Darwin's Illusion

[rational experiences]

The human theist science challenge that one God only humans quoted.....
How does sex that passes on inherited bio sin...have anything to do with you or theory? Theist human scientist human?

Sex the physical bio act is why any type of life exists now.

Past is the sex act itself with those living bodies now dead. Legal status don't talk about the dead. Versus theists.

The legal one God human terms was never a thesis. It was a teaching against theism itself.

A human legally observing said all types of one bodies owned two of. As procreation was continuance. Natural continuance with one was by two.

Today the human theist scientist tries to convince everyone that the God theist lied was wrong as it was the human scientist. There was never a theory as one God.

Yet by his ego today doesn't want to own the claim hence I'm wrong too now. Yet he is.

As only humans in human life fought for legal human rights versus satanic subjectation. Human only theisms.

Theisms of a human were inherited by a burnt brain prickled mind by star mass sun fall. Changed human mind already wrong type of origin human.

As Satanists are scientists. And natural equal humans have fought for human rights of family since bully cult men groups took control. Over family equality.

Is the exact human teaching. Legal.

Indoctrination is forced cult human practice only. Always was. Whose in control dictated what they wanted indoctrinated.

Once it was religious science only for brain entrainment. Believe in an earth O one God holy human life...no satanisms allowed. Theism.

As sex is not a human scientists theory said the teaching. It's not a theory.

 

[Valjean]

Genes define consciousness. Experience molds consciousness.

???? -- please clarify.

In human all behavior is defined by beliefs but in all other life forms behavior is the result of knowledge. This allows animals to act "intelligently" with very little knowledge.

Why do you say human behavior is defined by beliefs? Is there no hard-wired behavior or psychology?

It is behavior that leads to speciation.

By what mechanism? This sounds like Lamarckism.

When we select tame wolves to breed this behavior of "tameness" suddenly creates a new species; dogs. This is the exact same way nature creates most new species; it selects for unusual behavior which derives from consciousness.

Nature selects for behavior, anatomy, physiology or other characteristics that make an individual more fit, ie: more reproductively successful. This is simply selection, either human or natural.

There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" because every individual (which isn't dinner) is equally fit.

I don't think you understand fitness. If a litter of wolves is born, some may be dark and some light. Some may have longer legs or a thicker coat. These characteristics create differential 'fitness'. A white, heavy furred individual will be more fit for an arctic environment than a dark, short-haired individual. The light, heavy furred individuals will likely be more reproductively successful, increasing the incidence of these features in the general population. This is inborn, anatomic variation. The fitness it confers isn't determined by behavior or consciousness.

When four legged "whales" that love water are the only individuals that survive they breed and create a new species. Species, like EVERYTHING to do with life arise suddenly.

No. It's a slow process. Whales did not evolve overnight.

Consciousness drives speciation through behavior at bottlenecks.

Reproductive variation drives speciation. By what method would consciousness or behavior cause differential variation and reproductive success? What do bottlenecks have to do with it?

"It is this that I believe forms and causes specific changes in species/ individuals."

By what mechanism? Why do you believe this?

It is this (genes) that I believe forms and causes specific changes in species/ individuals.

It is reproductive variation that creates variations in fitness/reproductive success.
Yes, genes program individual features, but selection decides which genetic programs become dominant in a population.

IE- All life is individual and all life is formed from genes. Life is consciousness so genes are the cause of change in species.

Yes, genetic change causes change in individuals causes change in populations. So what causes the change in genes that causes the change in species?
This change is not caused by consciousness. It's caused by the genetic shuffling of sexual reproduction and by mutation. A wolf can't think itself a warmer coat.

Behavior is an expression of genes just as is consciousness. When unusual genes that caused unusual behavior that allowed some individuals to survive a bottleneck come together after that that bottleneck a new species is created.

Why just behavior? Why not physical features that confer better adaptation to environmental changes?

In a very real way it is consciousness that causes speciation.

No! An organism can't think its way to longer wings, better camouflage, or webbed feet. Completely mindless organisms evolve just as readily as the more thoughtful ones.

So long as niches remain stable there is virtually no change in species.

No, there is just slower change, because of less adaptive pressure; plus, natural selection isn't he only mechanism of evolution.

But niches never last long according to the physical evidence.

What evidence? Many environments, and the niches they support, are very stable over long periods. Many species remain essentially unchanged for thousands or millions of years.

Without a stable niche species don't have time to "evolve".

Huh? Time is time. In a stable niche there's little pressure to change. In a changing environment there is great pressure. Instability creates a need for adaptation, so speeds up evolution.

When niches change it is populated by all new species except the few that didn't undergo a significant population bottleneck.

When niches change species adapt to better "fit" them. I don't know what you mean by "all new species," and your reference to population bottlenecks totally baffles me. Explain?

This is what the actual physical evidence and experiment shows. we are are misinterpreting evidence because the paradigm is wrong.

Not following. What physical evidence? What experiments? What paradigm? Did all the biologists get it wrong?

Definitions are poor and reductionistic science does an extremely poor job of seeing things that aren't or can't be reduced. We can't reduce consciousness and factor it out when we look at change in species so of course we can't see the true nature of the change.

All this you'll have to explain. I'm not following.

That consciousness is life. That every individual has a unique consciousness caused by unique genes and unique experience.

Carrots are alive. Are carrots conscious?

Beavers didn't invent dams. A beaver invented dams and others came along with improvements. You can't understand how a species changes if you don't understand the consciousness and uniqueness of its progenitures.

Dam building was selectively advantageous. The instinct for it increased in the population, as the better dam builders were selected for.

If you want to describe things that have long time periods or are small scale then science fails. There is no such thing as Evolution and there are no experiments to support it.

This is simply false. Show us some evidence, please.

All observation and experiment show speciation is sudden and unrelated to survival of the fittest or "natural selection" as we define it.

Palpable poppycock. I challenge you to produce any evidence for this.

 

[Valjean]

How is it relevant? Yes, people abused religions, but the racist ideology of the Nazis and many others was a direct implementation of the evolutionary ideas of Darwin himself as it applies on humans in his book “The Descent of Man”.

No, it was not. Natural selection is a fact. Misinterpreting it to justify genocide is an abomination.

You may say that Darwin’s racist views on race and gender in the “The Descent of Man” were wrong but you cannot claim it was misinterpreted. It was not.

I'd have to review "Descent," but I can certainly declare it misapplied.

It's a prediction in a specific scientific book concerning evolution as is it applies on humans!! Again, you can say Darwin, his ideas and the culture of his times were wrong, but you cannot claim his racist ideas were misinterpreted.

I can claim they were poorly evidenced speculation -- and misapplied.

You should understand that we are not debating generally about the ToE but rather very specifically about its application on humans. Nothing clearly shows the intrinsic quality of the theory of evolution as it applies on humans as Darwin’s book “The Descent of Man”.

Evolution by natural selection is a fact/theory. Concomitant speculation is speculation, awaiting evidence. It's 'application on humans falls on the humans who implemented it.

Evil existed long before Darwin but for the first time in history, evil became justifiable on scientific basis thanks to Darwin. It became no longer considered as evil.

Thanks to the human propensity to find justification for its actions from any source available. Historically, this has usually been religion.

Are you serious? The theory that makes man no longer human but merely a son of animal and gives the right to the so-called civilized to exterminate the savage didn’t dehumanize man. How can man get dehumanized more than that? It’s ridiculous.

How are you conceiving"human?" Any organism with a hominin genetic complement is 'human'. I don't understand what you mean by "dehumanize." Diminish status, perhaps?

"...son of animal?!" We are animals, a species of ape, in fact.
"...the savage?!" "Civilize?!" What are you talking about? I get the impression you're just as hierarchical as the Nazis; that you see humans as placed on some divine pedestal, entirely distinct from nature.

So you object to science, Darwin, and evolution because it dethrones man as the "paragon of animals?" Speciesist hubris!

No, you didn’t claim it, but I like your words. I merely claimed a damaging influence of the ToE but your words about the ToE as the basis of intrinsic evil are much more powerful yet true. Thanks for it.

TheToE is a morally neutral fact. It can be applied for good or ill. How it's applied is up to the individual. It's discoverer has nothing to do with its application.

You don’t have to. Don’t worry though, other proponents of the fairytale, I’m sorry I mean the “historical narrative” will not get tired defending it.

Fairytale?

 

[Valjean]

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules (lipids, carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids), and the emergence of molecular self-replication, self-assembly, cell membranes through the interactions of these classes of molecules.

But it has. This is old news. All these have already been observed and duplicated.

merely showing that some simple amino acids might emerge from non-living inorganic matter is by no means a confirmation of abiogenesis. Stop the ridicules nonsense.

See above.

I don’t like to call anyone a liar but seriously how can it be an honest error if you justify the error by making another dishonest claim? No, nucleic acids do not form in nature from non-living inorganic matter. There is no evidence for such claim.

What alternative do you propose?

Go ahead, enlighten us all and demonstrate that nucleic acids form on its own from non-living inorganic matter.

Really amazing, you see no transformation from tiktaalik to human!! You would like to call it gradual accumulation of change but It’s not a game of semantics,

Semantics? What's hard to accept about accumulated changes?

Yet alleged gradualism entails numerous transitional forms that are neither logical nor supported by real world data in the fossil record. See the link below and #1525

How are transitional forms illogical? Aren't all species transitional? Don't you believe species change over time?

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

Punctuated equilibrium is evolution. There's nothing radical about it.

In essence, the ToE is about drastic transformation of one organism to another. How it allegedly happens or how long the process takes is a detail.

There's nothing drastic about it. It's an accumulation of adaptations over time.
Do you not believe life has changed? If it has changed, what alternative mechanism could account for it?

Organisms don’t transform, organisms adapt. Adaptation as seen in the real world CANNOT cause transformation of one species into totally different species.

Adaptation transforms. How can accumulated adaptations not transform?

Gradualism is a myth. It’s neither logical nor supported by evidence of the fossil record. See above.

It's both reasonable and supported. Where are you coming up with this nonsense?
If I started in New York and walked West, my gradual, accumulated steps would eventually transport me to the Pacific coast. Small changes accumulate. There is no mechanism that would stop these changes at the point of speciation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fairytale?

He knows that he believes in a fairy tale . He is guilty of accusing others of his "sins" here.

 

[cladking]

Nature selects for behavior, anatomy, physiology or other characteristics that make an individual more fit, ie: more reproductively successful. This is simply selection, either human or natural.

Incredible!!!

You say this in response to my showing evidence to the contrary.

People imagine "survival of the fittest" so they interpret a series of changes in species as proof.

Beliefs based on faith alone are the hardest to shake.

All observation and experiment shows all changes in all life at all levels is sudden so it is "impossible" for this to be caused by survival of the fittest.

Humans imposed an artificial bottleneck on wolves based on behavior. This is the way "all" speciation occurs except normally it is done by nature rather than man.

Why do you say human behavior is defined by beliefs? Is there no hard-wired behavior or psychology?

First off "instinct" is irrelevant (mostly) to speciation. Almost all human instinct is suppressed by the individual. We tend to usually think instead of react. Instinct controls very little of non-human behavior which is driven by consciousness.

There's no such thing as psychology. We each have an amygdala which provides us a vector sum total on how our lives are going especially vis a vis other people. This structure is analog like most of the brain.

We lose higher analog brain functions in order to learn modern languages but this didn't occur in our ancestor species (homo sapiens) who spoke digital language like all other life. In order for us to learn using modern languages we must reprogram our brains. This reprogramming creates an entirely different mode of operation. It becomes impossible to act on knowledge because our knowledge is compartmentalized and held as models. It is the glue that holds these together upon which we act; beliefs.

Humans are wholly dissimilar and cut off from other life not because we are more intelligent (we are not) or even because we know so much (we really do) but because our language and thinking are analog rather than digital and we can't access all of our knowledge simultaneously.

We are homo omnisciencis and have been since the dimly remembered "tower of babel". This is where most individuals who hadn't already adopted the pidgin languages were forced to do so through fiat.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, the point is, a cause is logically necessary, and the cause is necessarily supernatural.

A cause is not logically necessary, and I have no idea why you'd think a cause/mechanism must be supernatural. All those we've discovered thus far have been natural.

The understanding of the supernatural cannot be dealt with through the typical methods of experimental/observational science.

Please show some evidence or examples of this 'supernatural'. Why must there be magic?

Atheists can neither disprove God nor their disbelief is justifiable.

Are you saying it's reasonable to believe everything till it's been disproved? That's totally illogical. Believing in something with no evidence of existence is not reasonable.
Disbelief in something with no evidence of existence is reasonable; it's the logical default.

The nature of God is beyond the domain of the experimental/observational science.

So God's unknowable; His existence unevidenced, and we're expected to believe in Him? Why? Why would that be reasonable?

The point is that the system that collectively exhibits/produces order, purpose, design as the end result cannot be unintentional simply because you think the processes at play just exist on its own, unintentional and uncaused. There is no logical or scientific basis to drive such conclusion.

It's human culture that creates order and purpose. It's physics that produces design. There is no logical or scientific basis to believe otherwise; no magical personage is either evidenced or necessary

 

[cladking]

Reproductive variation drives speciation. By what method would consciousness or behavior cause differential variation and reproductive success? What do bottlenecks have to do with it?

In order for genes to arise something must happen to cause it. Normally this occurs when nature kills most of the species and especially most of a species that exhibit normal behavior. The survivors have unusual behavior because they have unusual genes/ consciousness. These different individuals then create a new species.

This is a simple concept but believers in Evolution won't even acknowledge it. This simple concept is EXACTLY what we see every time a new species arises. Sudden changes are the only changes ever observed in life and species. We only imagine a gradual change because we imagine missing links exist. There are virtually missing links because speciation occurs at bottlenecks. With very few individuals the odds of finding one are miniscule. Even if we found one odds are good we'd mistake it for either the parent or child species. This also explains other observations like why we rarely see two species where one is the parent and one the child. We don't see four legged whales because they all died in a speciation event.

All logic, evidence, and experiment support my theory and NOT Evolution.

 

[gnostic]

In order for genes to arise something must happen to cause it. Normally this occurs when nature kills most of the species and especially most of a species that exhibit normal behavior. The survivors have unusual behavior because they have unusual genes/ consciousness. These different individuals then create a new species.

That’s not how genes and speciation work, cladking.

You cannot consciously control any gene to “turn on” or “turn off” which inheritable traits for the next generations.

If your silly narratives were true, then changes to species could avoid diseases or deformities, and clearly species do not have perfect controls as to what traits to have 5 generations to 5000 generations.

If what you said were true, then all the non-avian dinosaurs wouldn’t have gone extinct 66 million years ago.

For some animals (not all), the only things that any individual pair of animals can control are which males the female would mate with at that time.

For examples, you would have seen in some documentaries, in the wild, sing or bunch of females would wait for which competing males vying for dominance over the other would win. The winner don’t necessarily have to involve physically violent fight to see which is the strongest. Strength isn’t always the prerequisite. Sometimes, you could be animals (eg birds) that could make the loudest sounds, or show off their feathers or plumes.

The points being, when extinction event occurred, being the strongest or the largest, don’t always guarantee survival, but by which have adapted better in the changed environment.

In the K-P extinction, the event was not only global, but also extinction occurred more sudden and devastating to the larger non-avian and avian dinosaurs, and only much smaller avian species of dinosaurs survive in which birds managed to flourish and diversify in the next period. Other smaller species of mammals and species of reptiles have survived the K-P extinction.

No animals could consciously predict which animals would survive the extinction event by consciously planning and preparing for the event.

You are being ridiculously naive to think that consciousness can perfectly control everything, including genes.

Show your evidence that your scenario is true.

 

[cladking]

It is reproductive variation that creates variations in fitness/reproductive success.

No! All individuals are fit. When nature makes a boo boo that individual becomes dinner.

Why just behavior? Why not physical features that confer better adaptation to environmental changes?

Of course physical features affect an individual. But nature can't predict whether speed or alertness will most help any individual so every individual inherits as much of both as it can. But just because one inherited the wrong one doesn't make it less fit, merely dead. And it sure as hell doesn't make the off spring of the other any faster, smarter, or alert. "Survival of the fittest' is nonsense dreamed up by someone who wanted to believe he was most fit and deserving of profiting on the backs and lives of others.

Just to be clear the real variation in individuals is in consciousness and experience. The most conscious has a little advantage on the less conscious but the most experienced has a huge advantage on the less experienced. Most animals still die before they get old but this is because of the infirmities that come with age and the tendency of predators to pick them out of a herd.

Life is highly complex just like reality. There are no simple answers like Darwin wanted. While gradual evolution probably doesn't really exist because niches change suddenly, species also occupy niches and these might well change gradually and long enough to create a new species. What we observe and what experiment shows, however, is that changes are sudden and have only a few major causations in most instances.

As long as you insist on looking at "species" and ignore individuals this will remain invisible. Some things simply can't be reduced by science at this time and on top of the list is "consciousness". Once it is defined perhaps we can begin reducing it through experiment.

 

[cladking]

No. It's a slow process. Whales did not evolve overnight.

Why don't you show evidence of this?

Completely mindless organisms evolve just as readily as the more thoughtful ones.

Only homo omnisciencis thinks.

What evidence? Many environments, and the niches they support, are very stable over long periods. Many species remain essentially unchanged for thousands or millions of years.

Some remain unchanged because they can adapt.

Most of the flora and fauna in an area changes very quickly over short periods.

Carrots are alive. Are carrots conscious?

ALL life is conscious. There is no such thing as "intelligence". Carrots are barely conscious and only know enough to be a carrot (which isn't much).

Dam building was selectively advantageous. The instinct for it increased in the population, as the better dam builders were selected for.

So the first dam was "trial and error". This would be just like the first wheat crop, city, and pyramid too. If trial and error worked so well then why did someone invent science?

This is simply false. Show us some evidence, please.

This is something you really should be aware of. I'd refer you to wiki or chaos theory.

How do you think a butterfly in China flooded New Orleans?

Palpable poppycock. I challenge you to produce any evidence for this.

All evidence supports my theory. I challenge YOU to show one that supports your beliefs better.

How can you forget that ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE IS SUDDEN????????????????????????????????????????????? This means every observation supports my theory better than yours. Would you like to run through all the experiments one by one or can you think of one that supports your beliefs and we'll skip to it?

Why won't you understand or address my argument?

 

[cladking]

That’s not how genes and speciation work, cladking.

"In order for genes to arise something must happen to cause it." SO YOU BELIEVE GENES ARISE THROUGH MAGIC because nothing happens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do I argue with you if you can't read or address what I write?

You cannot consciously control any gene to “turn on” or “turn off” which inheritable traits for the next generations.

This is NOT what I said.

The points being, when extinction event occurred, being the strongest or the largest, don’t always guarantee survival, but by which have adapted better in the changed environment.

For the love of God, NO!!! How many times do I need to say that extinction events according to my theory select for BEHAVIOR. Being the strongest just makes an individual the biggest and stinkiest corpse. The one that survives is one with unusual behavior!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please read what I write!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Address what I say and stop with the strawmen. Darwin didn't believe in bottlenecks AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS WRONG. He made NUMEROUS erroneous assumptions but this was his silliest.

When the survivors display slightly unusual consciousness/ behavior the new species is nearly identical to the parent species. But when the behavior is very unusual there is not much similarity.

None of you believers have addressed any of this except to gainsay it. You twist it into frankenstein's straw monsters, gainsay it, and play word games but you address neither the argument nor the extensive evidence. And you do not present any evidence against it. It's the same tired mantra over and over "they mustta used ramps". "All Evolution is gradual and caused by survival of the fittest" but then when asked to show evidence you instead direct people to read a fourth grade textbook. You have nothing but belief. Look how a simple idea like Darwin's belief in "survival of the fittest" has obviously had a highly negative impact on all "unfit" people for two centuries. But instead you just say there have always been bad people. No. Almost everyone does what he thinks is right almost all time. Some of the Inquisitors were evil but most thought they were doing God's work just as most nazis thought they were improving the human race and creating a better future.

Please address SOMETHING in this post. ANYTHING, I'll have a heart attack.

 

[gnostic]

"In order for genes to arise something must happen to cause it." SO YOU BELIEVE GENES ARISE THROUGH MAGIC because nothing happens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, with magic.

Your strawman is rather tiresome.

Genes are pass through reproductive process, hence it’s a natural process. No magic are required.

You being dishonest with taking what I say out-of-context.

Animals, some, not all, can consciously choose to which to mate with, but they don’t consciously control the genes. Consciousness required brains for such function.

Consciousness is not only about awareness of self, it is also about intention and therefore of control, and there are intention as to how genes work.

Genes don’t have behavior, cladking, because genes have nucleic acids, and how the nucleotide order their 4 nucleobases, would determine what trait being inherit. Consciousness don’t control that.

You are the one sprouting magic nonsense when you think genes can consciously think for themselves. Genes don’t have brains of their own.

Essentially, how genes and DNA/RNA work, is through chemistry: chemical processes and chemical reactions.

Meaning. Consciousness are not required for natural chemical processes or for natural chemical reactions. And your DNA and RNA are occurrences of chemical processes, not conscious processes.

It is laughable on how very little you understand science.

And. You are truly dishonest. Try to understand what I write, and not twist my words to fit your paranoid fantasies.

 

[cladking]

I knew my heart was safe.

You didn't address one point in my post. Instead of talking about how new genes arise you just went on about your beliefs with no consideration of anything I said.

So I guess I'm left to believe you do believe genes are MAGICAL and even debate can be won MAGICALLY by ignoring what the other writes.

Has it never occurred to you that I already know almost everything you do and have forgotten volumes about biology and genetics? Of course not because knowledge is MAGIC to you and everything you've ever read is true because science is MAGIC too. You could never have misunderstood something you read and the author couldn't have misspoken, well... ...because language is MAGICAL too.

 

[gnostic]

I knew my heart was safe.

You didn't address one point in my post. Instead of talking about how new genes arise you just went on about your beliefs with no consideration of anything I said.

So I guess I'm left to believe you do believe genes are MAGICAL and even debate can be won MAGICALLY by ignoring what the other writes.

Has it never occurred to you that I already know almost everything you do and have forgotten volumes about biology and genetics? Of course not because knowledge is MAGIC to you and everything you've ever read is true because science is MAGIC too. You could never have misunderstood something you read and the author couldn't have misspoken, well... ...because language is MAGICAL too.

what a load of craps.

That’s just you, being totally dishonest by twisting my words.

I don’t think chemical processes to be “magic” or “magical”.

Chemical processes are natural occurrences, including those that happened in biological matters...hence, it’s natural occurrences.

 

[cladking]

I don’t think chemical processes to be “magic” or “magical”.

Then what causes new genes? Has every gene always existed? Doesn't every new species require the existence of many new genes?

My knowledge here is even shallower than I had thought but I do know every new species has different genes than the parent species whether they took 20 million years or 20 minutes to evolve.

Chemical processes are natural occurrences, including those that happened in biological matters...hence, it’s natural occurrences.

I am suggesting that you don't know what natural process is causing speciation. You believe it is survival of the fittest and gradualism and I am saying it results from behavior driven by consciousness and adaptation. Nature quickly changes species to fill voids after quickly creating species. If the first whales to live in water can't catch enough of their old food to thrive then the species will quickly change and adapt to the existing conditions. They each adapt and the genes adapt as well and this process probably does include some portion of "survival of the fittest" .

Reality is highly complex and it can't always be reduced to something simple like "Evolution". It will always be reduced to whatever the observer BELIEVES unless an experiment prevents it. There are no experiment to show Evolution. Darwin was wrong.

 

[cladking]

If the first whales to live in water can't catch enough of their old food to thrive then the species will quickly change and adapt to the existing conditions. They each adapt and the genes adapt as well and this process probably does include some portion of "survival of the fittest" .

After speciation most new species will "evolve" quickly. There is probably almost no gradualism in nature except in dead things like continents and orbits. Living things change suddenly. All living things and all life and all genes and all processes created by life change suddenly. Life in all of its modes and forms changes suddenly. Individuals, groups, and species change suddenly. All observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. Continents drift but life rushes on ahead. Orbits decay, and even galaxies collide over extremely long time periods that can't be predicted because long term and small scale events are inherently unpredictable. But life marches on on swift wings and dancing feet. Life determines its own fate through consciousness and free will. It is consciousness which endows life with not only the means but the will to survive and succeed, the will to reproduce and care for its young trying to create a better future.

A rock doesn't avoid falling off a cliff or being pounded into sand by the waves. It has no consciousness and no will. It has no life and is immutable until it is slowly destroyed by any of an infinite number of processes and means.

Homo omnisciencis is the odd man out because we think and can't see even the most obvious of things. We must learn a confused language and then spend a lifetime learning what is known and seeking a truth that is always just out of our reach.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

E. coli have a generation time in as little as 20 minutes. From conception to birth takes about 9 months for a human. Chemical reactions in the body can take place in under a second. A sequoia tree can live 3,000 years before it dies. Eggs do not fly. Juvenile birds do not fly. Birds do not suddenly grow feathers and fly. I'm not even sure why I should have to point that out, but apparently I do. From eating to elimination can take 36 hours. Speciation is not sudden on a human time scale. Primary succession of an ecosystem can take hundreds or thousands of years.

All change in living things occurs at various rates of time. CHANGES IN ALL LIVING THINGS AT ALL LEVELS DOES NOT OCCUR SUDDENLY AT THE SAME DURATION OF TIME. I don't understand why that unevidenced claim is continually repeated, since it is incorrect with no basis in fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After speciation most new species will "evolve" quickly. There is probably almost no gradualism in nature except in dead things like continents and orbits. Living things change suddenly. All living things and all life and all genes and all processes created by life change suddenly. Life in all of its modes and forms changes suddenly. Individuals, groups, and species change suddenly. All observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. Continents drift but life rushes on ahead. Orbits decay, and even galaxies collide over extremely long time periods that can't be predicted because long term and small scale events are inherently unpredictable. But life marches on on swift wings and dancing feet. Life determines its own fate through consciousness and free will. It is consciousness which endows life with not only the means but the will to survive and succeed, the will to reproduce and care for its young trying to create a better future.

A rock doesn't avoid falling off a cliff or being pounded into sand by the waves. It has no consciousness and no will. It has no life and is immutable until it is slowly destroyed by any of an infinite number of processes and means.

Homo omnisciencis is the odd man out because we think and can't see even the most obvious of things. We must learn a confused language and then spend a lifetime learning what is known and seeking a truth that is always just out of our reach.

I see that I also have a bit to add . Even when we observe "rapid speciation" that is on a geological time scale. The geologic time scale is nothing like the biological time scale. Due to the nature of deposition, especially of terrestrial fossils we will see jumps and gaps. So we might see a sudden change. Over five million years. Ask @Dan From Smithville how long that is on a biological time scale. And you also keep ignoring the fact that Gould's work is 50 years old. There have been countless fossils found since then. So we do see many of the transitional forms that he did not see.

If you want to make a point try to refute modern geology. Not geology that is fifty years out of date.

 

[gnostic]

I am suggesting that you don't know what natural process is causing speciation. You believe it is survival of the fittest and gradualism and I am saying it results from behavior driven by consciousness and adaptation. Nature quickly changes species to fill voids after quickly creating species. If the first whales to live in water can't catch enough of their old food to thrive then the species will quickly change and adapt to the existing conditions. They each adapt and the genes adapt as well and this process probably does include some portion of "survival of the fittest" .

Have you forgotten?

You wrote this:

In order for genes to arise something must happen to cause it. Normally this occurs when nature kills most of the species and especially most of a species that exhibit normal behavior. The survivors have unusual behavior because they have unusual genes/ consciousness. These different individuals then create a new species.

What is this "cause"?

"Consciousness"? "Behavior"?

How does "consciousness" or "behavior" control genes?

I know very well that you can make claims, because you do it all the time. But what you have never been able to do, is to support these claims of yours, they are just your personal opinions.

Unless you can present evidence that demonstrate these claims of yours, as "how it all work", it is just more of ridiculously unsubstantiated claims.

But this site is a forum for public discussion and debate, so I don't actually expect you to show evidence yourself because I know you're no scientist, then I would readily accept peer-reviewed papers that do have evidence-based data that might support your claims.

However, I know you won't be able to cite any scientific papers, since you have this absurd conspiracies against peer-reviewed publications, so there would be no help here to verify your claims.