Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

I would like to say this: (upon examination of views)
"Scientists have identified dozens of early primates, based on teeth, but still have a hard time assessing how these mammals relate to modern primates" OK, DOZENS of early primates based on teeth, but can't figure (still have a hard time assessing) how these primates relate to "modern primates." (LOL...)Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
There we go -- so much for assessing...

 

[YoursTrue]

You're still doing it.

You believe everything but science is just words, but science is some megalithic creature that lives through Peers and feeds on religion.

Your understanding of science and how it works is nonsense and I believe in no conspiracies.

If your definitions are magical then your thinking is magical as well.



No. I'm the one who keeps saying evidence and deductive logic are the best tools for inventing experiment and it is experiment that can glimpse reality.



Yes these representations are mere evidence. And they are evidence that strongly support my theory that there was a single human language that failed at the "tower of babel".



I'm fully aware that the parts of all living things are quite small and that it is individual consciousness that makes them unique. I am also fully aware that all the evidence supports my theory that all change in life is sudden and most probably determined by consciousness as expressed through behavior.

Some times things have to be stripped to the bare bones to be seen at all. This is what I see based on evidence, deductive reasoning and centuries of experiments.

Well here's what an esteemed journal says about sizing up the situation:
"Scientists have identified dozens of early primates, based on teeth, but still have a hard time assessing how these mammals relate to modern primates" OK, DOZENS of early primates based on teeth, but can't figure (still have a hard time assessing) how these primates relate to "modern primates." (LOL...)Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
There we go -- so much for assessing. how it all came about lol!.. In reality, or real-time or F_A_C_T.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are still those who believe in spontaneous generation and 'magic poofing'. Here in the US they're most numerous among the evangelical Christians.

Not exactly sure what you mean here, but as I continue to examine the subject of -- evolution -- here's what I came across in reference to men and PRIMATES -- from a respected publication of the Smithsonian Institute --
"Scientists have identified dozens of early primates, based on teeth, but still have a hard time assessing how these mammals relate to modern primates" OK, DOZENS of early primates based on teeth, but can't figure (still have a hard time assessing) how these primates relate to "modern primates." (LOL...)Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
(Still can't figure -- because -- no proof. )

 

[YoursTrue]

What I remember most is that it was jam-packed with evidence to support the theory. That evidence made up most of the book.

I hope you read the comment I posted from the Smithsonian about -- primates "evolving" supposedly to eventually become what? Humans. But just in case --
"Scientists have identified dozens of early primates, based on teeth, but still have a hard time assessing how these mammals relate to modern primates" OK, DOZENS of early primates based on teeth, but can't figure (still have a hard time assessing) how these primates relate to "modern primates." (LOL...)Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
There we go -- so much for assessing as if knowing...
In other words, they just can't assess...the how...but of course, they, along with others, are sure it happened. (lol)

 

[ppp]

I hope you read the comment I posted from the Smithsonian about -- primates "evolving" supposedly to eventually become what? Humans. But just in case --
"Scientists have identified dozens of early primates, based on teeth, but still have a hard time assessing how these mammals relate to modern primates" OK, DOZENS of early primates based on teeth, but can't figure (still have a hard time assessing) how these primates relate to "modern primates." (LOL...)Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
There we go -- so much for assessing as if knowing...
In other words, they just can't assess...the how...but of course, they, along with others, are sure it happened. (lol)

You are laughing lol, but you seem to be vague on exactly what you are laughing about.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are laughing lol, but you seem to be vague on exactly what you are laughing about.

Was the article vague? I don't think so...would you like me to go over it again with you?

 

[ppp]

Was the article vague? I don't think so...would you like me to go over it again with you?

So, let me get this straight. You think that the our understanding of nature of the original primates from circa 65 million years ago has a direct relevance to our understanding of primates from the last five hundred thousand years. Is that what you are going with?

 

[YoursTrue]

View attachment 64547
So, let me get this straight. You think that the our understanding of nature of the original primates from circa 65 million years ago has a direct relevance to our understanding of primates from the last five hundred thousand years. Is that what you are going with?

Nope. Read the article again, perrhaps you'll get it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 64547
So, let me get this straight. You think that the our understanding of nature of the original primates from circa 65 million years ago has a direct relevance to our understanding of primates from the last five hundred thousand years. Is that what you are going with?

Yes.

 

[ppp]

Nope. Read the article again, perrhaps you'll get it.

Nope. I don't question the article. I question your reading comprehension.

 

[ppp]

Yes.

Yup.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd be arguing but after a long debate where she promised to so certain things and went back on her word she blocked me.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd be arguing but after a long debate where she promised to so certain things and went back on her word she blocked me.

I'm just reviewing this now after unblocking you for a while. Meantime, did you read the article I referenced? What proof do scientists have about the emergence (evolution) of man from any primate? Anything? Nothing. To elaborate, not only is there no proof, there is nothing showing any evolution from one species of primate to another. Nothing. Zilch. You want to argue with that? (Go ahead...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. I don't question the article. I question your reading comprehension.

So scientists themselves say there is no proof linking one species of primate to another. None whatsoever. All you do is insult, but -- facts are facts. And the fact is that scientists not only can't figure what might be the "Common Ancestor" leading to possible apes including humans, they can't see anything showing evolution from one species of primate to another. Go ahead -- insult me again, but really what you're doing is insulting yourself since you did not comprehend what the article was saying OR -- you're lying about it. If I'm wrong about what the article is saying, please show me.. Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
It seems to me that you have blinders on re: "facts."
I hope you guys show me where you're wrong (or right) or I'm wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just reviewing this now after unblocking you for a while. Meantime, did you read the article I referenced? What proof do scientists have about the emergence (evolution) of man from any primate? Anything? Nothing. To elaborate, not only is there no proof, there is nothing showing any evolution from one species of primate to another. Nothing. Zilch. You want to argue with that? (Go ahead...)

Yes, quite a bit. You mentioned some of the evidence. Yet you forgot so soon.

Teeth can tell us a lot about an animal. They will tell us what sort of food they ate, what sort of life they lived. There is a lot of information that can be garnered from teeth.

By the way, why focus on just human evolution? No record is going to be complete. We do not expect it to be. A species has to live in an environment that fosters fossilization. That often does not happen so of course we will see gaps.

I know that you do not like this fact, but there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs at all. How do you explain that? Are you going to claim that it is because all creation "scientists" are cowards? Or is it just because there is no evidence for an event that never happened?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So scientists themselves say there is no proof linking one species of primate to another. None whatsoever. All you do is insult, but -- facts are facts. And the fact is that scientists not only can't figure what might be the "Common Ancestor" leading to possible apes including humans, they can't see anything showing evolution from one species of primate to another. Go ahead -- insult me again, but really what you're doing is insulting yourself since you did not comprehend what the article was saying OR -- you're lying about it. If I'm wrong about what the article is saying, please show me.. Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
It seems to me that you have blinders on re: "facts."
I hope you guys show me where you're wrong (or right) or I'm wrong.

Okay, let's use proper terminology. In the sciences the word "proof" is not used because it can be highly prejudicial. The term to use is evidence. And yes there is all sorts of evidence supporting this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So scientists themselves say there is no proof linking one species of primate to another. None whatsoever. All you do is insult, but -- facts are facts. And the fact is that scientists not only can't figure what might be the "Common Ancestor" leading to possible apes including humans, they can't see anything showing evolution from one species of primate to another. Go ahead -- insult me again, but really what you're doing is insulting yourself since you did not comprehend what the article was saying OR -- you're lying about it. If I'm wrong about what the article is saying, please show me.. Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
It seems to me that you have blinders on re: "facts."
I hope you guys show me where you're wrong (or right) or I'm wrong.

You are wrong and lose the argument every time that you use the word "proof". Once again, scientists do not use that term. It is a mathematical term. For example, not even gravity is "proven". But there is endless evidence for it. It is accepted as being provisionally true, and that is not a common event in the sciences.

 

[Valjean]

At last we know everything!!!

This has been the mantra for every new discovery for 4000 years even when it upsets the applecart.

Huh?

Of course it is. Whether one is a scientist or not we still see what we believe. The only thing that differentiates an observation from Looking and Seeing is a scientific perspective.

Science is a skeptical, investigative modality that insists on repeatability, predictability, testing and peer review. The system's designed to exclude personal interpretations and belief-bias.

All evidence is an interpretation.

Evidence is evidence. It's an accumulation of facts and observations. It comes in many forms. It may lead to multiple interpretations, but, until sufficient, tested evidence accumulates to formulate, test and evaluate a theorem it remains just a likely possibility, not a fact or theory.

I know how science works. I don't think you know how minds work.

No, you don't seem to know how it works. It's a method of eliminating human error, psychological quirks, bias, and ambiguity.

 

[cladking]

Huh?

Every believer for 4000 years has known everything. Every shaman, every priest, and every scientific zealot sees everything in terms of what he believes and his models.

Science is a skeptical, investigative modality that insists on repeatability, predictability, testing and peer review.

No! Scientific people are all individuals and we are supposed to be skeptical but very few are now days. Repeatability, predictability, and testing are obviously necessary but Peer review is irrelevant.

All evidence is an interpretation.

Yes. Please inform Gnostic.

I don't think you know how minds work.

I'm sure you're right but might be closer than anyone else. More accurately I believe I'm the first homo omnisciencis to understand the formatting of our brain and how this compares to homo sapien formatting. Animal brains operate in three dimensions and ours is effectively one.

 

[Valjean]

Not exactly sure what you mean here, but as I continue to examine the subject of -- evolution -- here's what I came across in reference to men and PRIMATES -- from a respected publication of the Smithsonian Institute --
"Scientists have identified dozens of early primates, based on teeth, but still have a hard time assessing how these mammals relate to modern primates" OK, DOZENS of early primates based on teeth, but can't figure (still have a hard time assessing) how these primates relate to "modern primates." (LOL...)Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
(Still can't figure -- because -- no proof. )

These early primates are many, many, many steps away from the emergence of hominids, hominins, and, eventually, H. sapiens sapiens. Of course the relationship to modern forms is unclear.

Our evidence of the recent emergence of hominids, and modern humans, is based on a great deal more than the few teeth and bone fragments from tens of millions of years ago.

How these ancient, possible primates relate to modern humans doesn't effect the emergence of apes or their clear divergence into several families. It does not affect the biological relation of humans to other apes.