Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

No.

Sorry, I wouldn’t be able to help you but you may do further search on your own.

 

[ppp]

Sorry, I wouldn’t be able to help you but you may do further search on your own.

The only person with access to your brain is you. If you cannot comprehend what is in there, no one does.

 

[LIIA]

The only person with access to your brain is you. If you cannot comprehend what is in there, no one does.

you cannot comprehend what I’m saying. Ok, I got it, you said that before. Hopefully others can. I’m telling you again, sorry, I can’t help you.

 

[ppp]

you cannot comprehend what I’m saying.

I will wait until you understand what you are saying.

 

[cladking]

Fundamental answers with respect to “Beginnings” are not attainable through science, it’s beyond the jurisdictions of science. Any thing that cannot be observed, replicated or get experienced with is beyond the jurisdictions of science. But we can logically understand that objective reality doesn’t stop at the point where we cannot see any further. We don’t and cannot identify the limits of objective reality.

I'm sure you agree that there is nothing beyond the ability and scope of science. But at this time, right now, most of reality is far beyond the ability of science to understand and most of it can not be reduced to experiment. People have the inane idea that we already understand just about everything and that on our path to understanding much of anything all our current paradigms will remain essentially unchanged. They believe we already have a complete understanding of the formatting of reality.

New paradigms will come and go and old ones will come to be seen as hopelessly simple but also hopelessly wrong.

In the long term the nature of the cosmos and the nature of life will be seen as completely overlapping.

We will never be able to predict the future because the computational capacity will never be sufficient and that which determines the future will always take place in the future. But things that have happened in the past often leave clues. While we may never be able to find THE origin of life we should be able to find some origins. Imagine how quaint Darwin will seem to those people in the future. The only thing funnier than Origin of Species might be Egyptology.

 

[LIIA]

I will wait until you understand what you are saying.

If it’s true that my argument is beyond your grasp, then try to focus on the scientific articles provided in #753 & #781. I didn’t write those.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. is that clear enough? See # 753 & 781

It is false enough. Even that one paper you beat to death as the sole source declaring the veracity of your claims only states that it deals with assumptions that relate to the paper. Certainly not all of them. And you pushing forward the boundaries of science all by yourself too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, interbreeding with the ability to produce fertile offspring necessarily means that Neanderthals were the same species. Being the same species, Neanderthals cannot be considered as ancestors.

The evolutionary view predicts evolved intermediates as a result of speciation. Per the ToE, humans, chimps and bonobo are all descendants of the same common ancestor but numerous speciation events led to present species today. Whenever speciation takes place, the ability of interbreeding with original species is lost. The intermediates are not the same species. The alleged common ancestor is at the split point with two separate branches, one for humans and the other for chimps/bonobo.

They can certainly be considered as ancestors. Your statement makes no sense. I can't speak for you, but all my ancestors were of the same species and are considered my ancestors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is another confused illogical argument of yours.

We'll discuss who is presenting confused and illogical arguments later.

First, I said that the Modern Synthesis suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. We don’t need to argue about this, do we? I didn’t say that the Modern Synthesis rejected all Darwin’s assumptions. Did I?

Second, in # 804, I was summarizing the history of the theory since Darwin till today. I’m neither focused nor concerned about Darwin’s limitation. My argument (see # 753 & # 781) is NOT ABOUT DARWIN, it’s about the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology that disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis.

When asked for detail about your position of intelligent design which you mentioned first, you always dismiss those questions with a wave of the hand claiming this thread isn't about that and referencing the OP. Apparently, you don't consider that to be true except for things you want to avoid discussing. I don't believe the thread is specifically about the need to replace the theory of evolution. Certainly nothing that could be considered a delusion of Darwin anyway.

Denis Nobel said about the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology, “Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

Of course. If Denis Nobel declares it, then it must be so. That doesn't sound very scientific coming from someone claiming to be enlightening us ignorant masses though. You know, accepting things without question. Not scientific at all.

This is called progress, Gnostic. Why can’t you guys read or understand? Why do we have to run in circles?

It is called claims. Specifically that the theory of evolution needs immediate revision. A fact still not accepted by the scientific consensus and very much debatable. You can declare it all you like, but you haven't demonstrated it.

It seems like we do read and understand you, despite the volume of material that seems like it is there more to overwhelm than enlighten.

Third, stop the load of irrelevant info. Try to understand and focus on what the argument is about.

Given the volume of irrelevant material you post, I am surprised that you would feel the comfort to chastise others for doing that in your personal opinion.

By the way, directed mutation still hasn't been demonstrated. You seem to have gotten quiet on that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

False, science is an essential contributor to the collective human knowledge.

I agree with that, but it contradicts earlier statements you have made.

I’m moving it forward by promoting the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology against the MS.

I don't believe that is true. I think you have another agenda.

You’re trying to walk it back to the mid 20th century by ignoring latest scientific finds, embracing an obsolete theory and ignoring the fact that science is ever changing. See #781.

That is true. What I am doing is disagreeing with you. Hardly the same, since I am very confident you don't speak for science. I do like how your ripped off my use of the phrase "walk it back". I appreciate that you recognize my worthy abilities.

After all, evolutionary biology is not an exact science but rather belongs to “the Geisteswissenschaften”. See# 331

And you claim to be advancing the boundaries of modern science. Doesn't sound like it.

Sure, but its not the subject of this thread.

Neither is the EES or the declarations of Denis Noble, but that hasn't stopped you from going on and on and on and on about them. There are reasons you may be reluctant to discuss the issue of intelligent design, but it doesn't really appear to be due the subject of this thread.

My claims have been substantiated. I’m not demanding anything other than stating the fact that the theory was disproved as clearly shown in #781

No they have not.

The paradigm shift is going to eventually occur. It’s a matter of time; the delay is mainly because of the dogmatic resistance to change.

Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016

If Gerd declares it, then it must be so. You've dropped his name (among others) at least a dozen times on this thread. Didn't you mention in an early post that people accepting and supporting the modern synthesis were notorious name droppers? I think you did. Interesting.

Whether it will or won't, the problem is people that use all the notorious creationist tactics and logical fallacies to try and force a paradigm shift through without question or recognized need. Many of the names you drop don't necessarily see the need to shift so much as integrate new knowledge into the existing framework. Or so I have read. Perhaps you haven't read as widely as you allude.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t provide declaration. I provide evidence. On the other hand, all what you do is meaningless denial. See 781.

You have made a number of declarations on this thread.

Make it known that the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology disproved the MS. See # 753 & 781

I didn't see you provide this evidence. Of course, you pump so much on here, perhaps you did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m acknowledging the opinion of others and stating the supporting facts for the damaging influence of the ToE.

I am acknowledging you have responded with an opinion that is not based on any evidence of a direct or even indirect impact of the theory of evolution on human morality or its basis. That is your opinion and one that is formed on your personal views and not on scientific fact.

Knowledge in general impacts society. By your estimation we should just stop learning.

We had no problem employing advances in science and technology to warfare long before Darwin wrote Origins. That pace doesn't appear to have changed.

Religion impacts morality and action on that morality much more widely and deeply than any scientific theory could or has. Look how many people have and continue to twist the Bible or the Quran to justify brutality, slavery, rape, racism, mass murder and on and on and on and on. Yet, you are not advocating they be abolished while claiming a theory that hasn't had anything like that sort of impact be abolished. The best part. The best part is that you are advocating at the same time that the theory needs further synthesis that would not change any of the moral implications you claim for it, not that there is one of the sort you claim. That is just the best.

That is just one example among many that has eliminated any potential credibility that you may have had in this argument. And further evidence that indicates to me your agenda is not as stated and comes to something more, but not new.

The context is totally different, the utilization of physics may depend on the morality of a society. The ToE influence is damaging the morality itself by eliminating its basis and embracing racism against the weak and the inferior.

There is no evidence of this. It sounds like fear-driven reactionaryism surrounding a need to maintain certain interpretations of religion and not based on any actual evidence of any moral impact of the theory of evolution.

Meaningless denial. Try something new.

No, not meaningless or denial. You really do have an eclectic mess of nonsense where you often contradict yourself. I am wrong about where you are going with it though. I think you are using this smokescreen of seeming scientific objection to promote your unspoken, but underlying agenda against science.

It’s going towards the rejection of your nonsense masquerading as science.

It is not my rejection that is masquerading as science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s indeed a huge difference. The evolutionary view theorizes that life emerged on earth through a random process. If the origin of life is not random, nothing is. It’s a total change of the mindset.

That is just the typical denial based on an ID creationism bias. There is no evidence that divinely created life couldn't evolve as described by the theory of evolution.

Under completely natural origins, it would not be completely random, but directed by the actions defined by natural laws. That is another typically creationist tactic to claim total randomness in natural processes when such a claim has no support of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s indeed a huge difference. The evolutionary view theorizes that life emerged on earth through a random process. If the origin of life is not random, nothing is. It’s a total change of the mindset.

The scientific view would indicate we look for natural processes for the origin of life. A scientist does not have to accept the theory of evolution for this to be true. I imagine all those scientists whose names you drop should know this too.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is the aim of this discussion to suggest that because Darwin was wrong about some things that evolution as a hypothesis/theory is false?

I get the sense that Darwin is seen as a sort of divine being who all of biological science is hung upon on faith.

Apparently that is how creationists sometimes expect him to be perceived.

It is almost embarrassing in a way, because no one does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Being aware of this bias is paramount. But experiment is supposed to prevent the silliest hypotheses from being adopted. This is why it's so important that there is no experiment that shows Evolution through "Survival of the Fittest". We're killing people for no reason. It's not making the race stronger or more evolved; it's just murder.

Killing people? Who is killing people? What the heck are you talking about?

You are aware that our current global population is roughly 10 times greater than it was in the 19th Century. More people live longer lives.

Many of the concepts of 19th century "science" have been swallowed hook line and sinker by modern people. No matter that Champollion, Darwin, Freud and most of the rest based their nonsense on anti-human and anti-reason because people want to believe all of it, and now it is killing us. Chuck out religion, morals, and reason and replace them with dog eat dog and greed is good. When we replaced good with evil everything began to collapse and we're in the final phases now. From government for sale to the highest bidder to CEO's who don't care how many must die or how high gas prices must go to "save the planet" we don't need no stinkin' morals because we have the God called "greed" on our side.

The strong will survive and breed a better race because Darwin said so.

This is just nonsense that doesn't have any factual basis. What does any of that have to do with a theory of how life changes and diversifies over time? Nothing.

 

[cladking]

What does any of that have to do with a theory of how life changes and diversifies over time?

I'm surprised you could ask such a question.

Language underlies all human endeavor including science. Through language each generation climbs on the shoulders of its parents. 19th century scientists were a most remarkable lot with very tall very broad shoulders but they were WRONG. You can't read Ancient Language, consciousness is life, and there's no such thing as a "subconscious". And remarkably enough consciousness affects experiment in a multiplicity of ways and not least of which is in interpretation, but it is also key to how species change.

Where we once had morals that included things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" they have been replaced by "don't get caught" or "greed is good". "I was told to do it" is sufficient for any immoral, illegal, or evil act. But no matter how many have been murdered things keep getting worse and it's because Darwin was wrong. He was wrong across the board just like other 19th century scientists that we still hold as paragons of virtue and correctness. Things are getting worse because of killing and stealing. They are getting worse because of widespread dishonesty and lies. Where there were once morals which were largely patterned on ancient science and were simple enough anyone could understand now there's a law against everything and it's just dog eat dog.

The results of real science were supplanted by what feels good and what seems right. We are extrapolating rules of conduct from a world we believe is based on "survival of the fittest" while our every action is based on what we believe.

 

[gnostic]

I’m moving it forward by promoting the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology against the MS. You’re trying to walk it back to the mid 20th century by ignoring latest scientific finds, embracing an obsolete theory and ignoring the fact that science is ever changing.

Do you ever say or write something that are true?

Like every creationists here, you all have the tendencies of making things up, spreading misinformation.

If anything, today’s molecular biology and biochemistry - “today” as in the last 50 years, including present day - have all tested the various evolutionary mechanisms (eg Natural Selection, Mutations, Genetic Drift, etc) as “probable” and “verified”.

These mechanisms, have each explained the different processes of how populations of life adapt over time, genetically; Evolution is about biodiversity, and this would mean changes and speciation to different degrees, and at different rates.

Different rates, because changes to bacteria occurred in shorter period of times than most multicellular organisms (MCO, like animals, plants and fungi).

So far, there have been no alternative models to replace the theory of Evolution.

What alternative theory do you think is better at explaining the natural processes of biodiversity (speciation)?

I would hope you are not talking about Intelligent Design creationism?

ID is unfalsifiable and untestable concept, so it doesn't even qualify as “hypothesis”, because Intelligent Design still relied on superstitious belief in supernatural entity of a god, but now creationists called god - “Designer” instead of “Creator”.

Changing god from Creator to Designer, doesn’t help the ID argument. It is still a “God did it” belief, but now they disguised creationism as the “Designer did it”.

Designer did it, isn’t an explanation.

Just as there no physical evidence of God, there are no evidence for the Intelligent Designer.

If you think Intelligent Design is a viable alternative, then you should know that neither biochemistry, nor molecular biology, validate Intelligent Design.

 

[metis]

ID is unfalsifiable and untestable concept, so it doesn't even qualify as “hypothesis”, because Intelligent Design still relied on superstitious belief in supernatural entity of a god, but now creationists called god - “Designer” instead of “Creator”.

Changing god from Creator to Designer, doesn’t help the ID argument. It is still a “God did it” belief, but now they disguised creationism as the “Designer did it”.

Designer did it, isn’t an explanation.

Absolutely correct, and what upsets me is that it is so ludicrous and intellectually dishonest that it actual undermines that there hypothetically could have been a "Divine creation" of our universe/multiverse.

 

[gnostic]

Where we once had morals that included things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" they have been replaced by "don't get caught" or "greed is good". "I was told to do it" is sufficient for any immoral, illegal, or evil act. But no matter how many have been murdered things keep getting worse and it's because Darwin was wrong. He was wrong across the board just like other 19th century scientists that we still hold as paragons of virtue and correctness. Things are getting worse because of killing and stealing. They are getting worse because of widespread dishonesty and lies. Where there were once morals which were largely patterned on ancient science and were simple enough anyone could understand now there's a law against everything and it's just dog eat dog.

Again, with the blaming Darwin with everything illegal, not only with killing, murders, genocides and wars, but now of stealing too.

None of these were Darwin’s doing, because they all predated long before Darwin was born.

As to wars. None of Darwin’s works affected political policies and military strategy. Darwin was never a politician or political leader, nor was he ever general or strategist.

If you want to blame any for wars, then why not -

• Sun Tzu on military strategy (The Art Of War);
• Julius Caesar for his writings on tactics during his military campaigns (memoir on Gallic Wars) and civil war (another memoir);
• Genghis Khan for his very rapid conquests exceeded territories gained by Alexander the Great’s empire;
• all those involved in the 14th-15th centuries Hundred Years’ War, between England and France;
• the Reformation and Counter Reformation, which included the Thirty Years’ War; the death toll of 8 million (including civilians) was never eclipsed until World War I;
• the Prussian Frederick the Great for his involvement in the Seven Years’ War and his writing on Interior Line strategy, in which influenced Hitler’s strategy;
• the 18th century American Revolution with George Washington and the British generals on the other side;
• the late 18th century French Revolution with Napoleon Bonaparte and his political & military strategy, called the Grand Strategy, that influenced strategies in the American Civil War (on both sides), the various wars in 19th century Europe, and Napoleon’s Grand Strategy was very influential to strategies on all sides in the two World Wars;
• and of course, the American Civil War, which have also influenced the 20th century wars.

I mentioned these wars involved social upheavals, political policies and military strategies that were far more influential to wars in the 20th century that not only included the World Wars, but also the Cold War, the strategies and policies of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong than Darwin’s Natural Selection.

Even the Bible has genocides and wars (eg Jericho in Joshua, the Levite in Judges, God and Samuel ordering Saul to completely exterminate the Amalekites).

And you are still clearly and falsely blaming Darwin for Social Darwinism, which he didn’t write. You are still forgetting Herbert Spencer, who was the author.

Darwin never wrote anything that advocated stealing, murdering or genocide.

This is just more conspiracy theory from you. This post of yours, is intellectually dishonest.

Why do you continue to perpetuate this conspiracy theory and transparent deception of blaming Darwin for something he didn’t do?