Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

And the droning-on is proven. Instead of droning on with a boring explanation I’m not going to read, why not provide the short definition of proof and evidence as provided in a credible science book?

The definition I provided is a general definition, non-specific to any field of study. It is an understood term and definition in the English language.

Science does not deal with "proof" but evidence is well defined:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, . . . Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.[

 

[gnostic]

And the droning-on is proven. Instead of droning on with a boring explanation I’m not going to read, why not provide the short definition of proof and evidence as provided in a credible science book?

The definition I provided is a general definition, non-specific to any field of study. It is an understood term and definition in the English language.

If you are going to argue for or against Evolution, then you need to understand the SCIENTIFIC definitions of “proof” and of “evidence”.

You don’t want an explanation, just a short definition for each term term.

Evidence is a physical phenomena that can observed and measured.

Proof is logical model, like an equation. Proof is not physical, but a set of variables with numbers and possibly with a constant or 2.

That the end of my definitions.

Now. To give you an example to illustrate the differences:

Ohm‘s Law is an equation that represent electricity in a conductor:

I = V R​

That Ohm’s Law equation is “proof”, not evidence.

Evidence are the conductors, for examples, wires, resistors, transistors, etc. Evidence are the source of electricity, eg battery, power outlet, etc. Also evidence are also electricity itself.

Under normal circumstances you won’t see electricity, but it can still be observed, BUT i highly recommended that you don’t touch live wire, for obvious reasons.

But you can still observe electricity, by using a multimeter. It will not only detect electricity, but provide useful information about electricity that flowing through your conductor, eg electric current (I), the voltage (V). Some multimeters can measure power and AC current in AC device or circuitry too.

The multimeter can also the conductor’s resistance (R).

The points being evidence are the electricity itself and the conductor, and those information that the multimeter provide - measurements - are ALL EVIDENCE.

These evidence are not proof. Proof is only that equation I have given you, the Ohm’s Law.​

Any person who understand physics or worked as electrician would understand what I have just explained to you in my above example.

But I don’t think you were any good with even basic physics, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised that you will make more pointless excuses.

 

[LIIA]

Two of your sources were extremely out of date and you did not understand them. The newest post only dealt with evolution being a bit more complex than thought previously. It did not refute evolution. You were wrong again.

That’s Pathetic; you kept requesting one point at a time. I gave you a single simple point and you failed miserably. Don’t get yourself distracted by my arguments with others, focus on yours and stop the silly excuses.

Again, The point was your claim in #400 that my referenced articles in # 397 are cherry picked / 40 years out of date, which I refuted in #410. The argument was not about the subject of the material. Go back and read it again, (it’s not going anywhere). Now you’re trying to move the goalposts to the significance of the material (which contradicts your own acknowledgment of it before as a cherry picked material that support my argument), because you realized that your claim about it being outdated was false.

Continuous fallacious move of goalposts is an indication of incompetence and inability of engaging in logical argument. You keep trying distraction tactics and pathetic excuses. Stop the foolish games. You can do better if you honestly try. Think before you talk.

Regardless, whether its incompetence or dishonesty, it doesn’t matter because in either case it means that your argument is false.

 

[LIIA]

It was born dead but nobody really noticed.

People are so busy defending the underlying beliefs that they don't notice it's dead. They want to believe and they especially want to believe in survival of the fittest.

I agree, you and I know that it was born dead but for others it’s not that simple, they hold a stubborn false premise, if you want to help them to see why the theory is false, you have to elaborate and walk them through it step-by-step.

You may think its simple enough to ask others to look at the conflicting evidence, be sincere and open minded, and look at both sides of the issue to make up their own mind about what reality is, but the fact is when a settled premise is challenged, anxiety is created, then denial kicks in as the typical primitive psychological defense. Many will just refuse to listen or understand and insist to stay in denial.

They don’t see you as a helping hand but rather they see you as a threat or an opponent which is not the case simply because its all about the free will, if someone doesn’t make the choice on his own, you can neither force them nor make the choice on their behalf. It’s their choice; they are entitled to it and responsible for its consequences. We can and will differ. At least you tried.

 

[LIIA]

I appreciate your rationality but I have a different opinion.

Let's lay the topic of evolution aside for a brief moment.

If I say diamonds are rare, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that they are not common. But the fact of their existence still requires explanation.

Returning to the topic of evolution, if you accept that Gould was honest in describing transitional forms as extremely rare, then presumably you also accept that he was honest in accepting that transitional forms exist even if not common.

Logically then, the existence of transitional forms requires explanation.

I think evolution is a better explanation for transitional forms than intelligent design which essentially predicts according to my understanding that there should be 0 transitional forms as opposed to there being "rare" transitional forms.

In my opinion.

No, statistical significance is an important measure of the probability of a hypothesis being true with respect to the acceptable level of uncertainty regarding the true answer.

The context is different. A single diamond proves that diamonds exist in nature but a single observation doesn’t prove a specific hypothesis that entails endless number of supporting observations (transitional forms). We can’t ignore the statistical significance of the observations (the high level of uncertainty wouldn’t be acceptable).

A rare questionable exception cannot be deemed as an evidence for a rule. On the other hand, statistical dominance of observations (in support of a hypothesis) can be accepted as an evidence for a rule.

That is simply the reason why Gould rejected “Phyletic gradualism” because of the extreme scarcity of supporting evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s Pathetic; you kept requesting one point at a time. I gave you a single simple point and you failed miserably. Don’t get yourself distracted by my arguments with others, focus on yours and stop the silly excuses.

Again, The point was your claim in #400 that my referenced articles in # 397 are cherry picked / 40 years out of date, which I refuted in #410. The argument was not about the subject of the material. Go back and read it again, (it’s not going anywhere). Now you’re trying to move the goalposts to the significance of the material (which contradicts your own acknowledgment of it before as a cherry picked material that support my argument), because you realized that your claim about it being outdated was false.

Continuous fallacious move of goalposts is an indication of incompetence and inability of engaging in logical argument. You keep trying distraction tactics and pathetic excuses. Stop the foolish games. You can do better if you honestly try. Think before you talk.

Regardless, whether its incompetence or dishonesty, it doesn’t matter because in either case it means that your argument is false.

Sorry, no, your post was dealt with. Time to move on.

One problem is that you, like almost all creationists. do not understand the concept of evidence. Or how to use resources properly. The fact is that Lucy is still a member of a transitional species. That has never been refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your rationality but I have a different opinion.



No, statistical significance is an important measure of the probability of a hypothesis being true with respect to the acceptable level of uncertainty regarding the true answer.

The context is different. A single diamond proves that diamonds exist in nature but a single observation doesn’t prove a specific hypothesis that entails endless number of supporting observations (transitional forms). We can’t ignore the statistical significance of the observations (the high level of uncertainty wouldn’t be acceptable).

A rare questionable exception cannot be deemed as an evidence for a rule. On the other hand, statistical dominance of observations (in support of a hypothesis) can be accepted as an evidence for a rule.

That is simply the reason why Gould rejected “Phyletic gradualism” because of the extreme scarcity of supporting evidence.

I am sorry, but you do not understand Gould. When he was talking "sudden' he was doing so from a geological viewpoint. and guess what? Since that time we have found many ore fossils. He would almost certainly not be making the same claims today.

You seem to forget that in the sciences we are constantly gaining new information. So sometimes certain hypotheses are abandoned or changed drastically. And Gould still supported evolution. He merely disagreed about how it occurred.

 

[LIIA]

I'm so far out of touch with mainstream thought that I didn't even know anyone generally agreed with me.

If you want others to agree, then you have to logically demonstrate the validity of your point. If you do but yet they don’t agree, then it’s not your fault.

It is right here in the very meaning of "intelligence" where I diverge from nearly complete agreement with you. I don't believe there is such a thing as "intelligence".

Why (how) did you diverge? You input the data, you assess it against a reference of your specific trusted criteria, and you make a conclusion as the final product of the process. This is intelligence. Your divergence itself is attributed to intelligence, which is a product of your consciousness.

Calculated outcome driven by rational evaluation of variables is intelligence. It’s the very opposite of randomness.

Intelligence is a product of consciousness. Without Consciousness, there is no intelligence.

Consciousness/intelligence can’t be seen but its existence can be recognized through its observable manifestations.

There is no life without consciousness.

I wouldn’t limit it to life.

 

[Firelight]

If you are going to argue for or against Evolution, then you need to understand the SCIENTIFIC definitions of “proof” and of “evidence”.

You don’t want an explanation, just a short definition for each term term.

Evidence is a physical phenomena that can observed and measured.

Proof is logical model, like an equation. Proof is not physical, but a set of variables with numbers and possibly with a constant or 2.

That the end of my definitions.

Now. To give you an example to illustrate the differences:

Ohm‘s Law is an equation that represent electricity in a conductor:

I = V R​

That Ohm’s Law equation is “proof”, not evidence.

Evidence are the conductors, for examples, wires, resistors, transistors, etc. Evidence are the source of electricity, eg battery, power outlet, etc. Also evidence are also electricity itself.

Under normal circumstances you won’t see electricity, but it can still be observed, BUT i highly recommended that you don’t touch live wire, for obvious reasons.

But you can still observe electricity, by using a multimeter. It will not only detect electricity, but provide useful information about electricity that flowing through your conductor, eg electric current (I), the voltage (V). Some multimeters can measure power and AC current in AC device or circuitry too.

The multimeter can also the conductor’s resistance (R).

The points being evidence are the electricity itself and the conductor, and those information that the multimeter provide - measurements - are ALL EVIDENCE.

These evidence are not proof. Proof is only that equation I have given you, the Ohm’s Law.​

Any person who understand physics or worked as electrician would understand what I have just explained to you in my above example.

But I don’t think you were any good with even basic physics, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised that you will make more pointless excuses.

So you don’t have the science definition of proof and evidence from a science book then? Ok. One would not need a science background in anything, in order to understand a definition of proof and evidence. You are simply making that your rule. If you can’t provide a simple but truthful definition of these words to non-science persons, then why bother trying to convince such persons that evolution is real without proof? Actually, I don’t know what your goal is.

 

[LIIA]

[yawn] Go argue with someone from the 40's

In my experience, and by your response you appear to have noticed this too. Many of the designer arguments are rehashed failures of creationist arguments attacking positions decades or centuries dead.

Indeed I’m. The Modern Synthesis that you believe in is an 80-year-old obsolete theory that started in early to mid 20th century (approximately between 1920–1942 when Julian Huxley coined the term). You may not be aware of it, but you are all holding an obsolete view from the 40’s.

The Modern Synthesis failed miserably. Go back and read #484 once again, you may get it.
I see you’re yawning, you need to wake up, the 40’s are over.

 

[LIIA]

Sorry, no, your post was dealt with. Time to move on.

One problem is that you, like almost all creationists. do not understand the concept of evidence. Or how to use resources properly. The fact is that Lucy is still a member of a transitional species. That has never been refuted.

Again!! I gave you a single point as you requested but you insist to jump all over the place and continuously move the goalposts. You’re not serious. Your claim that the material in #397 are cherry picked and outdated was refuted.

Take care

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed I’m. The Modern Synthesis that you believe in is an 80-year-old obsolete theory that started in early to mid 20th century (approximately between 1920–1942 when Julian Huxley coined the term). You may not be aware of it, but you are all holding an obsolete view from the 40’s.

The Modern Synthesis failed miserably. Go back and read #484 once again, you may get it.
I see you’re yawning, you need to wake up, the 40’s are over.

Please. How did it "fail miserably"? Be specific. Support your claims with valid science based sites.

 

[LIIA]

I am sorry, but you do not understand Gould. When he was talking "sudden' he was doing so from a geological viewpoint. and guess what? Since that time we have found many ore fossils. He would almost certainly not be making the same claims today.

You seem to forget that in the sciences we are constantly gaining new information. So sometimes certain hypotheses are abandoned or changed drastically. And Gould still supported evolution. He merely disagreed about how it occurred.

It’s only your wishful thinking, the new information is what triggered a need for EES and replacement of the standard theory. See #160 & # 484.

The more we know, the more it becomes evident that the MS had failed. Your meaningless denial doesn’t change the facts. see # 484

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again!! I gave you a single point as you requested but you insist to jump all over the place and continuously move the goalposts. You’re not serious. Your claim that the material in #397 are cherry picked and outdated was refuted.

Take care

Nope. I am not going to revisit your past failures. Try again.

 

[LIIA]

Please. How did it "fail miserably"? Be specific. Support your claims with valid science based sites.

how many times I told you to see # 484. it doesn't get any easier than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s only your wishful thinking, the new information is what triggered a need for EES and replacement of the standard theory. See #160 & # 484.

The more we know, the more it becomes evident that the MS had failed. Your meaningless denial doesn’t change the facts. see # 484

More nonsense that you cannot support. Once again, take slow deep breaths. Don't type while angry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

how many times I told you to see # 484. it doesn't get any easier than that.

Sorry, been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. You had your failure there explained by several posters.

 

[LIIA]

Sometimes ignorance is a tremendous asset. When everyone around believes in superstition then ignorance makes it easier to see reality.

I understand your point to stay away from nonsense but an appropriate level of knowledge is required to assess the validity of other views and gain confidence in your own.

Many people adapt their premise based on a mere desire or inclination to follow a scientific dogma or a religious group (without much knowledge or verification). Then they become blind followers and lose the ability of being neutral or objective.

It’s a type of self-deceit that keeps people trapped within the confinement of their own premise. Its not easy to break free even so all what is needed is simply the will to do so, but Its such a difficult decision.

The bottom line is, people’s adapted premise is typically a function of free will not the compelling evidence, as many tend to think.

In most cases, ignorance is not a function of limited means to gain knowledge but rather the willful rejection of knowledge after a certain premise was being adopted.

 

[LIIA]

Sorry, been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. You had your failure there explained by several posters.

That’s cute. I didn’t expect anything more.

Take care

 

[LIIA]

In all these years the best believers have done is to cite the 1986 e coli experiment!!!

The “Escherichia Coli” experiment is another example of false interpretation of observations and misrepresentation of scientific finds that would confuse the uninformed.

In his book “the greatest show on earth”, Richard Dawkins claimed that Richard Lenski’s research shows new information entering genomes through random mutation followed by non-random natural selection. But was it truly the case?

What happened was that gene regulation mediated an adaptation event that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter through the precise placement beyond an aerobically expressed promoter to allow for the expression of the previously silent citrate transporter.

It was not new info but rather an existing inactive info that was activated as an adaptive response to the specific variables within the environment. It’s a clear example of directed mutation that allow an organism to adapt to the variables in its niche.

September 2012, Nature wrote about the E Coli experiment,” tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter.”

Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature

January 2022, a recent study of mutations in Arabidopsis was published. Nature wrote, ” Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences”. “Our discovery yields a new account of the forces driving patterns of natural variation, challenging a long-standing paradigm regarding the randomness of mutation and inspiring future directions for theoretical and practical research on mutation in biology and evolution.”

Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana | Nature

January 2022, SciTechDaily wrote,” DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution” , “Mutations of DNA do not occur as randomly as previously assumed, according to new research from Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen in Germany and University of California Davis in the US. The findings have the potential to dramatically change our view of evolution. “

DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution (scitechdaily.com)

In fact, research has showed that Bacteria and Viruses are very intelligent, capable of complex decision-making, they change themselves and adapt to the environment in order to survive. See more about Microbial intelligence in #226.