

In addition to the references within the article, you may also refer to the Acknowledgements and References at the end of article below by Denis Noble. Published on 2013 by Experimental Physiology.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

None of that provides data that shows EES advocacy is a majority view in evolutionary biology. Care to try again?

 

[cladking]

So by the same token, Islam, Christianity, and pretty much all religious beliefs have been a damaging influence on humanity.

I would suggest that all superstitions are dangerous.

Homo omnisciencis must know everything but if we changed our perspective we would see not only our vaster ignorance but also the dangers of holding beliefs. If we could just remember we don't know everything we'd be far less dangerous to ourselves, others, and life on earth.

Darwin's beliefs are dangerous to the less fit and the dispossessed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If transitional fossils are abundant, why did Eldredge and Gould propose punctuated equilibrium in contrast with the Darwinian gradualism?

I already explained to you how you misunderstood what PE was about.
Why are you repeating this falsehood and doubling down on your mistake?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The belief that these predictions must be true is the main reason for the extreme bias, which is necessarily leading to false interpretation

This makes no sense.

The theory describes a mechanism.
From this mechanism, testable expectations and predictions.
When we go out and gather real world data and hold them up against these expectations and predictions, they check out.

That makes it evidence in support of the theory, since the data matches the predictions.

I don't know what else to tell you on this particular topic you seem to be hellbend on arguing against.




I'm skipping the "nebraska man" bs. Yet another PRATT.