Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

It reduces the size of the gene pool; thus, recessive genes have a greater chance of becoming phenotypes. This has the effect of speeding up the evolutionary process. At least this is what we were taught way back when, so I hope I'm correct on this.

How about " it could"

 

[Audie]

This is about biology. Not "metaphysics"



Where did I say that I don't care?



This is a discussion and debate forum.



We're talking about biology. Stop arguing strawmen.



No. Try the community of working scientists in the appropriate fields.



Nope, that won't do either.



Yes, it's really bizar how you're willing to ask / listen to / believe anyone except biologists when it comes to topic of biology.



Or... they don't like wasting time with willfully ignorant zealots?

As welcome as a yec bearding the head of the paleo dept,
or, flat earther or astrologer at Mt Palomar.

Sorry, but metaphysics is a philosophy, not science.

And you are being a hypocrite, since you believe yourself to be a “nexialist”.

Nexialist and nexialism were invented words by science fiction author, A E Voget. It is a philosophy that doesn’t even exist, and yet you label yourself as one.

And you’re one to talk about religion. Especially when talk of mythological Tower of Babel and Nephilim as if they were real, but neither of them exist, except in religious fictions. Hence, more hypocrisy.

Your whole belief in 40,000 years old science and language that don’t exist, except in you, in your deluded fantasy...and that’s worse than religions and worse than science fiction, because you think and believe that your fantasies are real.

Is it even philosophy? As bandied about here it
seems more like a stinkin' pile.

 

[Astrophile]

They still remained fish, didn't they?

So what? Humans belong to a different genus from chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans, but we have still remained apes, haven't we? We belong to a different family from baboons and marmosets, but we have still remained primates, haven't we?

 

[gnostic]

As welcome as a yec bearding the head of the paleo dept,
or, flat earther or astrologer at Mt Palomar.

Is it even philosophy? As bandied about here it
seems more like a stinkin' pile.

His concept of the world, is just fantasy that no one followed except him...so it’s not a philosophy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It reduces the size of the gene pool; thus, recessive genes have a greater chance of becoming phenotypes. This has the effect of speeding up the evolutionary process. At least this is what we were taught way back when, so I hope I'm correct on this.

You're on the right track. It could concentrate recessives if that portion of the population that survives has an unusually high frequency of recessive alleles. It could also result in an increased frequency of fitter alleles if the survivors happen to be among the more fit.

Generally, with the reduction in variation, adaptations are more difficult unless there is immigration from other populations or enough time passes that natural mutations fill in the missing variation.

 

[Audie]

So what? Humans belong to a different genus from chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans, but we have still remained apes, haven't we? We belong to a different family from baboons and marmosets, but we have still remained primates, haven't we?

So what? For certain among us, the words " after their kind" serve
to render them insensible.
Thats what.

 

[cladking]

Your made up Ancient Science & Ancient Language that would include nonexistent Homo Omniscienesis,...

Yet not even archaeologists have ever bothered to postulate a theory on why history doesn't start for 2000 years after proto-writing, why we have no memory from before 2000 BC, or how sun addled bumpkins invented agriculture or survived their gross superstitions. Linguists never even noticed the unique characteristics of Ancient Language and biologists never noticed that consciousness as we define it simply doesn't explain animal and plant behavior.

One single word can answer all these questions and many many more; "homo omnisciencis". It even shows the correct interpretation of the "fossil record".

 

[gnostic]

Yet not even archaeologists have ever bothered to postulate a theory on why history doesn't start for 2000 years after proto-writing, why we have no memory from before 2000 BC, or how sun addled bumpkins invented agriculture or survived their gross superstitions. Linguists never even noticed the unique characteristics of Ancient Language and biologists never noticed that consciousness as we define it simply doesn't explain animal and plant behavior.

One single word can answer all these questions and many many more; "homo omnisciencis". It even shows the correct interpretation of the "fossil record".

You haven’t answer one of my questions.

Have any metaphysician ever accepted your world-view on the 40,000 year-old Ancient Language & Ancient Science?

You do go on and on about metaphysics being far more superior than modern science, but do any of them would accept your absurd “reality”?

I don’t think any of them would agree that your fiction to be “metaphysics”.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your made up Ancient Science & Ancient Language that would include nonexistent Homo Omniscienesis, and the religious but equally nonexistent Tower of Babel and Nephilim, don’t have “knowledge” but another religious myth that only you would follow.

When you mixed religious myths & religious symbols with your personal philosophy, you don’t have “knowledge”, you have a fiction of your own making.

And btw, cladking. Have you ever really shared your religious philosophy with some real metaphysicians?

Because I don’t think any of them would you down your rabbit hole, because I don’t think they would accept your version of “metaphysics” as any members of RF have.

You cannot simply brand your fantasy as “knowledge” or “metaphysics”.

So can you think of any actual metaphysician that accepted your so-called knowledge?

I agree. There is no discussion or study of any creature labeled Homo omniscience anywhere in science. The only reference to be found on the internet is by the person claiming it and using it as if it was some factual nomenclature. There is no established body of literature or original description in any legitimate source for such work. There is no reference to anything in the fossil record under that name or any studies pointing to features that could be used to lead to the need for it as a unique nomenclature. There is nothing offered to even outline what it would describe or why evidence of material within the genus Homo warrants description as such or why an existing species of Homo requires new or additional description.

My conclusion is that it is made up as part of an elaborate fan fiction that includes the creation of a conspiracy theory labeling anyone that rejects the fiction to be in league with a mythical group of peers or believers. Further, I don't think that the author has had any real contact with Egyptologists and those so frequently referred to as Egyptologists are actually just other members of other forums that don't buy into the fiction either.

It's moderately noticeable. But it isn't philosophy. It isn't science. It isn't biology. And it has nothing to do with Darwin or the theory of evolution.

 

[gnostic]

Yet not even archaeologists have ever bothered to postulate a theory on why history doesn't start for 2000 years after proto-writing, why we have no memory from before 2000 BC, or how sun addled bumpkins invented agriculture or survived their gross superstitions.

Again, more strawman.

I have never referred to any ancient or prehistoric person being “sun addled bumpkins”. And I have never read any where archaeologists would use “sun addled bumpkins”. That’s always being - you.

You’re the who keep using that, blaming others for what you keep saying.

This is you being childish making up stories.

 

[cladking]

Again, more strawman.

I have never referred to any ancient or prehistoric person being “sun addled bumpkins”. And I have never read any where archaeologists would use “sun addled bumpkins”. That’s always being - you.

You’re the who keep using that, blaming others for what you keep saying.

This is you being childish making up stories.

More word games. The simple fact is every archaeologist believes ancient people were wholly ignorant of modern science and highly superstitious. It doesn't matter what word they use from noble savage to sun addled bumpkin it ,means the same thing.

 

[cladking]

I agree. There is no discussion or study of any creature labeled Homo omniscience anywhere in science. The only reference to be found on the internet is by the person claiming it and using it as if it was some factual nomenclature. There is no established body of literature or original description in any legitimate source for such work. There is no reference to anything in the fossil record under that name or any studies pointing to features that could be used to lead to the need for it as a unique nomenclature. There is nothing offered to even outline what it would describe or why evidence of material within the genus Homo warrants description as such or why an existing species of Homo requires new or additional description.

My conclusion is that it is made up as part of an elaborate fan fiction that includes the creation of a conspiracy theory labeling anyone that rejects the fiction to be in league with a mythical group of peers or believers. Further, I don't think that the author has had any real contact with Egyptologists and those so frequently referred to as Egyptologists are actually just other members of other forums that don't buy into the fiction either.

It's moderately noticeable. But it isn't philosophy. It isn't science. It isn't biology. And it has nothing to do with Darwin or the theory of evolution.

You don't need to find one in the fossil record because we all see one in the mirror.

 

[cladking]

Have any metaphysician ever accepted your world-view on the 40,000 year-old Ancient Language & Ancient Science?

You can't even agree on what the word means!!!!!

Yet you expect me to find a metaphysician.

Frankly I'm rather confident that almost everyone who calls himself such will agree with me. Most will agree there is a rational and logical explanation for just about every single thing. My explanations are metaphysically sound and IMO fit the facts and experiment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, more strawman.

I have never referred to any ancient or prehistoric person being “sun addled bumpkins”. And I have never read any where archaeologists would use “sun addled bumpkins”. That’s always being - you.

You’re the who keep using that, blaming others for what you keep saying.

This is you being childish making up stories.

Only one person has mentioned this on the thread. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Why it and all the pyramid fan fiction surfaces on here is a mystery. It isn't philosophy. It isn't science. It isn't biology. It has nothing do with Darwin or the theory of evolution.

It sounds like a desperate attempt to start something that no one else is interested in discussing.

 

[gnostic]

You can't even agree on what the word means!!!!!

Yet you expect me to find a metaphysician.

Frankly I'm rather confident that almost everyone who calls himself such will agree with me. Most will agree there is a rational and logical explanation for just about every single thing. My explanations are metaphysically sound and IMO fit the facts and experiment.

Except you still don’t understand understand that metaphysics don’t use fact, evidence or experiment.

You have not presented any experiments to the existence of Homo omniscienesis, Nephilim, Tower of Babel, 40,000 year-old language and 40,000 year-old science.

They are only empty and illogical claims, they are nothing more than your deluded fantasy.

Not once, have you ever presented any experiment. All you do is claimed that you all the experiments, and yet when ask to present one, you would dismiss the requests or runaway. That’s all you have done, make false claims of having experiments or evidence, but you’ always presented none.

Go on, runaway again. I no longer expect logic or honesty from you.

 

[LIIA]

You have to go wider if you want to claim something about the world as such.

All relative entities/references must end at “The Absolute” at the very top of the hierarchy. Logically, there is no other way unless you adapt a fallacious circular reasoning or infinite regression.

Relative/contingent entities constitute the norm of our entire realm. The Absolute is beyond/external to our norm. The rules that govern our norm, don’t govern the Absolute/First Cause/God. Even the word “first” doesn’t apply in the normal sense because it implies the existence of time. The absolute existence of God is permanent, eternal, uncaused, and unchanged beyond the confinement of time, space and natural laws of all kinds. All relative contingent entities are only possible because of the absolute/non-contingent God.

Every relative entity is caused, designed and with a purpose. Every relative entity has a beginning and is running its course towards a destination.

Life has a purpose. The human existence has a purpose. Every contingent entity follows ordained rules and must submit (like the example of a gear in a machine), but “Man" is unique in the sense that Man was given specific “free will” or the specific freedom to make certain choices. If Man submits, it’s because he wants to, not because he must. That is why Man was created, to freely know/choose God.

The ability to differentiate between good from evil, and to know God is embedded in our inner beings, but we cannot define “good” or know who is God or what God wants from us, that is why God approached humanity with messengers, and multiple messages. Each message was intended for specific place/time to allow gradual growth of humans towards the final message, i.e., “The message of Islam”. All messages are essentially the same and all messengers are equal. The message is simply “believe and follow the righteous path".

But the message is a component of a design that allows “the free will”. The collective entities of our realm (including the religious messages) is designed to maintain a very delicate balance that enables us to know the truth without making it overpowering in a sense that takes away our “free will” to freely choose one way or another. It’s neither an overpowering truth that forces us to be another gear in the machine nor ambiguous in a sense that let us go astray. It’s a balance on a knife-edge, only our “free will” can tilt it one way or another.

You’re free to choose. Not all choices are equal. Your choice shall make the ultimate difference for you. Not for anyone else. At the time all facts are known beyond doubt, there is no going back. There are no second chances. It will be requested but it will not be granted simply because “you is you”, IOW, If you repeat or go through the exact same test again, you will make the exact same choices. “Who you are” is permanent and your “ultimate destination” is also permanent and it must be consistent with who you are. Life is short. Choose when you still can.

 

[LIIA]

No, I,understood that fine the first time. He is ripping you a new one in that post. So you are still referring to old arguments that you lost. Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

This is what you keep failing to understand. All my sources are from your side of the argument, i.e., evolutionists. "LegionOnomaMoi” is also an evolutionist but he is knowledgeable and ethical. See his post # 2266.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

and yes, they all insist that you’re a monkey, but this is not the point, the point is that they all confirm that the contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory and confirm the fact that the disproved central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis contradict latest scientific finds of the 21st century. Ignorant denial wouldn’t change the facts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All relative entities/references must end at “The Absolute” at the very top of the hierarchy. Logically, there is no other way unless you adapt a fallacious circular reasoning or infinite regression. ...

That is philosophy and depends on whether you can defeat Agrippa's Trilemma.
Or in other words if logic is a limited process in time, space and senses, that can only be shown to be functioning for how we make sense of the world. In effect you assume that logic is ontological for being a part of fundamental existence.

But if I can do an illogical act and further act on that, which I am doing now according to you, then am I, the illogical act and my further acting, which you are observing now a part of the world?

 

[LIIA]

So far it appears that you are the one has the illusions.

Really? When I used the word “illusions”, I used the exact word from the scientific articles. But when you used it, it’s nothing but another one of your meaningless empty claims. See below and my post #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis - ScienceDirect

The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis | SpringerLink

The problem is that none of those people support your beliefs.

Yes, it’s a problem for you; my core argument here is about the ToE not my beliefs. These evolutionists support my specific argument concerning the ToE. This is the strength of my argument and your problem not me. Do you understand?

An honest interlocutor would present their arguments in this fashion:

This is what I believe.

This is the evidence that supports my beliefs.

Can you do that? Can you state clearly what you believe and what evidence supports it.? So far all you have are failed arguments. That is why every time that you refer to past posts on this thread you are only acknowledging your previous losses. That is why I thank you every time that you make that mistake.

This thread is about the ToE. “My beliefs” is not a component of my argument against the ToE. I never said I’m a Muslim then the ToE is false, did I?

Your pathetic trial to move the goalposts along with your ignorant denial clearly shows the weakness of your stance.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? Humans belong to a different genus from chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans, but we have still remained apes, haven't we? We belong to a different family from baboons and marmosets, but we have still remained primates, haven't we?

I'm finding that some people actually DO believe humans are animals. Because that is what some scientists say. And others may agree with that. Others may not agree. Then I'm finding that if others do not agree that humans are animals like apes and perhaps bugs, some will take offense when challenged and tell others they are not educated, etc. Or harrassing them.