Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Directed mutation is not proven. Read more.

You have failed to demonstrate a designer. You have failed to demonstrate that the theory of evolution has failed. You have emoitional arguments that are irrelevant.

I didn't read any of the rest of this. I'm not here to read your volumes of emotional arguments when you have failed to do what you claim you did.

Cute bunny

 

[LIIA]

This is not what we teach.

The model I used and is generally used throughout our field is what I call "mosaic evolution", which is numerous bands within a species, all evolving in their own way, only some of which may form new species. IOW, it's not a simple process.

"Mosaic evolution" is like saying anything goes and I don’t need a proof. It's nonsense.
Identify a model and demonstrate your evidence. I know you will not.

The fact remains that neither gradualism is supported by evidence in the fossil record nor variants we see in real life support punctuation with a massive sudden appearance of genetic info. Both models are false.

No, it is not as we see plenty of evidence for this. One example is what ever happened to most Neanderthals, which were the dominant humans in northern Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas? We now only have roughly 2% of our d.n.a. overall in today's world. What killed them? Well, we know at least part of the answer with some found with wounds caused by spears and other weapons.

Do you really believe that some wounds are an acceptable justification of the extinction of a dominant human species?

Neanderthal and modern humans were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. Meaning, they were the same species same like all humans on earth today including the most remote isolated geographical areas. They are all same species.

June 2020, a study published on the Royal Society showed that Neanderthal and anatomically modern humans (AMH) were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

A mitochondrial genetic divergence proxy predicts the reproductive compatibility of mammalian hybrids | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Neanderthals were humans and most importantly they were not human ancestors.

They have their own niche that they've been successful in, plus their tool culture, including possible weapons, is much more limited than ours.

This is not a justification of why none of the alleged human intermediate species exist today. Why they all went extinct with no exception? Again, especially in isolated geographical areas.

That's like saying that cars are evil because some people are killed in accidents.

Cars have some significant value as a general rule, which justifies the exception of an accident, but a theory (MS) with all of its central assumptions scientifically disproved (See # 781), has absolutely no value.

Hence all what remains is the damage to humanity with respect to the justification of racism, ethnic cleansing/genocide and elimination of any basis for moral values.

 

[LIIA]

LIIA said:
common sense should tell you that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.

That makes no sense.

If you’ve not explained the origin, you‘ve not explained anything that allegedly came from that origin. Why is that difficult to understand?

 

[LIIA]

Mainly in the sense that he had very limited information at the time, thus our field has much more to work with today.

The mid-20th century Modern Synthesis (modern mainstream theory today) suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. Then all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis itself were proven wrong. No exception.

This is where you are today. See # 781.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nice excuse, meaningless denial is not something to be taken seriously by anyone.

I really enjoy your serious scientific debate.

 

[ppp]

The mid-20th century Modern Synthesis (modern mainstream theory today) suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. Then all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis itself were proven wrong. No exception.

This is where you are today. See # 781.

Why are you talking about Darwin? What has he got to do with current evolution theory?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LIIA said:
common sense should tell you that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.



If you’ve not explained the origin, you‘ve not explained anything that allegedly came from that origin. Why is that difficult to understand?

None of this makes any sense. Can you try again?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The mid-20th century Modern Synthesis (modern mainstream theory today) suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. Then all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis itself were proven wrong. No exception.

This is where you are today. See # 781.

No they were not and you haven't demonstrated that. Your declarations are not evidence supporting your claims.

Directed mutations have not been demonstrated.

What's your agenda?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Cute bunny

Rather than address the fact that directed mutations have not been demonstrated, you resort to this sort of thing. I can't say I am surprised given the nature of your posts.

What's your agenda?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Mosaic evolution" is like saying anything goes and I don’t need a proof. It's nonsense.
Identify a model and demonstrate your evidence. I know you will not.

The fact remains that neither gradualism is supported by evidence in the fossil record nor variants we see in real life support punctuation with a massive sudden appearance of genetic info. Both models are false.



Do you really believe that some wounds are an acceptable justification of the extinction of a dominant human species?

Neanderthal and modern humans were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. Meaning, they were the same species same like all humans on earth today including the most remote isolated geographical areas. They are all same species.

June 2020, a study published on the Royal Society showed that Neanderthal and anatomically modern humans (AMH) were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

A mitochondrial genetic divergence proxy predicts the reproductive compatibility of mammalian hybrids | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Neanderthals were humans and most importantly they were not human ancestors.



This is not a justification of why none of the alleged human intermediate species exist today. Why they all went extinct with no exception? Again, especially in isolated geographical areas.



Cars have some significant value as a general rule, which justifies the exception of an accident, but a theory (MS) with all of its central assumptions scientifically disproved (See # 781), has absolutely no value.

Hence all what remains is the damage to humanity with respect to the justification of racism, ethnic cleansing/genocide and elimination of any basis for moral values.

Seriously, you can tell me. What is your agenda here?

You don't like modern science. You've tried walking it back, but there are those intelligent design/creationism features of your posts that are clearly there. You make claims you can't substantiate. You swamp your audience intentionally as well as a number of other tricks many of us have seen before. For the life of me, I can't understand why you are arguing against a naturalistic theory and demanding it be replaced by a revised version of a naturalistic theory when I doubt that is what you really want. And you haven't given any serious reason why that paradigm shift should even occur when it hasn't in science. Then there are the allusions to the "Great Science Conspiracy". Top it all off with some meaningless attempt to smear a scientific theory by falsely associating it with historical moral choices of people and groups. The theory is no more a source of morality than physics is. By your argument we should fold up a lot of physics, since bombs and weapons are made using those theories.

You got a sort of eclectic mess of nonsense that doesn't seem to know where it is going.

 

[cladking]

Why are you talking about Darwin? What has he got to do with current evolution theory?

Besides the thread being about Darwin's illusions there is the fact that we are still stuck with gradual change and survival of the fittest.

Darwin was wrong across the board. The fact that he was less wrong than the Theory of Spontaneous Generation doesn't change this.

 

[ppp]

Besides the thread being about Darwin's illusions there is the fact that we are still stuck with gradual change and survival of the fittest.

Darwin was wrong across the board. The fact that he was less wrong than the Theory of Spontaneous Generation doesn't change this.

No.
Is that all you've got?

 

[gnostic]

If your intention is to respond to an argument, then your writing should be relevant to the subject of the argument. Not just a load of confused nonsense.

In #614 cladking claimed that the ToE is a threat to HUMANITY. I agreed and explained my reasons. Why are you involving other living organisms? The context here is the impact on humanity as evident by the observed events.

Because what you and cladking have brought up, have nothing do with evolutionary biology.

The Theory of Evolution is a biology discipline, LIIA, so it include all life form - not just human biology.

You do understand what biology mean, don't you?

In Evolution, it relates to changes of population of organisms, over time, in which genetics played a role. So if you want to talk about changes to morphology of anatomy, genes, chromosome, DNA/RNA, etc, then this would applied to Natural Selection, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking - all known mechanisms in Evolution.

But you have brought up wars, genocide, racism and Social Darwinism, and none of these have to do with Evolution or with Natural Selection, and they also have nothing to do with biology.

None of these are biological inherent to other organism, so it has nothing to with Natural Selection. And I am not talking about that of Darwin. His theory while still have traction today, Natural Selection have been modified and updated to include things Darwin didn't know about at the time, like Genetic Drift, Mutations, DNA, RNA, molecular biology.

Biology students and biologists are not stuck with old knowledge and outdated testing techniques. We are living in the 21st century now, not the 19th century.

You do understand about progress in sciences don't you? We are not stuck in the past. Like I admired the pioneering works of Faraday and Maxwell in electromagnetism, but there are many things in the last 2 centuries that have eclipsed their knowledge.

Likewise, we are not stuck with using telescopes used by Galileo, Kepler and Newton. Our knowledge today have gone beyond what these astronomers have ever envisioned, even putting a number of telescopes in space.

Over time, we have learned new things, and hopefully we will learn more in the future.

And these works in electromagnetism and astronomy, like evolutionary biology, all fall under the umbrella of Natural Sciences.

Wars and genocides are more political and social, and have nothing to do with Natural Sciences.

Likewise, racism is a social and political subject, not biology, and not about Evolution, and certainly don't fall under Natural Sciences.

And as to Social Darwinism, SD is a sociology subject, nothing to do with Natural Sciences, like biology.

So since SD, racism, wars and genocides are social and political, then how about you and/or cladking start a new thread, instead of ranting your anti-biology subject here?

It is like you and cladking comparing orange to doorknob, they have nothing do with each other.

Worse of all, you think are smarter than the rest of us, yet you keep making misinformed claims (meaning, mistakes) and you are spreading misinformation (propaganda).

I will admit that I have made share of mistakes, and one of them forgetting that you are not a Christian, and for that, I am sorry.

But Islam and Muslims have perpetrated the same mistakes as Christian with their scriptures. In the Qur'an, it say Allah created Adam from clay and water, that just as bad as Genesis saying God creating Adam from dust.

There are no clay properties in any parts of human body. Do you even know what clay are made of?

Clay minerals are byproducts of weathered rock minerals that have been grind down into powdery form, and when it come into contact with water, developed plasticity texture. That's what clay are made of.

You will only find organic substances in clay, because some organisms have decomposed or rotted away, or some animals may have peed or pooed on the ground, thereby leaving trace elements in the clay.

Depending on what type of rocks have been weathered, most minerals originally come from feldspar from igneous rocks or from sedimentary rocks, and over time, feldspar would become kaolinite, which is the most common form of clay minerals.

Anyway the Qur'an version of Adam's creation is just unscientific as the Genesis version, both BS. The authors of both scriptures demonstrated that they have no understanding of the human body.

 

[cladking]

You do understand what biology mean, don't you?

The irony here is sublime. "Biology" literally means the study of life yet biologists study cadavers, species, and cells instead: The dead, the non-existent, and the pieces.

If all life is individual and all life is conscious then it would seem to follow that the "study of life" hardly even exists. Instead of studying how species change we study fossils and instead of life, skulls. We have no more understanding of consciousness than poor Yorick. We are equally far removed from its understanding. We haven't even started dissecting the impalpable or reducing the irreducible but we know everything there is to know about life and how it changes in your book(s).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Besides the thread being about Darwin's illusions there is the fact that we are still stuck with gradual change and survival of the fittest.

Darwin was wrong across the board. The fact that he was less wrong than the Theory of Spontaneous Generation doesn't change this.

I have very real doubts that you understand the theory of evolution or much about biology, let alone a knowledge of Darwin and his contributions to science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The irony here is sublime. "Biology" literally means the study of life yet biologists study cadavers, species, and cells instead: The dead, the non-existent, and the pieces.

If all life is individual and all life is conscious then it would seem to follow that the "study of life" hardly even exists. Instead of studying how species change we study fossils and instead of life, skulls. We have no more understanding of consciousness than poor Yorick. We are equally far removed from its understanding. We haven't even started dissecting the impalpable or reducing the irreducible but we know everything there is to know about life and how it changes in your book(s).

Now I am convinced.

 

[YoursTrue]

Darwin provided a mechanism for the change in living things over time. That is not the origin of life.

Do you have a source that states that Darwin believed in the creationist idea of spontaneous generation?

Darwin's ideas about evolution and the mechanism driving evolution were based on his observations of living things, fossils, and animal and plant breeding. There is no evidence that the creationist notion of spontaneous generation had anything to do with the theory he formulated.

Nothing in science can offer uncontested proof of anything. The only thing that seems uncontested is the creationist pension for fallacious claims.

Spontaneous generation is not necessarily the way God created anything. If I were to make a bowl from clay, it doesn't spontaneously produce itself, does it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Darwin lived in a time when spontaneous generation (formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms) was believed to be true. In fact, Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation on 1859, Same year when Darwin published “the Origin of Species”. Also at that time, cells were known to be the basic building blocks of living things but there was no knowledge or understanding of the complex structure within the cell. The tiny structures inside the cells were too small to be seen with even the strongest microscope.

Based on Darwin’s false understanding of spontaneous generation and lack of knowledge of the extreme complexity of the living cell, he assumed that the first living cell could appear under the right conditions. As he mentioned in his letter to Joseph Hooker on 1871” we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes”. Yes, Darwin’s theory was not about abiogenesis but his lack of knowledge as explained has a strong influence on his overall interpretations of his observation and the crafting of his theory.

Darwin’s theory was also influenced by the “Lamarckian evolution” that the environment gives rise to changes in animals, which can be passed from parents to offspring. Darwin proposed that organic gemmule particles allow new traits to pass to offspring, which was later proven to be totally wrong. The environment doesn’t change traits, mutation does. And the assumed gemmules do not exist.



Even more are those who believe that ‘magic poofing’ was the cause for the
Instantiation of our entire universe in reality from nothing.

The problem I'm seeing now is that gorillas really do not look like humans.

 

[gnostic]

Spontaneous generation is not necessarily the way God created anything. If I were to make a bowl from clay, it doesn't spontaneously produce itself, does it?

But we are not talking about bowl, are we?

And any human are not made of dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur'an).

Cells are not dust or clay.

Clay are clay minerals, like kaolinite, that originally derived from feldspar (mineral) weathered from rocks (could be sedimentary or igneous rocks).

Dust are waste byproduct that could be of inorganic or organic origin. Dust are lifeless husk. Neither are origin of cells of any organisms.

Dust cannot physically transform into organic matters like cells...unless magic are involved, and no such magic exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we are not talking about bowl, are we?

And any human are not made of dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur'an).

Cells are not dust or clay.

Clay are clay minerals, like kaolinite, that originally derived from feldspar (mineral) weathered from rocks (could be sedimentary or igneous rocks).

Dust are waste byproduct that could be of inorganic or organic origin. Dust are lifeless husk. Neither are origin of cells of any organisms.

Dust cannot physically transform into organic matters like cells...unless magic are involved, and no such magic exist.

Dust does not arise in a windstorm and form a person. Similarly clay does not just appear and make a bowl out of itself. However it happened, life around us tells those with spiritual insight that it just didn't "happen." Since this is something beyond human understanding, I'm going to leave it there. Regardless of theories, the theory of evolution is beyond understanding and proof, as we know. Scientists may say what they think happened, fish eventually becoming mammals, for instance, but they don't really know. They only think they know. Just as clay comes from other sources, clay not appearing on the potter's table, however it happened that the first man was made from the soil, perhaps one day mankind will know for sure how it happened. But not from scientific postulation.
P.S. Dust also does not form itself from nothing anyway. Yes, so -- have a nice day. and bye for now.