Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

The hubris of a non-scientist making declarations regarding theories, lines of research, routine examination of theory and disagreement among scientists and blowing it all out of proportion on the bias of a belief-based agenda bearing all the flaws they project onto science amuses me.

The claim that the study of evolution is all or mostly axiom and then using arguments by scientists based on evidence is the sort of contradiction I have come to expect here. Along with the usual logical fallacies and reliance on the ignorance of a particular portion of their audience that would agree with them no matter what nonsense they espouse.

We have theories to best explain the evidence. If we knew everything, we wouldn't need them. We wouldn't need science. That actually seems to be the ultimate goal here. Disavow science and return to the golden age of ignorance so that a few can tell the rest how to think.

What is rather amazing in his case is that all of the sources that he quotes disagree with his personal beliefs. The all accept the fact of evolution, at the most they only disagree on how it happened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you are still ignoring the facts that hundreds of philosophies don’t use rational reasoning or logic.

Most philosophies are related to how one should behave or how ones should live their lives...hence most of them have to do with cultural or social philosophies. And here, it goes beyond being rational or logical, WHICH ARE REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO STUDY OF NATURE.

Only a fraction of the philosophies involved pure logic and reasoning, and even then, these are not always compatible with Natural Sciences.

Sure, scientists needs to be rational, logical, analytical, methodological, and so on, and it is a good thing to have does qualities, but even then physical evidence take precedence over anyone’s logic & reasoning.

Reasons and logic alone, don’t make a hypothesis into science.

To give you an example:

Picture this: a scientist, known for his superior logical reasoning, starts a new hypothesis on some phenomena.

What if the person’s rationality or logic is wrong, because the evidence refute his hypothesis. Do that scientist simply ignore the evidence because of his supreme intellect?

If such scientist, then he is allowing his ego cloud his judgment, because he no longer following the requirements of Scientific Method. That’s biases, LIIA. It is bias when a scientist ignore evidence that counter the hypothesis.

I seriously don’t think you understand the Scientific Method, if you think logic and reasoning alone would rule over evidence. It doesn’t.

The testable evidence are, what make a hypothesis or scientific theory, “science”.

The whole purposes of the scientific Method:

• To test the explanations & predictions of a model in the hypothesis or theory.
• To test the logic and maths (eg equations, formulas, constants, numbers, etc).

The “test” means “observation”, eg EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENTS, DATA.

It is the evidence, not the logic and reasoning that determine if the hypothesis or theory -

• true or false,
• probable or improbable,
• verified or refuted/debunked.

All reasoning and logic must be tested. No reasoning or logic are true by-default.

I am not saying that scientists shouldn’t be logical or rational. Sure, they have to be. Logic and rationality can be helpful when developing a new hypothesis. But it evidence that objectively determine which hypothesis is scientific or not.

Philosophies, the majority of them, are just talks, they have no values if there are no evidence to support the studies of nature.

There are only 3 requirements that must be needed for any prospective “theory”:

• That the concept be “falsifiable”.
• That it followed the requirement of Scientific Method, which involves 2 stages -

1. Formulation of the hypothesis (which is to turn “concept” into detailed “explanations” with predictions)
2. Test the hypothesis (eg evidence & experiments)

• Peer Review (presents the hypothesis, plus evidence & data, to independent scientists to analyze, review & test them, as well to find errors or discrepancies)

Failing the 1st point (Falsifiability), won’t allow scientist to proceed to the next (Scientific Method). And a scientist would only present his works for peer-review if his testing support the explanations & predictions in the hypothesis.

Philosophy is useless in this regards.

"
Philosophies, the majority of them, are just talks, they have no values if there are no evidence to support the studies of nature."

How do you, do the test that leads to that result?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is rather amazing in his case is that all of the sources that he quotes disagree with his personal beliefs. The all accept the fact of evolution, at the most they only disagree on how it happened.

I find that central tenet to be both amazing, amusing and illustrative of desperation to claw at any scrap.

Can't find real fault with the theory, just latch onto the thinnest motivation to declare it never existed and fill in the gaps with personal belief that varies from person to person, place to place and time to time.

 

[cladking]

So what in your view is the correct view? And is it evidence-based and rigorously demonstrable?

I've been struggling with this question, not to mention carpal tunnel, for a few days.

I believe the primary problem is metaphysical in nature: Modern people have lost sight of what is known because we've forgotten how we know it. We begin by mistaking knowledge for understanding and proceed to mistake understanding for omniscience.

Science as practiced through experiment must continually examine its axioms, definitions, and paradigms or we are led to mistake understanding for reality itself.

In no subject are we actually examining the bases of knowledge and in some we have simply tossed aside all science in favor of omniscience. In no area is this more a problem than in Egyptology but it is pervasive even in "Evolution". Indeed, science has never really investigated any of the basic assumptions with which it began centuries ago. These assumption are for the main part very difficult or impossible to reduce to experiment but despite the fact that experiment implies some of these assumptions are fa;lse we still aren't investigating.

I believe it is absolutely critical to the species to come to understand the nature of consciousness very very soon because specialization is strangling the commonweal at a time that systems are the most interdependent they have ever been. We are entering a realm where belief must be separated from reality and all our beliefs are wrong. In the early stages of the coming disaster some will believe only the weak will perish. We are at a crossroads where retreat doesn't exist and a means forward will require new processes and thinking. It will require action before the first domino falls; before communication breaks down.

The "correct" view requires science, real science, not the thing that exists by consensus today, not blind loyalty to opinions expressed by those best educated and in complete agreement. All real science is experiment and experiment can be and is often misinterpreted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been struggling with this question, not to mention carpal tunnel, for a few days.

I believe the primary problem is metaphysical in nature: Modern people have lost sight of what is known because we've forgotten how we know it. We begin by mistaking knowledge for understanding and proceed to mistake understanding for omniscience.

Science as practiced through experiment must continually examine its axioms, definitions, and paradigms or we are led to mistake understanding for reality itself.

In no subject are we actually examining the bases of knowledge and in some we have simply tossed aside all science in favor of omniscience. In no area is this more a problem than in Egyptology but it is pervasive even in "Evolution". Indeed, science has never really investigated any of the basic assumptions with which it began centuries ago. These assumption are for the main part very difficult or impossible to reduce to experiment but despite the fact that experiment implies some of these assumptions are fa;lse we still aren't investigating.

I believe it is absolutely critical to the species to come to understand the nature of consciousness very very soon because specialization is strangling the commonweal at a time that systems are the most interdependent they have ever been. We are entering a realm where belief must be separated from reality and all our beliefs are wrong. In the early stages of the coming disaster some will believe only the weak will perish. We are at a crossroads where retreat doesn't exist and a means forward will require new processes and thinking. It will require action before the first domino falls; before communication breaks down.

The "correct" view requires science, real science, not the thing that exists by consensus today, not blind loyalty to opinions expressed by those best educated and in complete agreement. All real science is experiment and experiment can be and is often misinterpreted.

Just vague soothsaying and baseless opinion as usual.

Were you going to answer the questions put to you by myself and others or just hope that enough time had elapsed and they would be forgotten?

 

[cladking]

Were you going to answer the questions put to you by myself and others or just hope that enough time had elapsed and they would be forgotten?

I really should answer most of those question you asked. That I've answered them all before is hardly sufficient reason not to do so again. I can't expect anybody to remember everything I post.

I'll return to them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I really should answer most of those question you asked. That I've answered them all before is hardly sufficient reason not to do so again. I can't expect anybody to remember everything I post.

I'll return to them.

Not answered by you even once.

I doubt it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I really should answer most of those question you asked. That I've answered them all before is hardly sufficient reason not to do so again. I can't expect anybody to remember everything I post.

I'll return to them.

Responding to a post and answering questions put to you in posts are not the same thing. Claiming you answered everything already is not evidence that you did.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In no subject are we actually examining the bases of knowledge and in some we have simply tossed aside all science in favor of omniscience. In no area is this more a problem than in Egyptology but it is pervasive even in "Evolution". Indeed, science has never really investigated any of the basic assumptions with which it began centuries ago. These assumption are for the main part very difficult or impossible to reduce to experiment but despite the fact that experiment implies some of these assumptions are false we still aren't investigating.

More text that I can neither agree nor disagree with, because I can't discern what you are concerned about, what specific problems you are seeing, or what specific remedy you recommend.

I would really like to make an impact on how you organize and present your thoughts. Do you have a similar difficulty understanding my posts? Do you know what these words mean? I assume that you do, because almost nobody asks me to explain myself in other words. Let me try to imitate your writing style by rewriting my first paragraph here:

• More metaphysics which confounds decision making. The problem is Homo invictus and the patterns of thought imposed on him since he forgot pig Latin and gave up hunter-gathering, cursive, analog clocks and slide rules.

Can you see that those words say absolutely nothing? If you disagree, tell me what they mean. Tell me what problems I see and how they manifest, and what I recommend instead. How would you like to read a steady diet of this kind of prose?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More text that I can neither agree nor disagree with, because I can't discern what you are concerned about, what specific problems you are seeing, or what specific remedy you recommend.

I would really like to make an impact on how you organize and present your thoughts. Do you have a similar difficulty understanding my posts? Do you know what these words mean? I assume that you do, because almost nobody asks me to explain myself in other words. Let me try to imitate your writing style by rewriting my first paragraph here:

• More metaphysics which confounds decision making. The problem is Homo invictus and the patterns of thought imposed on him since he forgot pig Latin and gave up hunter-gathering, cursive, analog clocks and slide rules.

Can you see that those words say absolutely nothing? If you disagree, tell me what they mean. Tell me what problems I see and how they manifest, and what I recommend instead. How would you like to read a steady diet of this kind of prose?

That's the problem with science. We don't plant it one row at a time like we used to. But we can dance majestically on the shoulder of a giant and see the stars unless is metaphysical towers to babble from which spring confusion. How on earth could we be on the shoulders of giants. That would make us giant too in order to accomplish that. I stake my reputation as not being an expert in anything and always wrong even when I'm always right. But that's the way of the world when your information is part of a conspiracy theory.

This is fun. We should talk like this more often.

Not.

 

[cladking]

I would really like to make an impact on how you organize and present your thoughts. Do you have a similar difficulty understanding my posts?

No. All of your posts are clear and many very clear. I rarely have trouble communicating with scientists and engineers. Artistic types tend to be OK. It's individuals with whom I have fundamental differences in premises that present the biggest problems with communication. Not only do they not understand me, I don't understand them.

I believe I am presenting my thoughts as simply as possible. Unless something is obviously flowery language it is intended literally. Even the flowery language I use often has some literal components. I do overuse hyperbole a little bit but the point each time is still literal.

I doubt you can help me much because I know a single way to communicate which always worked fine until I started saying things that are outside people's' experience. What I'm saying is that fantastic to most individuals. Reality is defined not by what exists and the processes that govern it but rather by the time and place of the observer. There is a single reality but we each see our own determined by our beliefs. We believe in "Evolution" so we see survival of the fittest and other things that are not real but a distortion. Life is consciousness. Consciousness governs life at every level and life governs consciousness. Man governs only his beliefs about reality and usually his machines.

Life is reality incarnate. In all other life than homo omniscienis consciousness is reality expressed as species but only as individuals. Mathematics, reality, consciousness, and life are manifestations of logic. All things are one and no things are zero. Reality is digital. Consciousness is digital. Life is digital. Animal communication is digital and metaphysical. Experiment is the art of the isolation and reduction of digital reality into analog language. "Evidence" is an abstraction dependent on paradigmatical, modular, or superstitious interpretation of sensory input rather than a manifestation of reality. It is our nature to mistake our beliefs for reality.

I don't believe there exists yet an easier or simpler way to express this.

Life as consciousness is a manifestation of digital logic. THIS DOESN"T APPLY TO HUMANS since the "tower of babel". In some real ways our consciousness is an abstraction.



Of course the problem with expressing it as above is the knee jerk reaction people have to the rejection of religion or ANYTHING that might sound like religion. But to have a chance to understand and accept this one must be aware that there was a speciation event 4000 years ago. All of our beliefs derive from this speciation event. All of our disbeliefs arise from this event.

 

[cladking]

Do you have a similar difficulty understanding my posts?

I'm totally lost with the rest of your post!

I'm tempted to delete these posts and walk away.

I'm hoping it's some sort of "joke".

 

[blü 2]

I've been struggling with this question, not to mention carpal tunnel, for a few days.

Good luck with carpal tunnel!

believe the primary problem is metaphysical in nature:

'Metaphysical' has two kinds of meaning these days. On the one hand it means the branch of philosophy that tries to give a systematic account of topic-neutral notions such as cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power and so on. This extends to an examination of first principles and assumptions underlying any philosophical enquiry. On the other hand it means 'supernatural', existing outside of the natural world, which in turn means existing without objective existence, which means existing only as an idea, concept, thing imagined, in an individual brain.

So which of those meanings are you referring to?

Modern people have lost sight of what is known because we've forgotten how we know it.

I don't understand that statement. What's an example of something we know, but have forgotten how we know it?

We begin by mistaking knowledge for understanding and proceed to mistake understanding for omniscience.

But surely without knowledge there is nothing to understand.

And reasoned enquiry, including scientific method, recognizes out loud that no conclusion, however well evidenced, however well tested, can be protected from unknown unknowns, hence can never be absolute. In the sciences, Brian Cox remarked that a law of physics was a statement about physics that hadn't been falsified yet.

So who do you say is claiming omniscience? What's an example of such a claim?

Science as practiced through experiment must continually examine its axioms, definitions, and paradigms or we are led to mistake understanding for reality itself.

It does that routinely. If you disagree, please give me an example of an erroneous axiom or definition of the kind you're speaking of.

In no subject are we actually examining the bases of knowledge

I think that's a baseless claim. Again, what examples specifically do you have in mind?

and in some we have simply tossed aside all science in favor of omniscience.

Again, I think that's a baseless claim. Again, please give specific examples.

In no area is this more a problem than in Egyptology but it is pervasive even in "Evolution".

Why should Egyptology be singled out? The oldest culture of which we have any record is probably Çatal Hüyük, starting roughly 9000 years ago. Sumer arose possibly earlier than Egypt. Harappa, China, and so on also have claims. It's possible the culture of the aboriginal people of Australia goes back unbroken for 40,000 years. So, why Egypt?

Indeed, science has never really investigated any of the basic assumptions with which it began centuries ago. These assumption are for the main part very difficult or impossible to reduce to experiment but despite the fact that experiment implies some of these assumptions are fa;lse we still aren't investigating.

Again you give no example. Your argument needs clear hard examples or it has no connection with reality.

I believe it is absolutely critical to the species to come to understand the nature of consciousness very very soon because specialization is strangling the commonweal at a time that systems are the most interdependent they have ever been.

The nature of consciousness has been studied in many cultures, not least modern Western culture. I assume you're aware of researches, going back to the 1940s or earlier, into how anesthesia works? That you follow modern ongoing brain research and the mapping of the brain and the interconnection of its regions and functions, and the systems that sustain it as a working piece of astonishing biochemistry? If not, you don't really have a place to stand when consciousness is the topic, do you?

We are entering a realm where belief must be separated from reality and all our beliefs are wrong.

If all our beliefs are wrong, it will be easy for you to specify those beliefs which are both wrong and very important. I don't know why you didn't put them in your opening paragraph, but anyway, please spell the biggies out for us.

In the early stages of the coming disaster some will believe only the weak will perish.

What coming disaster is that that? Global warming? Yes, considering it was first mentioned early in the 20th century (and I've been barking for many decades), our refusal to pay attention till now has been appalling, but we're still here.

Or do you have some other apocalypse in mind, and if so, what exactly?

 

[LIIA]

Perhaps you should state clearly what you believe

I did, multiple times. Again, I’m a Muslim, #4896 is a summary of what I believe.
But again, it’s irrelevant to my specific argument against the ToE. I never said I’m a Muslim then the ToE is false, did I?

Darwin's Illusion | Page 245 | Religious Forums

Then perhaps we could see if there were any valid sources that support you.

You’re not really concerned about my beliefs; you just want to move the goalposts; such fallacious tricks will not help you.

 

[LIIA]

Let me explain something very simple. And I will take it one step at a time.

Why can’t you give a straight answer to a straight question? Why do you run in circles? I gave you 3 options and asked you which option is logically valid. If you deny logic itself, then you don’t have any reference to make any claim or adapt any view of any kind.

If you doubt everything, then you should necessarily doubt your own view as well. It shouldn’t be an exception. Where would that leave you?

I can't by my own control move around as I want

Sure, you can. Your “will” triggers instantaneous movement in your body. Your move is limited/restricted but sure you want, and your body obeys. Your “will” controls your body.

because when I try to move in air and not fall to the ground, I fall to the ground, because I can't move as I please, therefore I can't move at all.

Possible move of your physical body is limited/restricted. You can’t move in air but that has nothing to do with the fact that you can move on the ground.

It’s always relative/limited ability, never an absolute ability. Your notion of "all or nothing" is false.

Please explain what I am talking for granted in my example and what is at play in general for the human ability to do something.

You are talking about limitations and imagine that people are not aware of their limitations. You conflate limitation with having any ability at all. It’s not equal. Limitations doesn’t mean zero ability. It simply means limited ability.

“Human Ability” is never absolute/ limitless. it’s always relative/limited.

The only absolute is God.

 

[LIIA]

Your reply does not address my question, actually. You asserted evolution is regarded as an axiom rather than a normal scientific theory, suggesting - if I am right in following your line of thought - that it is thus protected from the normal scrutiny and testing of scientific theories. Nothing you have posted supports that assertion, however.

A) Not only evolution but also abiogenesis is regarded as an axiom. It was never even established as a scientific theory after many years of research because of the lack of conclusive evidence but the mentality is that it must be true whether it was proven empirically or not. abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, it’s an axiom.

B) Evolution is a little different. Evolution is a scientific theory (i.e., the Modern Synthesis). The MS has finally failed as a scientific theory because of its contradiction with the 21st century scientific finds but the failure of the MS did not change the axiomatic status of evolution. Same scientists who confirmed the failure of the outdated theoretical framework of the MS and disproved all of its central assumptions still accept evolution as an axiom. The EES was proposed to address this issue, but its theoretical framework was never agreed upon till now. Meaning, currently evolution has neither a valid scientific theory nor a replacement theory that is agreed upon. Nothing.

Regardless, of the failure of evolution as a scientific theory but the axiomatic status did not change.

Evolution is nothing but a scientific theory (MS), the failure of the scientific theory is the failure of evolutionary concept. Evolution is not an axiom that maintains an independent status regardless of the status of the scientific theory itself.

See #4087
Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did, multiple times. Again, I’m a Muslim, #4896 is a summary of what I believe.
But again, it’s irrelevant to my specific argument against the ToE. I never said I’m a Muslim then the ToE is false, did I?

Darwin's Illusion | Page 245 | Religious Forums

You’re not really concerned about my beliefs; you just want to move the goalposts; such fallacious tricks will not help you.

I am hardly "moving the goalposts"". You have simply lost your argument time after time after time. You also appear to be using some fallacious reasoning when it comes to the existence of a God.

I was jut trying to figure out why you have these false beliefs about the sciences.

 

[LIIA]

No one, to my knowledge (though I am not a specialist), has suggested that the orginal idea of evolution by viariation and natural selection is wrong

This is the point; the idea is regarded as axiomatic regardless of the failure of the scientific theory (The Modern Synthesis).

The theoretical framework and all the central assumptions of the scientific theory (MS) have failed and were disproved due to contradictions with the empirical evidence of latest science.

(1)

See the highlighted above and the link below. As I said in item 3, 4 & 5 in my post #5221, the adaptation process (the fact), which is erroneously called “microevolution”, doesn’t lead to "macroevolution" (the myth).

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

(2)

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

(3)

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

The only absolute is God.

Yeah, in philosophy that is even more abstract as objective reality in itself. So while I have faith in God/objective reality I have no knowledge of that other that it is there with formal abstract reasoning as independent of the human mind and in itself and thus unknowable for any further properties, because it is independent and in itself.
So in practice any claim of God is relative/limited to the person making it as far as I can tell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the point; the idea is regarded as axiomatic regardless of the failure of the scientific theory (The Modern Synthesis).

The theoretical framework and all the central assumptions of the scientific theory (MS) have failed and were disproved due to contradictions with the empirical evidence of latest science.

(1)
View attachment 75700
See the highlighted above and the link below. As I said in item 3, 4 & 5 in my post #5221, the adaptation process (the fact), which is erroneously called “microevolution”, doesn’t lead to "macroevolution" (the myth).

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

(2)
View attachment 75701
Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

(3)
View attachment 75702
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

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

Yeah, here is what it says in part in your first link:
"... The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology. ..."
When I google physiology that comes up as science and evolutionary biology is science. All that is about is one version is replaced with another within science.