Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

There is no point in giving you evidence until you understand the concept. When you are ready to learn please tell me.

Here's evidence? ,(charmer, by the way...) 'Lucy' Discovered in Africa

 

[LIIA]

Do you believe George Washington was a real person? That he did all that is attributed to him? No one alive today ever saw him. There's no video footage of George Washington. We can't prove he existed or did the things attributed to him. All that I have ever heard about him could be a myth or series of baseless stories that people have just told me so often that I believe them to be true from repetition and the conviction of others regardless of the validity of those convictions.

I accept that George Washington existed based on the evidence. That is all we, today, really have.

This is a typical example of hypocrisy and twisted logic to adapt a concept whenever convenient and deny the exact same whenever convenient.

Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person or did the things attributed to him (miracles)? On what basis you accept that George Washington existed or did the things attributed to him and deny the same for Jesus of Nazareth?

In fact, evidence and historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth far exceeds the same for George Washington. There is no comparison.

Historical accounts of religions, especially the monotheistic Abrahamic religions far exceed the same for George Washington.

It’s not up to anyone to pick and choose or say what did take place or didn’t. The historical evidence is what dictates the authenticity of the historical events not the wishful thinking of anyone.

How is that different than accepting that land animals evolved from a fish ancestry based on the evidence?

Sure, it’s different in many ways.

First, obviously the methods of historical sciences are not the same as the methods of experimental sciences.

Second, there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change from Tiktaalik to any modern Tetrapods, unless you consider the construction of an alleged/imagined "historical narrative" to be your evidence! See # 422.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

Below are quotes from Ernst Walter Mayr (the Darwin of the 20th century) book “What Makes Biology Unique?”, it sheds light on the reliance of “evolutionary biology” on the method of “construction of a historical narrative”, IOW, a story or a myth. See # 331.

“How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

“Evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases where experiments are inappropriate.”

“However, biology is in many respects a very different science from the so-called exact sciences. Perhaps the most pronounced difference is that biology, in part, is a historical science. In this part of biology, evolutionary biology, the method of historical narratives is the most heuristic approach.”

“Indeed, evolutionary biology as a science, is in many respects more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences. When drawing the borderline between the exact sciences and the Geisteswissenschaften it would go right through biology and attach functional biology to the exact sciences while including evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften.”

What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (wordpress.com)

 

[LIIA]

I believe modern biology is much closer to being right than Darwin was.

We cannot compare Darwin’s evolutionary ideas to modern biology. Modern biology includes many fields that where unknown during Darwin’s time, such as epigenetics, genomics, systems biology, molecular biology, etc. The comparison has to be "apple to apple". As Ernst Walter Mayr put it, functional biology belongs to the exact sciences vs. evolutionary biology, which belongs to the “Geisteswissenschaften". See #331.

We may compare Darwin’s evolutionary ideas to the modern ToE “the modern synthesis”. But “the modern synthesis” is not closer to being right; in fact, it’s the other way around. It’s more wrong, I’ll explain why.

First, All the fundamental assumptions of the modern synthesis have been disproved. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing have deconstructed the MS view. As Denis Noble put it, “Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”. See # 753 & # 781.

Second, Darwin tried to provide an explanation for the observed phenomenon of “microadaptation”, he proposed that the cells shed minute particles (he called gemmules), then the particles get transmitted to the next generation and are responsible for the transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring. The process is not random in the sense that gemmule production, variations and corresponding traits are directly linked to the environmental change. Darwin held that environmental changes, acting either on the reproductive organs or the body, were necessary to generate variation. IOW, the change of the gemmule is the response of the cells to the environmental variables not merely a random change. In that sense, his view was more consistent with the modern view of “directed mutation” vs. the disproved view of the modern synthesis of “random/accidental mutations”. See # 1245.

But modern biology still has a hangover from Darwin and fixate on effects (survival of the fittest) rather than the cause (behavior). Until they admit their methodology is suspect there may be little or no progress.

We know now that genetic change is far from being random or gradual. Change is caused by a cell directed behavior. see the article below.

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

another article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro, a biologist and expert in bacterial genetics said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

The ToE is simply a false interpretation of the observed microadaptation phenomenon.

The evidenced directed microadaptation was incorrectly understood as random microevolution, which in turn led to the speculation of the unevidenced macroevolution that allegedly happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries between species.

The real world observed adaptation process is never about better survival chance of advantageous random mutations. It’s always about directed mutation of the organism to better fit an environment.

Survival is not a function of natural selection, natural selection is not a creative process, it will never give the organism a change that the organism doesn’t already have. Survival per all observations depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit a changing environment. I.e., directed mutation. It’s a totally different process that has nothing to do with randomness.

Consider the undisputed fact of “Antimicrobial Resistance”. Microorganisms such as bacteria always develop the change/ability to survive against the drugs (antibiotics) designed to kill them. The change is always very fast and predictable.

 

[LIIA]

Natural Selection is one of the mechanisms in Evolution, not "survival of the fittest".

Aren’t we long past that point?

Don’t we all know that "survival of the fittest" is simply a popular term that refers to the process of “natural selection"? You may argue it’s not same or equal but it all depends on the understanding/definition of fitness. If biological fitness is a measure of reproductive success caused by heritable characters, IOW, If the fittest life form is defined as the one capable of leaving the most copies of itself in successive generations in a given set of environmental conditions as an advantage over other life forms that are not as well adapted, then “natural selection" is essentially "survival of the fittest".

We shouldn’t waste more time on irrelevant semantics or who coined a term.

 

[LIIA]

There is no benefit in wasting time responding to nonsense, mere denial, emotional accusations and absurd empty claims but I’ll continue to comment/respond whenever it would be of benefit to do so.

Those who insist on ignorant denial are sure free to do so. Those who want to verify the facts for themselves, please do, don’t be a blind follower. You’re free to choose, not all choices are equal, your choice shall ultimately make an extremely huge difference for you, not for anyone else. It’s your call.

Peace

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the theory of evolution doesn't tell us how God it. That's not true for someone to say that's how God did it. The ToE says that human life came about by natural selection by fusion and chemical reactions of sources.

If there is a God why couldn't he do it that way? To believe something else is to believe that God is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

gorillas don't think like humans do.

What do you mean by that? Don't you think that it could just be brain size that makes the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mushrooms don't have brains.

I see, back to non sequiturs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no benefit in wasting time responding to nonsense, mere denial, emotional accusations and absurd empty claims but I’ll continue to comment/respond whenever it would be of benefit to do so.

Those who insist on ignorant denial are sure free to do so. Those who want to verify the facts for themselves, please do, don’t be a blind follower. You’re free to choose, not all choices are equal, your choice shall ultimately make an extremely huge difference for you, not for anyone else. It’s your call.

Peace

Right now you are just talking about yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's evidence? ,(charmer, by the way...) 'Lucy' Discovered in Africa

But you do not understand the evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Aren’t we long past that point?

Don’t we all know that "survival of the fittest" is simply a popular term that refers to the process of “natural selection"? You may argue it’s not same or equal but it all depends on the understanding/definition of fitness. If biological fitness is a measure of reproductive success caused by heritable characters, IOW, If the fittest life form is defined as the one capable of leaving the most copies of itself in successive generations in a given set of environmental conditions as an advantage over other life forms that are not as well adapted, then “natural selection" is essentially "survival of the fittest".

We shouldn’t waste more time on irrelevant semantics or who coined a term.

Actually I can say that about you, you are the one using false semantics.

The mechanisms are as follow:

• Natural Selection
• Mutations
• Genetic Drift
• Gene Flow
• Genetic Hitchhiking

All of them are tested mechanisms...but you want to ignore contemporary Evolution theory, and constantly attacking Darwin for not just "survival of the fittest" and Social Darwinism, both of them invented by HERBERT SPENCER.

Darwin had nothing to do with Social Darwinism, and yet in past posts, you attack him for it.

There is no benefit in wasting time responding to nonsense, mere denial, emotional accusations and absurd empty claims but I’ll continue to comment/respond whenever it would be of benefit to do so.

Those who insist on ignorant denial are sure free to do so. Those who want to verify the facts for themselves, please do, don’t be a blind follower. You’re free to choose, not all choices are equal, your choice shall ultimately make an extremely huge difference for you, not for anyone else. It’s your call.

Peace

You are projecting.

You are the one in "denial" of what actually happened between Darwin and Spencer.

And in the past, you had also blame Darwin for the WW2 Holocaust.

Darwin don't play politics or plan war strategy, and the Holocaust happened more than 50 years after his death. Hence, you're the one making "empty claims", and being intellectual dishonest doing that.

And the whole Darwin/Holocaust link is "emotional accusation".

You two replies/posts above, are nothing more than projection and shameless hypocrisy. Look in the mirror.

And lastly, LIIA.

Have you seen, read or study today's biology?

If you have, it never talk of Spencer's Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism is political and social philosophy, IT ISN'T BIOLOGY, LIIA.

You seem so (falsely) focus on Darwin that you ignored the modern theory, "modern" as in contemporary and today. Natural Selection have seen been revised, corrected and updated, and there are no 1940s' politics involved.

Yes, you keep making false claims. Your last post, showed that you are the one making empty claim and emotional accusations.

 

[rational experiences]

Science does not exist.

Law infinity said legal is zero.

Zero holds all presences mutually by law.

Men do science as the minus.

Claiming self is the infinite value. Says it first..I own the eternal Inferred infinite as whole human.

If that advice wasnt real men would never claim a human could be compared to a machine or a thesis electricity that enters the machine.

Thinking basis entry into a machine part of scientific thesis itself.

Man possessed by his own scientific memory which is his exacted owned advices human...terms human... preaching constant teaching.

For thousands of years meaning millions of men's lives.

Basic advice it's why you argue inane arguments trying to coerce belief.

A human a man. Is exact as science. Yet it's medical science. The occult to think minus of self is not science.

He looks first at billions of various human men. And billions of human women.

Every variety you could imagine now.

Exact the human being a human now.

Humans migrated in memories and travelled in ancient history looking for food after they introduced garden eviction. Starvation.

Two types of human consciousness.

Constructive.
Destructive.

By choice.

If I construct I use present bodies. Alter them. I claim the exact advice. I don't pretend I haven't altered pre form.

To destroy. I use present bodies and remove presence. Minus.

As you are a man human theist of science you think upon self man presence first.

Baby man.

You were a construct.

If you said now I want to include the human women. To be a theist as I am. You'd destroy her presence only. As she cannot be a man.

As one a man a theist the scientist you ignore that you do not speak on behalf of two full bodied human lives.

You were legally named life's destroyer because of the medical assessment upon your thinking.

Medical science states apes are not humans now right as we exist.

In life there is no past just death also exact.

A human is living not the same life together anymore to die together anymore.

It affected your mind state.

If you realised all humans live and die. We die early age or old age. There isn't any differentiation.

Yesterday your equal human life died. So you arent really here. If you have to construct a sentence to reason sanity.

 

[Audie]

He will never to admit any error.

He kept blaming Darwin for "survival of the fittest", even when I have told repeatedly that this came from Herbert Spencer. All cladking will do is just ignore the correction or being dismissive.

I have also told him the mechanism is called Natural Selection, not "survival of the fittest". Same reactions. He won't admit his error.

cladking think he is god, incapable of making errors.

Have you ever encountered a creationist
who was able to ever admit to any error?

There's something fundamental to the
personality type, it's like this hard rigid bubble
they live in, the least flaw would shatter it.

It might be best to leave such people alone,
the shattered mess might not be pretty.

 

[cladking]

growth in brain size from Lucy to us.

I've listed dozens of observations in changes in life that are sudden and this is another. If you closely monitor the growth of children you'll see that it is never even. They'll go for long periods with no measurable growth and then short periods where they grow significantly.

Such is the nature of life.

 

[cladking]

Everything in our realm is relative; the definition of a relative entity is always dependent on a reference (The definition is only as good/valid as the reference that defines it). Axioms are references but can also be relative. Without the true absolute reference at the top of the hierarchy, nothing can be defined.

Interesting thought.

I'll have to think about it.

 

[cladking]

We cannot compare Darwin’s evolutionary ideas to modern biology. Modern biology includes many fields that where unknown during Darwin’s time, such as epigenetics, genomics, systems biology, molecular biology, etc. The comparison has to be "apple to apple". As Ernst Walter Mayr put it, functional biology belongs to the exact sciences vs. evolutionary biology, which belongs to the “Geisteswissenschaften". See #331.

Biology is a hodgepodge of real science and mysticism and now days the real science is taking over. But most of the real progress exists only in study that can be reduced to experiment and the most important things about life can not be reduced. Even understanding the interplay between genetics and behavior which will one day be necessary to understanding how "evolution" really works has hardly begun.

I've followed many of your links and find most of them helpful on some level.

Darwin was far ahead of his time but he was still wrong about everything.

Most believers in Science don't understand that someday even Newton will be seen as quaint or misguided. It won't change his importance to science or progress though. Da Vinci wasn't even really a scientist but he was still a great man with a sharp mind and insights into reality.

Every man is a product of his time and place just as every man is a product of his own beliefs. These truths are self evident.

 

[cladking]

Aren’t we long past that point?

Don’t we all know that "survival of the fittest" is simply a popular term that refers to the process of “natural selection"?

They will never get past it even after proving Darwin preferred "survival of the fittest".

Believers can't get past it because the only arrows in their quiver are ad hominins, word games, semantics, and tactics. They can not calmly discuss it and they can't even read our posts!

 

[cladking]

Darwin had nothing to do with Social Darwinism, and yet in past posts, you attack him for it.

The human race exists in a munitions factory because we are what we believe. While one might not blame Darwin for striking a match one can certainly identify Darwin as the cause of the 20th century conflagration.

Besides, this thread is about Darwin.

Social Darwinism is political and social philosophy, IT ISN'T BIOLOGY, LIIA.

"Survival of the fittest" is widely believed among not only the general population as proven by the existence of the "Darwin Award" but it is the belief of MOST biologists. Indeed, virtually every biologist who wants to get funding to study Evolution MUST profess belief in it. This is the reality and no mount of your word play and twisting of semantical concepts will ever change this fact. Indeed long after biologists no longer have to believe in survival of the fittest they will laugh when pointing out that in the old days they had to be Believers.

The nice thing about modern languages is that there ae an infinite number of ways to express the same concept so if you want to say the fittest individuals are naturally selected for survival that is your right. Indeed, it is no less accurate of the concept than most other WORDS that might be used. But DARWIN PREFERRED "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST"

To each his own.

But you want to discuss WORDS, NOT FACTS.

 

[cladking]

There's something fundamental to the
personality type, it's like this hard rigid bubble
they live in, the least flaw would shatter it.

If you read my posts you would see exactly what lies at the heart of the "personality type".

It is BELIEF. I don't believe in Darwin. I don't believe in evidence or science.

I believe in well executed experiment.

There are an infinite numbers of routes to the truth and infinite times as many to falsity. Darwin walked perpendicular to every route to the truth. Darwin was a mystic and many people don't believe in mysticism.

 

[cladking]

Everything in our realm is relative; the definition of a relative entity is always dependent on a reference (The definition is only as good/valid as the reference that defines it). Axioms are references but can also be relative. Without the true absolute reference at the top of the hierarchy, nothing can be defined.

I misinterpreted this initially. Yes, I agree.

While I hate semantics and words games most people grossly underestimate the critical importance of definitions including the definitions of axiomatic terms. Everything we believe and model in dependent on the definitions. Experiment itself is dependent on definitions because experiment has little meaning outside our beliefs and models. Beliefs that format experiment are just definitions that act as a sort of glue to hold it all together. And then these models are only as strong as the definitions and have no meaning outside the axioms. Remove any single axiom and the whole house of cards collapses no matter how good your glue is.

I'm sure many people prefer the solid foundation of belief in ultimate causes and eventual outcomes but I merely hold this as a sort of parallel model. As a reverse engineer I'm quite accustomed to running sets of parallel models.

I think the biggest issue is that reality is infinitely complex and most of us need something to underpin us just so we aren't completely overwhelmed with sensory input. Animals only see reality and understand so little of it they can't be overwhelmed. But we see everything, know everything, and can do anything. All the world is our oyster so we need a belief in Peers, Religion, or both to act as a filter.

I'm not sure how I personally deal with it but I do tend to notice anomaly more than most.

To each his own.