Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

How did I miss that last phrase. No, scientists hate forgeries. They never lead to the truth. There are only two that I know of. Piltdown man, which was accepted by mostly British scientists since they made the mistake of letting ego get to them. And a little bit by American scientists. It was not well accepted elsewhere and what acceptance that it got hindered the theory of evolution . You appear to be trying to change your claim about archaeoraptor after the fact. That was a forgery that was discovered almost immediately by experts in the field. The finding did not go through peer review and shows why peer review is so important to the sciences. Experts in the field immediately saw through it. But, as I said it still added to scientific knowledge singe part of it was a transitional species.

How about Orce Man & Nebraska Man? It may not be an intended forgery, but it explains the urge that those scientists have to immediately jump to conclusions based on some nonsense. How can you build that much inference based on a single tooth or a small bone fragment? To me, It’s almost equal to an intended forgery. See #1252.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

But heck, almost all species can be shown to be transitional today. If one finds a new fossil it is almost a given that it is transitional. Today what would be interesting to find is a fossil that is not transitional.

The problem is that the interpretation is typically based on morphological features yet ignores the essential need for a chronologically ordered series of fossils showing a lineage of ancestors and descendants, which is a must if evolution is true. The descendants cannot exist before the alleged ancestors.

Evidence of a coherent evolutionary developmental line of chronologically ordered gradual transitional variants was never established. Never. That’s way the typical word used is relative not an ancestor to imply some sort of unknown relationship.

When it comes to Christianity there have been all sorts of fraud perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Serious Christians hate those. They detract from the true knowledge. I do not know if there is the same sort of problem in Islam. Are their various "relics of Mohammad"? Relics are quite often fake. Would you rely on a fake relic of Mohammad? i am betting that you would not. The same goes for the sciences.

It’s important not to confuse the role of religion and science. Generally, each has its domain. There is no contradiction. In fact, the Islamic Civilization was the first Civilization where its citizens were religiously obligated to learn to read, write and disseminate knowledge which led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age”. Islam was the driving force that established the basis of the new scientific method. Are you even aware that the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers? Can you Imagine how would our world today look like without it? See # 332.

Fibonacci’s work made the Arabic numerals known in Europe. European trade, books, and colonialism helped popularize the adoption of Arabic numerals around the world. See the link

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)

Scientists hate frauds. If they find them they tend to expose them immediately. Piltdown man was a rather good forgery for that time period. But as technology improved it was the scientists that exposed it

Yes, I agree that generally Scientists hate frauds. But don’t underestimate the impact of false axioms, bias, dogmatic control, and urge to make an achievement/discovery in addition to possible intentional forgery in some cases.

I can’t claim all transitional fossils to be products of forgery, not at all, it's not true, but I do claim that the interpretation of the fossils is mostly the product of bias/false axiom as explained in #1864 item 5.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

Creationists have never had a hand in exposing a fraud.

You imply that a creationist cannot be a scientist, which is not true.

 

[LIIA]

I agree. But Believers use tactics like that frequently while sending out airs of superiority that are clearly unwarranted. I guess they think their wind doesn't stink.

The bunny is actually funny I’ll take your statement as an acknowledgment that yours does; you appear to send lots of it below . Let’s see if it deserves a response.

 

[LIIA]

To paraphrase Gould, he never said gradualism wasn't possible or wasn't a fact.

Not denying a possibility ≠ acknowledgment of a fact. do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about Orce Man & Nebraska Man? It may not be an intended forgery, but it explains the urge that those scientists have to immediately jump to conclusions based on some nonsense. How can you build that much inference based on a single tooth or a small bone fragment? To me, It’s almost equal to an intended forgery. See #1252.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums



The problem is that the interpretation is typically based on morphological features yet ignores the essential need for a chronologically ordered series of fossils showing a lineage of ancestors and descendants, which is a must if evolution is true. The descendants cannot exist before the alleged ancestors.

Evidence of a coherent evolutionary developmental line of chronologically ordered gradual transitional variants was never established. Never. That’s way the typical word used is relative not an ancestor to imply some sort of unknown relationship.



It’s important not to confuse the role of religion and science. Generally, each has its domain. There is no contradiction. In fact, the Islamic Civilization was the first Civilization where its citizens were religiously obligated to learn to read, write and disseminate knowledge which led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age”. Islam was the driving force that established the basis of the new scientific method. Are you even aware that the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers? Can you Imagine how would our world today look like without it? See # 332.

Fibonacci’s work made the Arabic numerals known in Europe. European trade, books, and colonialism helped popularize the adoption of Arabic numerals around the world. See the link

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)



Yes, I agree that generally Scientists hate frauds. But don’t underestimate the impact of false axioms, bias, dogmatic control, and urge to make an achievement/discovery in addition to possible intentional forgery in some cases.

I can’t claim all transitional fossils to be products of forgery, not at all, it's not true, but I do claim that the interpretation of the fossils is mostly the product of bias/false axiom as explained in #1864 item 5.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums



You imply that a creationist cannot be a scientist, which is not true.

No. Nebraska man was the work of one amateur American paleontologist. He got an article published. The only one that took it seriously was a non scientific source. It was never used as evidence for evolution:

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

 

[LIIA]

Examples of gradualism in vertebrate fossils are found in the evolution of birds, the horse lineage, the mammalian middle ear and the evolution from fish to land animals. Both gradualism and punctuated equilibria represent different modes of evolution. PE does not refute the theory of evolution and is readily understood in the light of the Modern Synthesis.

Punctuated equilibrium acknowledges that evidence of gradualism is non-existent.

Punctuated equilibrium proposes that the creation of new species through evolutionary change occurs not at slow, constant rates over millions of years but rather in rapid bursts over periods as short as thousands of years
punctuated equilibrium model | biology | Britannica

Punctuated equilibrium is totally a contrasting idea that refutes the steady/gradual transformation.

Gradualism is a fundamental assumption of evolution, if gradualism is refuted (and it was), the theory collapses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way @LIIA since you insist on doing Gish Gallops I am using my Gish Gallop rule from now on. Refuting one refutes all. If you want to debate properly and bring up one topic at a time I will gladly do that with a more thorough discussion. But right now I just refuted your last post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Punctuated equilibrium acknowledges that evidence of gradualism is non-existent.

Punctuated equilibrium proposes that the creation of new species through evolutionary change occurs not at slow, constant rates over millions of years but rather in rapid bursts over periods as short as thousands of years
punctuated equilibrium model | biology | Britannica

Punctuated equilibrium is totally a contrasting idea that refutes the steady/gradual transformation.

Gradualism is a fundamental assumption of evolution, if gradualism is refuted (and it was), the theory collapses.

No, it doesn't. Not even the writer of that agrees with you. What he would have said, and others have told you, is that directly observing gradualism is rare. But that does not refute gradualism because that is not what is expected to be seen.

The fossil record is not a continuous movie picture of the history of Earth. It is similar to a movie picture but we only have a cell here and there. And it still supports gradualism. Since we are working with a handicap our test must take that into account. What is predicted is an observed continual change of many species as they evolve and that is exactly what we see. We do not see man suddenly showing up in the Ordovician and then not reappearing for another 400 million years. We see him only after the development of our other ape ancestors.

 

[LIIA]

No. Nebraska man was the work of one amateur American paleontologist. He got an article published. The only one that took it seriously was a non scientific source. It was never used as evidence for evolution:

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

How about the scientific sources below for Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man)?


Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America | Science


Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America | PNAS

 

[LIIA]

The discovery of Tiktaalik is another triumphant example of the predictive power of the Theory of Evolution. As well as being a strong piece of evidence for the gradualism that Believers want you to ignore.

See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

This video shows an excellent example of gradualism in the development of resistance in the evolution of E. coli over 11 days. As Believers are often want to claim, but they are still bacteria. That's right. After 11 days, they are still E. coli, but they have gradually evolved that resistance by the fixation of a single trait in the population. It would take many more gradual changes and much longer time for them to evolve into another species.

Now one might argue that this isn't gradual, but don't be fooled by that exercise in ignorance of the fact that this is an optimized system where an increased rate of change is to be expected. Also keep in mind that this represents approximately 792 generations of bacteria. Equivalent to 15,000 to 20,000 years if we were looking at the fixation of a single trait in a human population.

Hardly a mighty leap at a single bound.

And, Oh Yeah, this is an excellent example of evolution by selection.

Do you understand what you are doing? You’re using evidence against evolution to support evolution. Total nonsense.

Yes, they are still E.coli and there is absolutely no evidence that it would transform into anything other than E.coli but this is not the issue.

Evolution is essentially about random mutation + natural selection. Nothing of the observed behavior of E.coli was random; the change was directed and predictable. The same behavior is expected to repeat every time the experiment is repeated. Meaning, It’s not a random behavior.

You assume millions of random (non-beneficial) mutations that supposedly happened in no time at each band and then got all eliminated with the exception of the accidental mutation that happened to be beneficial. There is absolutely no evidence of such nonsense. If the process were random, the accidental beneficial mutation would not necessarily emerge every single time the experiment is repeated.

The experiment showed repeated directed successive mutations that produced a change that didn’t exist in original bacteria. The spread of bacteria stopped at each band until a mutant appeared then the mutants continued to spread to the next band and the mutation process repeated till the accumulating successive mutations adapted to over 1000-fold resistance level against antibiotics. The fast adaptation response was driven by the threat to the survival of the bacteria.

The experiment showed repeated/predictable directed mutation. The process is neither random nor gradual. It was a directed adaptation not a random evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about the scientific sources below for Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man)?


Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America | Science


Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America | PNAS

He convinced one scientist. And that did not last very long. So what? Didn't you check? Both of your articles were written by one man. It is rather obvious that you still do not understand the scientific method. You grasp at single authors in more recent times that accept the fact of evolution but only have a disagreement on methodologies. Now you have found perhaps the only American author that accepted Nebraska Man. It takes more than that to have an effect on a theory. I can name a scientist that thinks that a lot of the dinosaurs are the same species, just at different ages. That does not mean that he is right. I do believe that he has been shown to be wrong on at least some of his claims. It takes a solid body of work to change a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you understand what you are doing? You’re using evidence against evolution to support evolution. Total nonsense.

Yes, they are still E.coli and there is absolutely no evidence that it would transform into anything other than E.coli but this is not the issue.

Evolution is essentially about random mutation + natural selection. Nothing of the observed behavior of E.coli was random; the change was directed and predictable. The same behavior is expected to repeat every time the experiment is repeated. Meaning, It’s not a random behavior.

You assume millions of random (non-beneficial) mutations that supposedly happened in no time at each band and then got all eliminated with the exception of the accidental mutation that happened to be beneficial. There is absolutely no evidence of such nonsense. If the process were random, the accidental beneficial mutation would not necessarily emerge every single time the experiment is repeated.

The experiment showed repeated directed successive mutations that produced a change that didn’t exist in original bacteria. The spread of bacteria stopped at each band until a mutant appeared then the mutants continued to spread to the next band and the mutation process repeated till the accumulating successive mutations adapted to over 1000-fold resistance level against antibiotics. The fast adaptation response was driven by the threat to the survival of the bacteria.

The experiment showed repeated/predictable directed mutation. The process is neither random nor gradual. It was a directed adaptation not a random evolution.

Of course they are still E. coli. You are still a monkey. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. But they are a new species of E. coli.

Oops, sorry. I was a bit too quick there. I thought that you were referring to the Long Term E. Coli Experiment. My only mistake is that those are not a new species. Otherwise everything else that I said is correct.

 

[LIIA]

No, it doesn't. Not even the writer of that agrees with you. What he would have said, and others have told you, is that directly observing gradualism is rare. But that does not refute gradualism because that is not what is expected to be seen.

The fossil record is not a continuous movie picture of the history of Earth. It is similar to a movie picture but we only have a cell here and there. And it still supports gradualism. Since we are working with a handicap our test must take that into account. What is predicted is an observed continual change of many species as they evolve and that is exactly what we see. We do not see man suddenly showing up in the Ordovician and then not reappearing for another 400 million years. We see him only after the development of our other ape ancestors.

Which part of what I said that you don’t agree with? Is it the rapid bursts over periods as short as thousands of years or contrasting the idea of steady/gradual transformation? Or maybe the fact that gradualism is the most fundamental assumption of the ToE? This is pathetic. See below

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which part of what I said that you don’t agree with? Is it the rapid bursts over periods as short as thousands of years or contrasting the idea of steady/gradual transformation? Or maybe the fact that gradualism is the most fundamental assumption of the ToE? This is pathetic. See below

View attachment 66534

View attachment 66535

You do not understand the terms here. He is also talking about a different timescale. Do you understand that geology and biology run on different time scales?

In geology one million years is "sudden". It is not in biology. You are grasping at straws in regards to a theory that you do not understand.


Do you want to learn or are you going to keep making ignorant arguments?

All that Gould showed was that evolution did not occur at a constant gradual rate. That was what was refuted. But to your and my eye the changes would still have been very gradual. We run at a different rate than geologic time.

 

[LIIA]

Of course they are still E. coli. You are still a monkey. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. But they are a new species of E. coli.

You can acknowledge yourself to be a monkey, it's your call if you see yourself this way. I don’t.

Oops, sorry. I was a bit too quick there. I thought that you were referring to the Long Term E. Coli Experiment. My only mistake is that those are not a new species. Otherwise everything else that I said is correct.

What everything? You didn’t really say anything? This is actually a monkey business.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can acknowledge yourself to be a monkey, it's your call if you see yourself this way. I don’t.

You are a monkey too. Or do you believe that you are a horse?

What everything? You didn’t really say anything? This is actually a monkey business.

Yes, everything else that I said was correct. There was another experiment that was an example of gradualism that resulted in a new species of E. coli. I conflated that with this much shorter one.

It is too bad that you do not even understand the very basics of what you are arguing against.

 

[LIIA]

In geology one million years is "sudden". It is not in biology. You are grasping at straws in regards to a theory that you do not understand.

False, with respect to gradualism, “thousands of years” (as mentioned in Britannica) is extremely sudden, that is why PE is a total contrast to “phyletic gradualism" as mentioned in Wiki, go back and see #2093

punctuated equilibrium model | biology | Britannica

It's not another mode, it’s a contrasting mode. See the criticism section in Wiki.

 

[LIIA]

You are a monkey too. Or do you believe that you are a horse?

Don’t you believe that you as a monkey and your horse cousin are descendants of your same Grand Pa Tiktaalik? Why do you talk as if the horse is not family?

Yes, everything else that I said was correct. There was another experiment that was an example of gradualism that resulted in a new species of E. coli. I conflated that with this much shorter one.

It is too bad that you do not even understand the very basics of what you are arguing against.

You didn’t say anything. We talked multiple times before about the other famous E. coli experiment. And as I explained multiple times, it was also an example of directed mutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False, with respect to gradualism, “thousands of years” (as mentioned in Britannica) is extremely sudden, that is why PE is a total contrast to “phyletic gradualism" as mentioned in Wiki, go back and see #2093

punctuated equilibrium model | biology | Britannica

It's not another mode, it’s a contrasting mode. See the criticism section in Wiki.

Oh my, even a million years is sudden in geologic time. You are simply not listening. You have no clue of what punctuated equilibrium is . How do you think that you can use it as a weapon?

 

[LIIA]

By the way @LIIA since you insist on doing Gish Gallops I am using my Gish Gallop rule from now on. Refuting one refutes all. If you want to debate properly and bring up one topic at a time I will gladly do that with a more thorough discussion. But right now I just refuted your last post.

You wish, but sorry, you don’t get to make your own (convenient) rules