Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

It is storming here at home too. The thunder woke me up in the wee hours. Really loud.

But it is just noise.

 

[cladking]

He stated that evolutionary biology developed its own methodology of historical narratives, where experiments are inappropriate and definitely acknowledged the similarity with the Geisteswissenschaften when he said “Indeed evolutionary biology, as a science, in many respects is more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences.". He proposed that evolutionary biology is “Autonomous” and as such is allowed to break free beyond the restrictions of the scientific method.

"Narratives" aren't even junk science. They are not science at all.

Experts in various fields can invent narratives to explain specific events and processes which actually have meaning and at least a little bearing on reality but no science can be founded on a narrative. If anything is wrong in the premises then it's entirely possible, virtually certain, it will be wrong across the board. This is what we have in many fields today that people believe are "science" because there are Peers that must sign off on any changes to the story. Of course they are unwilling to sign off on changes so the story becomes entrenched and all data are interpreted only in terms of current belief. It seems the more outlandish the beliefs and assumptions the more entrenched they become so we have sciences that answer no questions and merely generate mysteries. This keeps the Peers employed rather than being on death watch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you were wrong to deny the influence of evolution on eugenics.

The only effect that evolution had on eugenics is that it allowed the development of human beings. If you want to claim that Darwin's work was abused, I guess so. But then people are always abusing the work of others. The Bible has been abused in that way for more often. Does your poor logic disprove the Bible?

I never said that eugenics or social darwinism is the work of Darwin, yet both are indeed influenced by his work.

Once again, so what? are you going to keep saying that the Bible is not true because it was abused?

He assumed quite a bit with not that much evidence.

Darwin’s idea of a spontaneously generated origin "LUCA" that emerged in a "warm little pond" then transformed to millions of a wide variety of organisms is the most ridiculous fairytale in the history of mankind.

Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur on 1859, same year when Darwin published “the Origin of Species”. Changing "spontaneous generation” to “abiogenesis" doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.

Now you are just looking terribly ignorant again. Darwin did discover quite a bit. He showed that you are still an ape. Of course even the creationist that created the genus/species system of naming organisms knew that too. He just did not know why. And LUCS was merely the logical conclusion as to his theory.

And no, abiogenesis is totally different from spontaneous generation. You are incredibly ignorant here. First off, ideas are not "proven" in the the sciences. Pasteur did not "prove" spontaneous generation wrong. And you do not even know what spontaneous generation is. It was actually a creationist idea. It was a belief that "simple" modern life, such as bacteria, insects or even mice, could arise spontaneously from certain materials. Pasteur showed that if say some broth (which is what he used) was sterilized and sealed into a sterile glass that nothing would arise from it. So, how does demonstrating that modern bacteria (which are extremely complex due to their billions of years of evolution) do not appear spontaneously disprove abiogenesis? I would love to see the "logic" behind that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1) The 375 mya Tiktaalik cannot be the missing transitional form between fish and the first four-legged creature ever walked on earth simply because evidence of 18 million years older four-legged creatures was found in Poland (395 mya).

Tiktaalik was claimed to have a mix of characteristics that appears to give it the ability of alternating between aquatic and terrestrial habitats and was considered as the missing link between fish and tetrapods.

So what? Now you are claiming that Europeans cannot exist because Americans came from Europe. You are using extremely poor logic again. Yes, Tiktaalik is a transitional form. Here is your error:

You are assuming that transitional means ancestral. It does not. We are all but guaranteed not to be descended from Tiktaalik. But we are descended from a close relative to Tiktaalik.

 

[LIIA]

If you want to claim that Darwin's work was abused, I guess so.

Not at all. It was not abused. Evolution got adapted as a premise by other scientists of different/related fields then eugenics or social darwinism naturally emerged along the course of expected advancements or applications of the very evolutionary ideas, both were endorsed by Darwin himself. It was not an abuse of his work but rather it was an inevitable influence of his work.

Once again, so what? are you going to keep saying that the Bible is not true because it was abused?

Abuse or alterations of a religion is one thing and advanced applications of a theory as a natural progress built on the very theory at the core is a different thing.

After all, if the selection of the fittest were the course of nature towards prosperity, why would anyone want to alter that course? It would be legitimately justified by regimes that adapt this premise to embrace that course. (Such as the Nazi)

And no, abiogenesis is totally different from spontaneous generation.

Not at all. in principle, both are about the false/unsubstantiated belief that live can emerge from nonliving matter.

Darwin lived at a time when it was believed that bacteria, insects or even mice, could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter (spontaneous generation). For him, the emergence of first live “LUCA” that eventually evolved, was not a problem at all, it was a simple issue that can be seen every day, yet he was totally wrong.

how does demonstrating that modern bacteria (which are extremely complex due to their billions of years of evolution) do not appear spontaneously disprove abiogenesis? I would love to see the "logic" behind that.

You ignore the fact that the alleged first organism that was alive and capable of reproducing and transmitting its genetic material into a subsequent generation was necessarily extremely complex and came to existence without any evolutionary process to play any role to build such complexity.

The existence of such organism as the starting point is a must before any evolutionary/adaptation process would have any change to take place.

To be alive, capable of growing, reproducing and passing genetic material to successive generations, this first organism is necessarily extremely complex. Such complex organism can neither be spontaneously generated from nonliving matter nor any evolutionary process played any role to build such complexity. No evolution is possible before the emergence of such extremely complex organism.

The assumption that such organism can emerge from nonliving matter “abiogenesis” is totally unsubstantiated and not in any way less ridiculous than “spontaneous generation”.

At least those how believed in “spontaneous generation” may claim that their belief was supported by observations (obviously wrong interpretations of observations) but on what basis can anyone argue his position on the alleged “abiogenesis”? It’s nothing but a meaningless imagination.

 

[LIIA]

So what? Now you are claiming that Europeans cannot exist because Americans came from Europe. You are using extremely poor logic again. Yes, Tiktaalik is a transitional form.

What Europeans or Americans? How is that relevant to anything I’m saying?

My claim is “you cannot exist before your biological father” is that clear enough?

Here is your error:

You are assuming that transitional means ancestral. It does not. We are all but guaranteed not to be descended from Tiktaalik. But we are descended from a close relative to Tiktaalik.

Per the alleged ToE, If a species “A" transform into species "B”, the process is gradual through numerous transitional forms. All these transitional forms (in-between) are necessarily ancestral to species “B”. In other words, they all have to exist at some point in time before species “B”. You cannot exist before your father, can you?

An ancestor is the cause of the existence of a descendant; an alleged descendant cannot exist millions of years before its alleged ancestor. Do we really need to argue about this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all. It was not abused. Evolution got adapted as a premise by other scientists of different/related fields then eugenics or social darwinism naturally emerged along the course of expected advancements or applications of the very evolutionary ideas, both were endorsed by Darwin himself. It was not an abuse of his work but rather it was an inevitable influence of his work.

Sorry but evolution is a fact. It has nothing to do with those bad works.

Abuse or alterations of a religion is one thing and advanced applications of a theory as a natural progress built on the very theory at the core is a different thing.

But it was not an application of the theory. That is one of the reasons that it was wrong. Sorry, but you are still refuting your own religion.

After all, if the selection of the fittest were the course of nature towards prosperity, why would anyone want to alter that course? It would be legitimately justified by regimes that adapt this premise to embrace that course. (Such as the Nazi)

Darwin's works were banned in Nazi Germany. And one guess as to what religion Nazis were in Germany. Here is a hint, it was not atheist.

Not at all. in principle, both are about the false/unsubstantiated belief that live can emerge from nonliving matter.

Darwin lived at a time when it was believed that bacteria, insects or even mice, could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter (spontaneous generation). For him, the emergence of first live “LUCA” that eventually evolved, was not a problem at all, it was a simple issue that can be seen every day, yet he was totally wrong.

Incorrect. There is strong evidence for abiogenesis. There was no scientific evidence for spontaneous generation. When you make claims like this you appear to be extremely illiterate when it comes to the sciences. And no, we know that Darwin was right about LUCA. This is extremely settled science. The articles that you do not understand do not refute this at all. Also your timeline is wrong. Spontaneous Generation was refuted well before Darwin published his work. He did not rely on it.

You ignore the fact that the alleged first organism that was alive and capable of reproducing and transmitting its genetic material into a subsequent generation was necessarily extremely complex and came to existence without any evolutionary process to play any role to build such complexity.

The existence of such organism as the starting point is a must before any evolutionary/adaptation process would have any change to take place.

No, you are once again looking at modern life. All that was needed was essentially a self replicating strand of RNA. But then you know even less about abiogenesis than you do about evolution. There are unsolved problems in it but there are also quite a few solved ones.

To be alive, capable of growing, reproducing and passing genetic material to successive generations, this first organism is necessarily extremely complex. Such complex organism can neither be spontaneously generated from nonliving matter nor any evolutionary process played any role to build such complexity. No evolution is possible before the emergence of such extremely complex organism.

The assumption that such organism can emerge from nonliving matter “abiogenesis” is totally unsubstantiated and not in any way less ridiculous than “spontaneous generation”.

At least those how believed in “spontaneous generation” may claim that their belief was supported by observations (obviously wrong interpretations of observations) but on what basis can anyone argue his position on the alleged “abiogenesis”? It’s nothing but a meaningless imagination.

You make these terribly ignorant claims yet you cannot support any of them properly. Tell us how would you support such a claim that life arising on its own is impossible? If you could do that you would be able to win a Nobel Prize.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What Europeans or Americans? How is that relevant to anything I’m saying?

My claim is “you cannot exist before your biological father” is that clear enough?

That is what you argued. Just because a new form evolves does not mean that the old one has to go extinct. Your claim is incredibly ignorant since no one argued that. Once again. and please try to remember this:

Transitional does not mean ancestral. You are making that assumption in your argument.

Per the alleged ToE, If a species “A" transform into species "B”, the process is gradual through numerous transitional forms. All these transitional forms (in-between) are necessarily ancestral to species “B”. In other words, they all have to exist at some point in time before species “B”. You cannot exist before your father, can you?

An ancestor is the cause of the existence of a descendant; an alleged descendant cannot exist millions of years before its alleged ancestor. Do we really need to argue about this?

And there you go, a species does not necessarily "transform". What happens very often is that a species first splits into two different populations. Often due to some sort of physical barrier forming. They then each evolve according to the environment that they are in and if they meet up again the changes that have occurred in each is great enough so that they can no longer interbreed. They have become two different species. So when one ancient ancestor found its way to the land the descendants of its brother stayed in the sea. We could find the brother species that was still in the sea long after the other left and it would still be a transitional fossil. A transitional species is just one that has some of the traits of an older species and some of the traits of a younger species. We see that all of the time in the fossil record. It is well explained by evolution. Creationists have no explanation for those observations.

 

[cladking]

There was no scientific evidence for spontaneous generation.

And there's no scientific evidence for Evolution or gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest either.

There is just a narrative that is believed to explain the fossil record and other "evidence".

 

[gnostic]

Darwin’s idea of a spontaneously generated origin "LUCA" that emerged in a "warm little pond" then transformed to millions of a wide variety of organisms is the most ridiculous fairytale in the history of mankind.

Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur on 1859, same year when Darwin published “the Origin of Species”. Changing "spontaneous generation” to “abiogenesis" doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.

Not at all. in principle, both are about the false/unsubstantiated belief that live can emerge from nonliving matter.

Darwin lived at a time when it was believed that bacteria, insects or even mice, could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter (spontaneous generation). For him, the emergence of first live “LUCA” that eventually evolved, was not a problem at all, it was a simple issue that can be seen every day, yet he was totally wrong.

I only know of very little information about “spontaneous generation” that some people created the idea that maggots or mice could spontaneously appeared out of recently dead bodies.

What I do know is that this idea didn’t come from Darwin, I actually don’t know who came up with this pseudoscience of spontaneous generation. I don’t know of the history of spontaneous generation because I generally don’t follow such pseudoscience, so I didn’t know about Louis Pasteur’s experiment.

What I do know is that spontaneous generation have nothing to do with Abiogenesis.

And I don’t think you have read any Abiogenesis papers, because you clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis have nothing to do with each other.

Abiogenesis isn’t about creating life from inorganic matters.

If you have read some of the premises of Abiogenesis, you would know that these are studies and researches on “organic matters” or “organic molecules” or “biological molecules” that are parts of a cell, could form under certain circumstances.

Abiogenesis isn’t about only living organisms, but the origins of these biological molecules or compounds that exist in cells, compounds like amino acids and proteins, nucleic acids (eg RNA & DNA), and the many types of carbohydrates (commonly referred to as “glucose”, “sugar”, “starch”), etc, molecules that exist in cells.

When you look at the molecular compositions of the human body, a large percentage of mass is water, 65%, but water (H2O) by itself is inorganic matters.

The largest percentage of mass of biological molecules, is proteins, about 20%, followed by lipid (made of fatty acids) at 12%. RNA make up 1% of mass and DNA about 0.1% of the mass. These are organic matters.

Abiogenesis is about how these biological matters exist outside of the cells. The origins of proteins (proteinogenic amino acids), nucleic acids, carbohydrates, fatty acids, and other organic compounds.

Some experiments have successfully produce these biological molecules from inorganic molecules, inorganic molecules that would have existed in early Earth’s conditions in the water and atmosphere.

One of the earliest experiments, is the Miller-Urey experiment in which they have used water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen gases (H2). Electrodes were also use to stimulate electricity of lightning, to generate the necessary heat to cause chemical reactions of these inorganic chemicals.

The end results of this experiment resulted in observing 9 types of amino acids, which do exist in proteins. Amino acids are building blocks of proteins, and as I said earlier, about 20% of our masses are made of proteins.

A reminder is that not all amino acids can form into proteins. Of the 500 types of amino acids, only 23 types existed in proteins, and only 21 exist naturally on Earth.

Note, as I said, not all amino acids can make proteins, so google up “proteinogenic amino acids”.

Well, guess what, LIIA, these liquids were store away in sealed vials, in dark storage space. In 2007, these vials examined again after Stanley Miller’s death, and 20 amino acids were detected and identified.

The Miller-Urey experiment wasn’t the only experiment. Other biochemists have used or included different inorganic compounds in different experiments.

Like the 1961’s experiment by Joan Oró, who added hydrogen cyanide (HCN) with water and ammonia, to produce organic compound, adenine, one of 4 compounds that exist in nucleotide.

Nucleotide is one of the components in nucleic acids.

Hydrogen cyanide could exist in ether liquid form or in gaseous form in atmosphere, as smoke, since the early earth would have many volcanic activities.

The origins of biological compounds have also been discovered in natural events (meaning outside of laboratory, and outside of experiments), in hydrothermal vents in the oceans, or in meteorites, eg the Murchison Meteorite in 1969.

Not only were amino acids detected in the meteorite, but also other organic compounds, including purines that are one of compounds found in urine, pyrimidines that are compounds found in nucleic acids, carboxylic acids, hydrocarboxylic acids, aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.

Abiogenesis is more about the origin of biochemical matters, hence the origins of biological compounds or molecules.

So no, Abiogenesis isn’t spontaneous generation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there's no scientific evidence for Evolution or gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest either.

There is just a narrative that is believed to explain the fossil record and other "evidence".

Just a reminder, you do not even knows what is and what is not evidence and you have refused to even try to learn. So of course as usual you are laughably wrong.

 

[cladking]

Just a reminder, you do not even knows what is and what is not evidence and you have refused to even try to learn. So of course as usual you are laughably wrong.

"Evidence" is fact that supports what you believe.

People don't see facts that contradict what they believe so there's no word for that except "anomaly". Few people see anomalies even back when they believed in spontaneous generation.

You could just try the Funk and Wagnalls instead of making a production of it. You might be surprised.

 

[cladking]

So no, Abiogenesis isn’t spontaneous generation.

Many of the the elements and chemicals in individuals can be found in nature!!!!!!!

What's the alternative?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Evidence" is fact that supports what you believe.

People don't see facts that contradict what they believe so there's no word for that except "anomaly". Few people see anomalies even back when they believed in spontaneous generation.

You could just try the Funk and Wagnalls instead of making a production of it. You might be surprised.

That is incorrect because it is incomplete. But even by that definition there is endless evidence for evolution.

But since this is a science based discussion the proper definition to use is that of scientific evidence. You don't have any. The theory of evolution has plenty.

 

[cladking]

But since this is a science based discussion the proper definition to use is that of scientific evidence. You don't have any. The theory of evolution has plenty.

As long as you're getting out the Funk and Wagnalls you should look up "science" and "metaphysics" as well. I don't think either of these words mean what you think they do.

One of the most positive attributes of English is that you can say anything you wants. If you can think it you can put it into words. You seem to only want to deconstruct every sentence to mean what you want it to mean.

 

[gnostic]

"Evidence" is fact that supports what you believe.

No, evidence is independent of what people believe.

This is actually you:

People don't see facts that contradict what they believe so there's no word for that except "anomaly".

You are the one who refused to see fact, because you have your own UNSUBSTANTIATED “belief” that people 40,000 years ago were “TRUE SCIENTISTS”, and these people drawing symbols in which you “believe” these symbols were written language, which you “believe” everyone back then spoke A SINGLE LANGUAGE, but they are not written language, and supposedly another “belief” that people started spoken multiple language 4000 years ago, at nonexistent and mythological Tower of Babel, and new species of humans, the “homo omnisciencis”, which you had made up yourself, which you no one else use, except YOU.

You have invented all these belief, with no facts, no evidence, no experiments, no logic. All you have, are your beliefs and “your say so”.

You talk of “facts”, but not once have you presented a single evidence to support a single claim of yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As long as you're getting out the Funk and Wagnalls you should look up "science" and "metaphysics" as well. I don't think either of these words mean what you think they do.

One of the most positive attributes of English is that you can say anything you wants. If you can think it you can put it into words. You seem to only want to deconstruct every sentence to mean what you want it to mean.

Standard dictionaries are not the best sources for science based debates. We need to go over A LOT of basics before we can get to the actual science.

 

[cladking]

No, evidence is independent of what people believe.

I already showed an article that cited experimental evidence!!! You had NOTHING to say.

You probably didn't even see it because we all see only what we believe. Just as Egyptologists are blind to wide swathes of evidence that show the pyramid builders used linear funiculars to build mnemonics and biologists are blind to vast experiment (including all experiment) that show change in species is caused by consciousness and is gradual, you can't see the evidence (experiment) that shows you see what you believe.

 

[cladking]

Standard dictionaries are not the best sources for science based debates. We need to go over A LOT of basics before we can get to the actual science.

I hate to break this to you but every sentence ever composed since the tower of babel is solely dependent on the meaning of the words. This includes EVERY sentence including those used to describe experiment and build models. Science has no magical language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already showed an article that cited experimental evidence!!! You had NOTHING to say.

Perhaps because your use of the supposed evidence may have been unintelligible.

You probably didn't even see it because we all see only what we believe. Just as Egyptologists are blind to wide swathes of evidence that show the pyramid builders used linear funiculars to build mnemonics and biologists are blind to vast experiment (including all experiment) that show change in species is caused by consciousness and is gradual, you can't see the evidence (experiment) that shows you see what you believe.

Do you have a link to any of your posts where you provided any evidence at all for funiculars? And how do you deal with turbo encabulators?