Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

@cladking

I had written that peers cannot make CHANGES to any existing theory or any new hypothesis.

Meaning, they cannot rewrite the theory or hypothesis. Only AUTHORS of the theories or hypotheses can rewrite them.

What peers can do, if the hypothesis or theory have experiments performed to test the hypothesis or theory, then such hypothesis or theory should contain clear & detailed INSTRUCTION on how such experiments can be carried out.

Meaning. The peers, themselves, should be able to carry out the same experiments if necessary.

This is a mean of VERIFICATION, where independent scientists RETEST the hypothesis or theory, to see if the experiments DO SUPPORT or DO NOT SUPPORT hypothesis or theory.

Verification is important to experimental science.

Noted. I was entering my post at the same time you wrote this.

Remarkably we are in reasonably close agreement.

"Verification is important to experimental science." I would say replication is important to other scientists but not so much to the individual. But anyone can profit by having an expert looking over their shoulders. Everyone makes mistakes. "Verification is "extrametaphysical".

 

[gnostic]

Here you are apparently confusing reality with theory. "Theory" is an attempt to define reality but theories are ofttimes revised or overthrown. There is simply no reason to suppose any theory is a perfect or good reflection of reality and we judge them on their predictive abilities and the types and degrees of anomalies they generate.

You are fibbing again.

Nowhere did I say that any theory is “perfect”.

Of course, theories can be questioned or challenged, revised or refuted.

No theories are omniscient, not even the theory of Evolution.

But any changes or any debunking/refuting must have better or stronger TESTS to challenge existing scientific theory.

Let take a look at evolutionary biology, as an example.

What do you think the Modern Synthesis is?

While Darwin was a pioneer of Natural Selection - one of 5 known mechanisms in today’s Evolution - his explanations on genetics was inadequate, sloppy.

Georgs Mendel’s inheritance hypothesis in genetics was much better. But Darwin didn’t know anything about his contemporary or about Mendel’s independent papers on genetics or his successful experiments with peas, during 1865-1866.

His works became known as “Mendel’s Law of Inheritance” or “Mendelian Inheritance”.

Mendel’s works were forgotten, only to be rediscovered in 1900.

During the 1930s, biologists have combined Darwin’s Natural Selection and Mendel’s Genetics into a single framework for the theory of Evolution, which started the Modern Synthesis. And if I remember correctly, Modern Synthesis was coined by Julian Huxley in 1942(?).

The Modern Synthesis is example of Natural Selection being revised, modified and updated, or expanded.

Further expansion and updates to Evolution was the inclusion of other mechanisms:

• Mutations,
• Genetic Drift,
• Gene Flow &
• Genetic Hitchhiking (or Genetic Recombination).

Darwin’s original framework have been corrected and modified, and it isn’t the only possible mechanism.

Darwin was only one man who contributed to Evolution, and he was limited in his time, technologically, and he was unaware of knowledge that were only available in the 20th century, which further helped expanding and updating Evolution, such as DNA testing, the genome project, molecular biology, biochemistry, modern paleontology, etc.

Another example. Michael Faraday and James Maxwell were both pioneers of electromagnetism, but like Darwin’s Natural Selection, they also didn’t know everything there is to know about electromagnetic fields. Their works were also revised and updated, by physicists during the 20th and 21st centuries. Even Maxwell’s equations aren’t exact solutions, which have been updated in Quantum Electrodynamics theory.

Another example is the Atomic Theory.

The Atomic Theory that started in chemistry, have undergone many changes by physicists of the 20th century, which included physics fields: quantum physics, nuclear physics, field physics, the Standard Model of elementary particles (particle physics), etc, each ones of them expanded what we know about atoms that we didn’t know in the 18th and 19th century chemistry.

So of course, no scientific theories are written in stone. Changes can be made, better alternative can replace existing theories, all of it depending on the available evidence.

What all this mean is that all scientific theories are provisional, hence are subjected to changes or replacement by tested alternatives.

There are no exceptions. These would include theories on gravity, on quantum physics, on electromagnetism, on big bang, on evolution, etc

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In my experiences, that's pretty standard from creationists. And it's what one would expect from people who object to something from science, but do so for religious reasons.

Pretty much mine too, but I am still amazed by it. And not just creationists, but attention seekers that create these fantastic and convoluted narratives weaving conspiracy theories and fictional ancient cultures, psuedoscience and a mish mash of misunderstanding into what appears to be a belief system.

 

[Valjean]

Most believers in science believe Peers define science and science defines reality. This could be seen as the biggest CONSPIRACY ever!!! I can't imagine a world where people believe reality is defined by a few individuals who are severally and jointly responsible for saying what is real and what is not. But then this is your beliefs and not mine. You believe in such a conspiracy whereas I DO NOT. I believe reality is independent of peer opinion and that most good peers know this. It is believers in Science who believe in the conspiracy. It is you who believes Peer opinion is relevant even where it is not.

You're conflating science with religion. Science, unlike religion, is not founded on revelation or on authority. Scientists believe reality is independent of peer opinion, based solely on observable, testable, evidence, never on authority.
It's the research that informs these 'peers', and any questions are directed not to them, but to the underlying research, for anyone to examine individually.

Conspiracy? A conspiracy is a goal directed collusion. What goal would these scientific conspirators have? How could the secret be kept in such a huge, diverse, individualistic community? And getting even a few scientists to fall in line without some sort of coercion is like herding cats.

And again, this is essentially just averring you are right sans evidence and sans experiment.

Accepting Evolution on faith IS belief.

Everything accepted as true is belief, regardless of what the acceptance is based on.
Facts, in science are not based on faith. Science is a rebellion against faith. It accepts something as fact solely on evidence and experiment.

 

[Valjean]

Cosmological Look and See Science is based largely in mathematics. Math and reality are each founded in logic so of course there are similarities between the two.

Darwin's Look and See Science was simply founded in his prejudices and beliefs. It was founded on his era and place. He Looked and Saw what he expected and because it was based in reason many people believed him even though there is no experimental justification.

I think you've got this exactly backwards. Darwin began with conventional views, but his field observations led him to a remarkable and completely unexpected insight.

There are few connections between Evolution and modern cosmology but I'm sure there would be differences in cosmology today if Evolution had never been invented. Science would have taken a slightly different course.

Biological changewas never invented. It was discovered. Change over time -- evolution -- is a fact. It happened.
I'm not seeing this evolution-cosmology connection. Explain?
Science's course is determined by the evidence it uncovers. It follows the evidence.

And herein lies the magic. without understanding metaphysics the "scientific method" has no meaning. Most people don't even seem to know that it is the expression of reality in experiment that is the basis of science. Since they don't understand this they don't understand that without experiment there is no science. Some actually believe it's not science until Peers say it's science. Every theory has to be baked by a committee of Peers before it's true or applicable to the real world. They believe only Peers can make new discovery but it has to be voted on before it becomes a natural law.

Huh? I'm not following this at all.
Metaphysics? How are you defining this, and what role do you claim it plays in understanding reality?

This is magic. Most believers in science believe in this magic. This doesn't mean the ToE is false, merely the way believers model it.

What is magic? What are you claiming is magic, and what does science -- the opposite of magic -- have to to with whatever you're talking about?

 

[Valjean]

And you have never listed a single one!

 

[cladking]

You're conflating science with religion.

No! I am not. For most people science is the new religion so they can't see that most "science" today is a pig in lipstick.

Science, unlike religion, is not founded on revelation or on authority.

Peers are believed to be the high priests, popes, or gods by most believers today. Their word is gospel.

Scientists believe reality is independent of peer opinion, based solely on observable, testable, evidence, never on authority.

Yes. Most scientists are well aware of this.

Except most scientists know that experiment plays the leading role in every script.

It's the research that informs these 'peers', and any questions are directed not to them, but to the underlying research, for anyone to examine individually.

More nice words but you don't seem to hear me when I say that without experiment there is no science and many "sciences" today" are wholly void of experiment.

Conspiracy? A conspiracy is a goal directed collusion.

So why do so many believers in science imagine those who don't believe are conspirators. It is they (believers) who believe in conspiracies. I believe many people in he "sciences" are mistaken but I do not believe they are doing it intentionally.

And getting even a few scientists to fall in line without some sort of coercion is like herding cats.

This is true for all individuals who think for themselves (you probably are aware of this). Unfortunately, today many people believe Peers are the only authority on reality. And that everything is known to Peers.

Everything accepted as true is belief, regardless of what the acceptance is based on.

Indeed. I try not to accept anything t all as true. I have different models of reality than most people. This is very similar to how how people who think for themselves operate. This is a scientific perspective and derived from reason not belief to the degree I am able.

Science is a rebellion against faith.

This IS one of the problems. In rebelling against faith manty individuals have simply substituted new beliefs in place of religion. These new beliefs are sometimes destructive to the individual or the commonweal but they are always destructive to the search for truth.

It accepts something as fact solely on evidence and experiment.

"Accepting something as fact" is the definition of "belief".


I'm sorry this is so complex and reality is so complicated. I didn't design it and don't even understand it. But I'm the only one who seems to know that NOBODY understands it.

 

[cladking]

I get that a lot and sometimes I even get very feeble attempts at showing an experiment. But there are no experiments that show a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest, survival of the most selected or whatever believers are calling it this week. There is no gradual change because all species are perfectly adapted to their environments and environments change suddenly. All individuals are equally fit. Change in species derives from consciousness which is expressed as behavior. You misinterpreting things that aren't even proper experiment.

 

[cladking]

No theories are omniscient, not even the theory of Evolution.

Ah, but the people who know and understand the ToE are omniscient. Almost to a man they know there is no God, consciousness plays no role in change in species, and anyone can divine reality by merely looking and seeing fossilized skulls. It's magic I say, magic.

 

[cladking]

Almost to a man they know there is no God, consciousness plays no role in change in species, and anyone can divine reality by merely looking and seeing fossilized skulls

Far worse every believer knows that all anomalies, evidence, logic, and observation that doesn't support the ToE is an irrelevancy.

 

[Valjean]

At least you're finally using most of the right words.

Except you are simply ignoring the fact that they can only examine hypotheses that fall within the existing paradigm. They can see only evidence and interpret experiment in terms of existing theory. This is why science changes one funeral at a time.

Where do you come up with all this ridiculous misinformation? You're making completely baseless, totally wrong claims.
The theory follows the evidence. Many times new evidence has led to entirely new avenues of thought.

Here you are apparently confusing reality with theory. "Theory" is an attempt to define reality but theories are ofttimes revised or overthrown. There is simply no reason to suppose any theory is a perfect or good reflection of reality and we judge them on their predictive abilities and the types and degrees of anomalies they generate.

Theories describe reality. No theory, nothing in science, is writ in stone. Science makes no such claim.
Unlike religion, science is always provisional, and science is always tweaking existing theories and hypotheses as new evidence comes to light. That's its strength; always inching closer to truth.

But you are essentially correct that you'll never get Peers to agree to change theory. And, again, this is why science changes one funeral at a time. It is hardly unusual that theory has to be jettisoned but it's most unusual anyone is willing to build new models of reality to match new theory or changes in the paradigm.

But this happens all the time. What do you think science does? What do you think the purpose of research is?
Peer review is an attempt to find flaws in a theory or hypothesis, not to support it. Peer review is an attack, not a defense.

Darwin failed. In 50 years the ToE will be dead

But why do you say this? The ToE grows stronger and better evidenced every day. What do you imagine will dethrone it?

It will be replaced by something like "punctuated equilibrium" and, I believe, it will emphasize bottlenecks and behavior which encompasses consciousness.

But punctuated equilibrium is evolution. It describes variation in the rate of change. It overturns nothing.

"Survival of the fittest" will be naturally deselected as an explanation for the cause of "change in species".

So what does drive change, if not adaptation? Why do you dismiss adaptation and natural selection?

 

[gnostic]

Ah, but the people who know and understand the ToE are omniscient. Almost to a man they know there is no God, consciousness plays no role in change in species, and anyone can divine reality by merely looking and seeing fossilized skulls. It's magic I say, magic.

I can’t believe that you have made all these absurd claims. Not a single thing you wrote, above, are true, and you are being flippant, and arrogantly dishonest with your claims.

Evolution is religion-neutral, it say nothing about any god and about any religion. Evolution isn’t a theism-vs-atheism contest, just as the theory of gravity, quantum physics, electromagnetism, etc, take no side between atheism and theism, because atheism and theism have nothing to do with any field of natural sciences.

If you seriously want talk about god, then start a new thread on theology.

Evolution isn’t omniscient, nor is Charles Darwin and any other biologists. You are just being a dishonest and paranoid propagandist and a conspiracy theorist.

Everything you said about “magic” this and “magic” that, are just more idiotic propaganda and conspiracies.

You keep shoving your foot in mouth with these bogus claims. You lack the integrity to debate honestly.

 

[Valjean]

No! I am not. For most people science is the new religion so they can't see that most "science" today is a pig in lipstick.

Why do you say this? I'm not seeing any evidence. You're not citing any facts. You're not supporting this claim.

Peers are believed to be the high priests, popes, or gods by most believers today. Their word is gospel.

Are we talking about the same thing? Who are these peers you're denouncing? What do you think their roles are?

I assumed you were talking about fellow scientists, and were misunderstanding what peer review was, but you seem to be talking about some supreme committee, dictating and enforcing orthodox doctrine.
This is total fantasy. It's pretty much the opposite of what "peers" do.

More nice words but you don't seem to hear me when I say that without experiment there is no science and many "sciences" today" are wholly void of experiment.

Knowledge can be acquired many ways. Experimentation is one of them.
I'm still not understanding what this bogus science is that you condemn. Can you give some examples, with explanations?

So why do so many believers in science imagine those who don't believe are conspirators. It is they (believers) who believe in conspiracies. I believe many people in he "sciences" are mistaken but I do not believe they are doing it intentionally.

Most believers in science don't waste much time theorizing about the disbelievers. Most just assume they're uneducated or ignorant.
One could make a case, though, that organized religion does actively conspire to discredit science, which they see as a doctrinal threat

This is true for all individuals who think for themselves (you probably are aware of this). Unfortunately, today many people believe Peers are the only authority on reality. And that everything is known to Peers.

Again, who are these "peers" if not the scientists themselves?

Indeed. I try not to accept anything t all as true. I have different models of reality than most people. This is very similar to how how people who think for themselves operate. This is a scientific perspective and derived from reason not belief to the degree I am able.

What are these different models of reality? What do you base them on? It doesn't seem to be reason, as you claim, since you reject reason.

Q: What is similar to how people who think for themselves operate?
"This is a scientific perspective and derived from reason not belief
to the degree I am able." What does this mean?

This IS one of the problems. In rebelling against faith manty individuals have simply substituted new beliefs in place of religion.

Faith is unfounded belief. Of what value is that?
The "new beliefs many have substituted" are evidenced, tested, reliable beliefs. Why would these not be preferable to poorly evidenced beliefs?

These new beliefs are sometimes destructive to the individual or the commonweal but they are always destructive to the search for truth.

Truth is truth. The utility or destructiveness of a fact does not alter it's ontological status. A thing is not true because it's useful or salubrious.

How would tested evidence be "destructive to the search for truth?" What would a more reliable metric be?
You criticize the scientific method, but I'm still waiting for an alternate methodology.

 

[Valjean]

I get that a lot and sometimes I even get very feeble attempts at showing an experiment. But there are no experiments that show a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest, survival of the most selected or whatever believers are calling it this week. There is no gradual change because all species are perfectly adapted to their environments and environments change suddenly. All individuals are equally fit. Change in species derives from consciousness which is expressed as behavior. You misinterpreting things that aren't even proper experiment.

You make these proclamations, but your claims are simply wrong. You're either woefully uneducated, deliberately deceitful, or brainwashed.

 

[cladking]

The theory follows the evidence. Many times new evidence has led to entirely new avenues of thought.

...One funeral at a time.

Theories describe reality.

"Theory" describes current interpretation of experiment.

But this happens all the time. What do you think science does? What do you think the purpose of research is?
Peer review is an attempt to find flaws in a theory or hypothesis, not to support it. Peer review is an attack, not a defense.

Most science today is no longer science at all. That ship sailed and now funding is controlled by those who want results that support their beliefs.

Obviously many individuals even in the worst "sciences" seek the truth for the sake of knowing the truth abut they will not get funding if they speak against the status quo. They will lose their standing as a Peer for saying the wrong thing.

It's not science or scientists that are the problem but the failure of education to teach metaphysics. Education has failed and a few now control most of science through funding. What ramifications of this would you predict?

Most believers in science don't waste much time theorizing about the disbelievers. Most just assume they're uneducated or ignorant.

Yes!!@!@Q!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly. When you believe in anything that becomes the only thing you can see. You believe in Evolution so you can't even see my argument.

But why do you say this? The ToE grows stronger and better evidenced every day. What do you imagine will dethrone it?

It is a house of cards that is becoming top heavy. Those "experiments" don't really quite fit.

But punctuated equilibrium is evolution. It describes variation in the rate of change. It overturns nothing.

How many times have I said I don't believe in it or religion . I believe they are closer to reality than Darwin.

So what does drive change, if not adaptation? ?

All individual are fit and every species is adapted to their environment. Small changes are often needed by individuals (you call species) so nature quickly adapts by changing the individuals. Large changes are virtually impossible because species woukldn't exist if a large change were needed.

Why can't anyone be troubled to even remember my argument or directly address any part of it. We go over the same ground because everyone simply ignores all the heretics. Instead of debate or argument we get lectures and word games.

So what does drive change, if not adaptation? Why do you dismiss adaptation and natural selection?

[sigh] Behavior driven by consciousness causes speciation at bottlenecks.

There is no gradual change in species because all individuals are fit and niches don't last long enough.

 

[cladking]

Evolution is religion-neutral, it say nothing about any god and about any religion.

It's always religion neutral until believers use it as their first argument against the existence of God.

Obviously many religious people accept or believe in evolution. And equally obviously many Peers even are religious.

Did you intentionally miss the point?

Evolution isn’t omniscient, nor is Charles Darwin and any other biologists. You are just being a dishonest and paranoid propagandist and a conspiracy theorist.

And there it is again. Even after I show I believe in no conspiracy yet many believers do you turn your foibles on me.

We heretics are not talking among each other to undermine you or your beliefs. There is no cabal to my knowledge seeking to embarrass you.

You are simply wrong.

Everything you said about “magic” this and “magic” that, are just more idiotic propaganda and conspiracies.

By what magic do you know this?

 

[cladking]

You make these proclamations, but your claims are simply wrong. You're either woefully uneducated, deliberately deceitful, or brainwashed.

But you won't show an experiment to support your belief or to contradict mine no matter how much evidence I present.

What are you so afraid of? Why can't you show a single experiment? There's been a single response on topic to this challenge in two years and that was the e coli experiment that I already addressed.

Why can't believers show experimental evidence? Egyptologists present et als and believers in Evolution present irrelevancies that usually support my theory and NOT their own.

 

[Valjean]

But you won't show an experiment to support your belief or to contradict mine no matter how much evidence I present.

What are you so afraid of? Why can't you show a single experiment? There's been a single response on topic to this challenge in two years and that was the e coli experiment that I already addressed.

Why can't believers show experimental evidence? Egyptologists present et als and believers in Evolution present irrelevancies that usually support my theory and NOT their own.

Pick up any biology textbook or magazine and you'll find myriad experiments.

 

[cladking]

Pick up any biology textbook or magazine and you'll find myriad experiments.

Good one! But I heard it before and it's not really that funny.

 

[cladking]

Good one! But I heard it before and it's not really that funny.

Did I ever mention every experiment and observation supports my theory better than it does Darwin?