Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

You don't seem to understand. Even if you could disprove my theory or at least provide a little evidence it is wrong that would not fix your flawed narrative. "Evolution" never happened and change in species is more similar to the Bible and Pyramid Texts descriptions than anything ever dreamt by Darwin.

There is no need to disprove nonsense. You don't even have a theory, you said so yourself. You will probably say so again.

And no, the Bible is wrong, your pyramid ideas are laughed at by those that have studied the topic.

 

[gnostic]

As I've shown you many times there is a Sumerian version too.

I am well aware of the Sumerian literature, cladking, and none have anything to do with the Tower of Babel, and especially nothing to do with one language being spoken, then suddenly many languages were spoken.

Yes, Sumerians have ziggurats, but there were multiple ziggurats in different cities, and built AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

Genesis 11's Tower was based on the actual ziggurat (the Etemenanki) completed at Babylon, in Nebuchadezzar II's time, and not something built around 2000 BCE.

In fact there were no new ziggurat built around 2000 BCE.

The last ziggurat built BEFORE THE END OF THE 3rd MILLENNIUM BCE, was the Great Ziggurat in Ur, during the 3rd dynasty of Ur, around 2100 BCE, started by Ur-Nammu (c 2112 - 2094 BCE) the first king of that dynasty, and completed by Shulgi (c 2094 - 2046 BCE), Ur-Nammu's son and successor.

Yes, it was the largest ziggurat at that time, standing at 30 metre high, except that it shorter than all 4th dynasty's 3 pyramids at Giza (Khufu's 146m, Khafre's 136m, Menkaure's 65m). And these 3 pyramids are older than the Ziggurat of Ur, by almost 4 centuries.

Ur's ziggurat is even shorter than the oldest pyramid at Saqqara, Djoser's Step Pyramid (3rd dynasty), with height of 63 metres.

As I said, Genesis' Babel was written during the time of some prominent Jews being exiled to Babylon. And during that time, Nebuchadezzar's Etemananki was completed, which was started by the Assyrian Esarhaddon, which was the basis of Genesis' story.

No one know how tall it is, because it has been destroyed with only the base and foundation existing, but based on the size of its base, it would be less than 100 metre tall, still shorter than the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre.

So where is your imaginary Tower of Babel?

 

[cladking]

Sorry, but you are not a valid source.

And Egyptologists can't do math or even count so I guess science has to stay stuck in 1883.

 

[cladking]

I am well aware of the Sumerian literature, cladking, and none have anything to do with the Tower of Babel, and especially nothing to do with one language being spoken, then suddenly many languages were spoken.

I wonder how many times I've linked this for you or here.

pg 279

I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood

Did I ever mention all changes in everything tend to be sudden. When seen from the proper perspective even changes in things like orbits are sudden. There was one language in 3200BC and now there are 7,000,000,000. Everything changed in year 200o BC approximately. It was VERY sudden.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Egyptologists can't do math or even count so I guess science has to stay stuck in 1883.

How would you know that? Can you do math? I doubt if you are applying that law correctly. Why not talk to someone that understands it use?

 

[gnostic]

You don't seem to understand. Even if you could disprove my theory or at least provide a little evidence it is wrong that would not fix your flawed narrative. "Evolution" never happened and change in species is more similar to the Bible and Pyramid Texts descriptions than anything ever dreamt by Darwin.

The Bible and Pyramid Text do contain descriptions, but there are no EXPLANATION about nature (natural phenomena and processes).

There are no explanations to anything biology in either the Bible or the Pyramid Text, and certainly nothing concerning speciation. In Genesis 1 & 2 animals and plants just popped into existence, because a God "say so", which is nothing more than superstitions.

You accuse others of being superstitious and yet you rely on book of creation, like Genesis, which is nothing more than superstitions. What a load of hypocrisies you have envisioned.

Science without explanations, are not sciences at all.

And you confused repeatedly Natural Sciences with Social Sciences, which again showed you know very little of both of these sciences. Psychology, languages/philology, economics, politics, falls under Social Sciences, not Natural Sciences, because they don't exist in nature.

Biology, like bones, tissues, organs, blood, leaves, branches, trunks, seeds, microorganisms, genetics, etc, all required testable and tested explanations, which are all natural, and exist in nature, without being manufactured by humans.

It is you that, have "flawed narrative", with no facts and no evidence.

You still cannot even list even one evidence, to support your arguments. All you do is just make up SOME MORE CLAIMS that are equally wrong as your original claims.

There were no Tower of Babel, no universal spoken and written language 40,000 years ago and no science 40,000 years ago. You only invented your wishful fantasies.

 

[cladking]

How would you know that? Can you do math? I doubt if you are applying that law correctly. Why not talk to someone that understands it use?

Years ago I noticed and reported that Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law. They still don't know.

 

[gnostic]

I wonder how many times I've linked this for you or here.

pg 279

I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood

This is the first time, I have seen this link.

And I have never deny that the 3rd millennium Sumerian literature have influenced contemporary Akkadians, which in turn, influenced the Babylonian and Assyrian literature of the 2nd & 1st millennium BCE.

Literature of Babylonians during the mid-2nd milllennium BCE (during the early Kassite dynasty in Babylon), spread to Elam in the east, the Hittites, Ugarit, Megiddo and Egypt in the west.

But there are no Bronze Age texts in Hebrew during the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE. It is only Judah and Israel encounters with 1st millennium Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires that we see Hebrew scriptures being composed in the late 7th century and 6th century BCE.

So you citing a book on Kramer's analysis of the Genesis Babel with Sumerian literature, is a matter of Kramer's interpretations and not on any physical evidence. Kramer certainly didn't perform experiment, which is something you keep asking for. Your hypocrisy is showing again.

I have asked you where is this fable Babel, and I am talking about literally PHYSICAL Tower, not myths, and you give garbage of a link.

You really don't understand what constitute as evidence do you?

Evidence are "physical", not a point-of-view, not a concept, not a theory, and certainly not interpretations of Sumerian texts.

 

[LIIA]

And one guess as to what religion Nazis were in Germany. Here is a hint, it was not atheist.

The Nazis being atheists or theists is irrelevant to their racist ideology that was driven by their adaptation of eugenics, racial hygiene and social darwinism.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia
Racial hygiene - Wikipedia
Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Christianity remains the dominant religion in the United States today. 8 in 10 Americans continue to believe in God. Many countries favor specific religions, officially or unofficially but that is not an indication of the ideology adapted by the political power or the dominant governing regime.

Incorrect. There is strong evidence for abiogenesis.

False, it’s only a strong unsubstantiated belief. There is no process in nature through which life would emerge from nonliving matter.

There was no scientific evidence for spontaneous generation.

The spontaneous generation idea that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter was taken as scientific fact for a very long time. Yes, it was challenged before Louis Pasteur but finally discredited by his work in the mid-19th century.

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

No, the hypothesis of LUCA (as well as all other alleged common ancestors) is nothing but an unsubstantiated “historical narrative”.

This is extremely settled science. The articles that you do not understand do not refute this at all.

These articles are not concerned with LUCA. it’s about all central assumptions of the modern synthesis which got disproved. See #753 and #781.

In any case, LUCA was never anything more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. (A historical narrative) and especially with all central assumptions of the theory being false, it necessarily means that the theory itself is false. Hence the assumed LUCA is also false. You cannot disprove all fundamental assumptions of a theory and claim that the theory still stands.

See #781

See #911

Also your timeline is wrong. Spontaneous Generation was refuted well before Darwin published his work. He did not rely on it.

No, it was challenged but finally discredited by the work of Louis Pasteur in the mid-19th century.

Darwin didn’t have any understanding of how complex is the living cell and lived in a time when Spontaneous Generation was assumed to be a fact.

His work was indeed influenced by the limited knowledge of his time. But why are you concerning yourself with defending Darwin, it's an irrelevant argument considering the fact that all the central assumptions of the latest mainstream theory today (the modern synthesis) got disproved. See #753 and #781.

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.

Totally Misleading oversimplification.

Let alone that there is no process in nature to create RNA from basic nonliving matter to begin with but more importantly the replication process itself is an extremely complex process involving many cellular components. How would RNA get required building blocks for replication? Under prebiotic conditions there is no nucleotides floating around to allow the RNA to replicate. The RNA functions only within the cell. Even the extremely complex virus structure cannot self-replicate outside the host cell till it invades the host (LIVING CELL) and insert its genetic material into the cell’s DNA to trick it into making copies of itself.
Without the living host cell, the replication of a virus is IMPOSIBLE.

Even if RNA emerges somehow in nature, its structure will get very quickly disrupted/disintegrated. It cannot wait millions of years for required building blocks (nucleotides) for replication to somehow emerge.

Again, without at least a single celled organism that is alive, capable of growing, reproducing and transmitting its genetic material into a subsequent generation, no evolutionary process is possible.

Such organism is necessarily extremely complex; there is neither a process in nature for such an organism to emerge from nonliving matter nor any evolutionary process played any role to build such complex organism.

There are unsolved problems in it but there are also quite a few solved ones.

False, it’s a meaningless wishful thinking, there is absolutely no process in nature for any system with any form of heritability to emerge from nonliving matter and pass changes to subsequent generation.

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.

It’s the fallacy of “proving a negative”. You may disprove a positive, but you cannot prove a negative. You are the one who should demonstrate that life might arise on its own. You make the claim, then you provide the evidence, the burden of proof is on you.

In fact, if you provide evidence that life can arise on its own, you would indeed be able to win a Nobel Prize.

 

[LIIA]

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:

I said so many times that speciation is not a reason for the original species to go extinct. It’s actually a key element of my argument especially with respect to alleged Hominin Evolution.

If the alleged human transformation from LCA to Homo sapiens ever happened through speciation / transitional forms, then, we should see different human species today especially in isolated geographical areas. They cannot all go extinct. All living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species. The alleged speciation of humans never happened.

If the ability of interbreeding is lost among some variants, it will never transform into totally different species. Even if we intentionally try creating a new species through artificial breeding, it will always be variants of original species. If we produce hybrids such as a mule or a liger it will always be infertile. Being infertile, it will not be a new species.

Anatomical diversity can be seen within the same species such as the horse kind today. Modern horses come in a wide range of sizes (28” to 72”) and forms but they all coexist and didn’t evolve from each other. If such anatomically diverse species is fossilized, it may be interpreted as a lineage of transitional forms but if the fossils have the same age range and found within the same strata, then it didn’t evolve from each other.

A direct line of descent with chronologically ordered fossils that exhibit gradual change of the specific lineage is required if the alleged gradualism is true. Such gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.

This alleged transformation of one species into totally different species, is not science. It’s neither possible nor there is any evidence for it. It’s nothing but a “historical narrative” as stated by Ernst Walter Mayr in his book “What Makes Biology Unique?”. See # 331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

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

The context here is the alleged transformation of one species into another, which necessitate numerous transitional forms. These transitional forms are necessarily ancestral to the descendant species of the same lineage.

It’s not enough to claim some sort of unknown relationship. You need to establish a lineage. If no alleged transitional forms can be proven to be ancestral to a present descendant species, then evolution is discredited.

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.

Except that without a transitional species for the ancient ancestor that supposedly found its way earlier to the land and without any gradualistic line of descent (none) with a direct ancestor-descendant evolutionary sequence, the whole story remains as unsubstantiated guesswork (historical narrative).

The story of the two brothers who got separated and met later as strangers who don’t recognize each other anymore is nothing but a “historical narrative” that neither qualifies as science nor a ridiculous bad movie. It doesn’t prove anything.

You cannot prove the alleged gradualism without a direct line of descent that exhibits continuous gradual change and leads from an ancestral to a present species (which was never established for any species).

Without the predicted numerous transitional forms that fit on a coherent evolutionary developmental line in a linear progression and chronologically ordered fossils, gradualism is false.

 

[LIIA]

What I do know is that this idea didn’t come from Darwin,

No one claimed that spontaneous generation came from Darwin. It’s much older than Darwin.

I generally don’t follow such pseudoscience, so I didn’t know about Louis Pasteur’s experiment.

Louis Pasteur’s experiment is not pseudoscience, I guess you didn’t mean that.

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

In principle, both are about the false/unsubstantiated belief that live can emerge from nonliving matter.

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

In principle they’re both related as explained above.

See the link below under historical background
“Evolutionary biologists believed that a kind of spontaneous generation, but different from the simple Aristotelian doctrine, must have worked for the emergence of life.”

Primordial soup - Wikipedia

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.

As I mentioned multiple times, Abiogenesis is about the hypothesized process by which life has allegedly arisen from non-living matter (Both organic matters and inorganic matters are non-living matter). We didn’t discuss any details concerning either abiotic or prebiotic conditions.

Even so we didn’t discuss such details but you’re wrong. Abiogenesis is not only concerned with the interactions of biomolecules and organic compounds but also the origins of these biomolecules. The chemistry concerning the synthesis of organic molecules necessarily involves inorganic matters.

The Miller–Urey experiment that you mentioned is also concerning the synthesis of more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.

So on one hand, you claimed that Abiogenesis or the origin of life is not concerned with inorganic matters on the other hand, you refuted your own argument by referencing an experiment testing the chemical origin of life from inorganic matters?

 

[cladking]

I have asked you where is this fable Babel, and I am talking about literally PHYSICAL Tower, not myths, and you give garbage of a link.

The nature of homo omnisciencis is to be wrong. We believe what we choose to believe and then we perceive only that until we become it. Now you want me (someone who is wrong by nature) to cite only sources that suit your beliefs and can't be wrong!!!! How can you possibly not see your logical errors here?

I never claimed there ever existed a physical "Tower of Babel". I don't believe in the Tower of Babel. I don't believe any tower was ever constructed to attack heaven and then it was destroyed by God (et al no less) and the people scattered by confusing their language.

I believe the story is a confused understanding of a speciation event in which we modern humans arose. I DON'T KNOW how a tower got wrapped up into the confused version of events. I would merely guess that some tower was the location that edicts from the government were issued to the citizenry. I would guess the edict was officially changing the language of state from Ancient Language which was digital and metaphysical to modern pidgin languages which had no meaning at all until they were deconstructed and each reader took a different meaning. The new language is confused. You don't understand me not so much because our language is confused so much as it flies in the face of everything you believe; everything you can perceive.

You believe that speciation events aren't real and that Evolution based on survival of the fittest changes species slowly. You know people didn't try to overthrow God. You know everything in the Bible is wrong at every level and didn't happen.

I believe speciation is sudden and caused by consciousness. This allows me to see the vast amount of evidence that supports this belief. It allows me to see that there is no such thing as Evolution and it's just an illusion caused by erroneous and evil assumptions. All individuals are equally fit and all life is conscious. No individuals were born to die or to be ground under a boot. All progress, all ideas, and all life is individual and any religion or state that doesn't accept this is obsolete.

 

[cladking]

I would guess the edict was officially changing the language of state from Ancient Language which was digital and metaphysical to modern pidgin languages which had no meaning at all until they were deconstructed and each reader took a different meaning.

Unless you think about this it is impossible to see just how disruptive this edict was to the people. Governments were generally well run and functioned on knowledge, science, and logic. Without money there was a highly complex means of distributing goods to those who needed them and rewards to those who produced them. These all depended on the smooth operation of the state which was a microcosm of science and logic. Governments were tiny and were more like orchestra leaders than they were like worthless bloated politicians and police. When this system collapsed it took not only all these processes with it but it also took all the historians, government, scientists, and sundry others with it. Many of these individuals who all lived in cities no longer had any sort of occupation or function. Scientists couldn't just learn the pidgin languages and move on because science was Ancient Language and science was impossible in pidgin. AL speakers for the main part were obsolete. They had to learn the new language just to become a laborer.

For the main part learning modern language was a one way trip because it rewired the brain using the broccas are rather than the wernickes area. Much was lost and gained in every individual but in these early days the modern languages were very poor for thought and communication. They are still poor for communication but are wicked good for thinking.

The speciation event we confuse as an attempt to destroy heaven was the most disruptive event in the history for those living at the time. The old order collapsed without a new one to replace it. It was followed by various protracted dark ages as we superstitious bumpkins stumbled blindly trying to find our way. We are still stumbling blindly but now we have the fruits of modern science called "technology" which at least eases the struggle for many individuals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Nazis being atheists or theists is irrelevant to their racist ideology that was driven by their adaptation of eugenics, racial hygiene and social darwinism.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia
Racial hygiene - Wikipedia
Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Christianity remains the dominant religion in the United States today. 8 in 10 Americans continue to believe in God. Many countries favor specific religions, officially or unofficially but that is not an indication of the ideology adapted by the political power or the dominant governing regime.

Dude! The Nazis were mostly Christian. Nazi Germany was a Christian country. It was the dominant religion of those in the party. Hitler was a weird sort of Christian, a version of his own, he was not an atheist.

False, it’s only a strong unsubstantiated belief. There is no process in nature through which life would emerge from nonliving matter.

Now you just admitted that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. There is undeniable evidence for abiogenesis. You may not like it, but if you want to deny it the burden of proof is upon you. Here, let me help you. In the sciences, and this applies to all sciences there is a clear definition of what qualifies as scientific evidence. It was developed largely because of science deniers like you. And also to help to keep scientists honest:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

That's it. So if someone makes a claim about having scientific evidence one only needs to ask two questions. The first is "does one have a scientific theory or hypothesis", that means that the concept needs to be falsifiable. Is there some reasonable test that could refute it at the time of formation. In the case of various hypotheses of abiogenesis the answer has been yes. The second is is there an observation that supports this hypothesis, and again, the answer has been yes.

The problem of abiogenesis has been broken down into parts since it is a very complex question. But even the first experiment in abiogenesis did provide scientific evidence for the concept.

Do you know that there is no scientific evidence for? There is no scientific evidence for your mythical beliefs.

Totally Misleading oversimplification.

Let alone that there is no process in nature to create RNA from basic nonliving matter to begin with but more importantly the replication process itself is an extremely complex process involving many cellular components. How would RNA get required building blocks for replication? Under prebiotic conditions there is no nucleotides floating around to allow the RNA to replicate. The RNA functions only within the cell. Even the extremely complex virus structure cannot self-replicate outside the host cell till it invades the host (LIVING CELL) and insert its genetic material into the cell’s DNA to trick it into making copies of itself.
Without the living host cell, the replication of a virus is IMPOSIBLE.

Even if RNA emerges somehow in nature, its structure will get very quickly disrupted/disintegrated. It cannot wait millions of years for required building blocks (nucleotides) for replication to somehow emerge.

Again, without at least a single celled organism that is alive, capable of growing, reproducing and transmitting its genetic material into a subsequent generation, no evolutionary process is possible.

Such organism is necessarily extremely complex; there is neither a process in nature for such an organism to emerge from nonliving matter nor any evolutionary process played any role to build such complex organism.

LOL! I never mentioned a virus. Once again your ignorance is amazingly obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said so many times that speciation is not a reason for the original species to go extinct. It’s actually a key element of my argument especially with respect to alleged Hominin Evolution.

If the alleged human transformation from LCA to Homo sapiens ever happened through speciation / transitional forms, then, we should see different human species today especially in isolated geographical areas. They cannot all go extinct. All living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species. The alleged speciation of humans never happened.

If the ability of interbreeding is lost among some variants, it will never transform into totally different species. Even if we intentionally try creating a new species through artificial breeding, it will always be variants of original species. If we produce hybrids such as a mule or a liger it will always be infertile. Being infertile, it will not be a new species.

Anatomical diversity can be seen within the same species such as the horse kind today. Modern horses come in a wide range of sizes (28” to 72”) and forms but they all coexist and didn’t evolve from each other. If such anatomically diverse species is fossilized, it may be interpreted as a lineage of transitional forms but if the fossils have the same age range and found within the same strata, then it didn’t evolve from each other.

A direct line of descent with chronologically ordered fossils that exhibit gradual change of the specific lineage is required if the alleged gradualism is true. Such gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.

This alleged transformation of one species into totally different species, is not science. It’s neither possible nor there is any evidence for it. It’s nothing but a “historical narrative” as stated by Ernst Walter Mayr in his book “What Makes Biology Unique?”. See # 331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums



The context here is the alleged transformation of one species into another, which necessitate numerous transitional forms. These transitional forms are necessarily ancestral to the descendant species of the same lineage.

It’s not enough to claim some sort of unknown relationship. You need to establish a lineage. If no alleged transitional forms can be proven to be ancestral to a present descendant species, then evolution is discredited.



Except that without a transitional species for the ancient ancestor that supposedly found its way earlier to the land and without any gradualistic line of descent (none) with a direct ancestor-descendant evolutionary sequence, the whole story remains as unsubstantiated guesswork (historical narrative).

The story of the two brothers who got separated and met later as strangers who don’t recognize each other anymore is nothing but a “historical narrative” that neither qualifies as science nor a ridiculous bad movie. It doesn’t prove anything.

You cannot prove the alleged gradualism without a direct line of descent that exhibits continuous gradual change and leads from an ancestral to a present species (which was never established for any species).

Without the predicted numerous transitional forms that fit on a coherent evolutionary developmental line in a linear progression and chronologically ordered fossils, gradualism is false.

Nope! Now you are making the opposite mistake. Most species, over 99%, go extinct. We would not expect to see all of our close relatives. We would only expect to see a few of them. And that is what we see today.

 

[gnostic]

Louis Pasteur’s experiment is not pseudoscience, I guess you didn’t mean that.

What I meant to say that “I don’t follow” spontaneous generation’s “history”, so I wasn’t aware of who debunked spontaneous generation.

What I mean by that, is I don’t know who Pasteur was, and I don’t know what he did.

 

[gnostic]

Dude! The Nazis were mostly Christian. Nazi Germany was a Christian country.

I think you were meant to reply to someone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you were meant to reply to someone else.

How did that happen? Okay, lets see if I can fix it.

 

[gnostic]

How did that happen? Okay, lets see if I can fix it.

It’s ok, because I have done that sorta of thing, several times over the years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s ok, because I have done that sorta of thing, several times over the years.

Yep! It happens to all of us. But I am still genuinely confused. I swore that I hit the reply button to his post but it became rather obvious that somehow I missed.