Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

If I am correct no other living thing has consciousness like humans do.

Why would you question that? If you are correct? As if you are some sort of benchmark source of knowledge about biology or consciousness without any credentials and very little knowledge of the material.

We see what we believe and all other life sees what it knows.

If we are talking about what you claim to see, I would say that probably fits.

We experience thought no other living thing does.

No evidence to agree with that claim.

But this has been true for only 4000 years. Before this "humans" were exactly like every other species.

It hasn't been substantiated at all.

 

[gnostic]

I realised that in my last reply to you dan, I quoted from the wrong post.

This is the post I should have quoted:

Sigh!

You are simply wrong.

What a breeder does, doesn't fit the definition of bottleneck.

The terms I use are appropriate. I'm actually a biologist in these discussions and not making claims that cannot be supported by any evidence, experiment or valid reference.

What exactly are your qualifications? Posting on numerous different platforms across the internet is not a qualification for scientist.

You were asking @cladking for his qualifications.

That’s where my reply should have come in:

He referred to himself as a “generalist”.

Basically he is an armchair philosopher, with, as far as I can tell no qualifications or experiences in any field of science...

...not unless he is the so-called “nexialist”, which don’t exist except in a sci-fi novel.

Here is one of cladking earlier post, some years ago, in another thread, “Science cannot solve the final mystery”, when i possibly read the earliest mention by him about being a “nexialist” and when he were replying to @tas8831:

I am an expert in no science.

I have a very good appreciation of modern scientific metaphysics and ancient metaphysics.

I am a generalist (nexialist) and understand the basics of two different sciences which gives me a unique perspective which you sorely lack. You also seem to lack much understanding of any kind of metaphysics but I could be wrong about this. You certainly can't take "yes" or "no" for an answer. You can't even see answers that don't fit all of your preconceptions.

He mentioned nexialist again, in your own thread Ancient Reality, that I recalled.

But it is the first “I am an expert in no science” that tell us cladking have no qualifications and no experiences in any of the sciences.

He is just armchair critic, who criticize certain sciences without ever really studying any of them or working in the fields.

Plus cladking have habits of making claims that don’t exist, or playing word games, where he changed their meanings that no one use but him, and often getting them so wrong with these claims and games.

 

[cladking]

But it is the first “I am an expert in no science” that tell us cladking have no qualifications and no experiences in any of the sciences.

He is just armchair critic, who criticize certain sciences without ever really studying any of them or working in the fields.

This isn't tough. I'm a scientist and a metaphysician who has no expertise in the sciences. There is no word that defines what I do so I could either invent a new one or adapt old terms. I've always considered myself a "generalist" which I define as an individual who looks at all the sciences simultaneously. Nobody is aware of this definition so some have applied the term "nexialist" which was used to describe individuals who had far ranging expertise and could apply it all simultaneously. This would be a great word except I have no expertise. Most of my "beliefs" spring from viewing "all" experiment simultaneously in the light of metaphysics.

This has been complicated in recent years by the discovery of other sciences and other metaphysics.

I do have have some specialized knowledge in several fields but these tend to be considered irrelevant to science. Things like expertise in the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts doesn't go over very big anywhere at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This isn't tough. I'm a scientist

What science? What degrees? Where did you get your degrees? What did you work on? What publications?

and a metaphysician

What does that even mean to you. I haven't seen you provide any philosophical arguments actually.

who has no expertise in the sciences.

Then why are you trying to tell scientists their business?

There is no word that defines what I do so I could either invent a new one or adapt old terms.

I can help you out with that and the ones that come to mind are existing terms too. Unfortunately, I'm honor bound not to make those suggestions.

I've always considered myself a "generalist" which I define as an individual who looks at all the sciences simultaneously.

When do you expect you get onto this and start looking?

Nobody is aware of this definition so some have applied the term "nexialist"

Only you have applied that term to yourself. I know, I did the searches. Amazing what you find when you look for evidence.

which was used to describe individuals who had far ranging expertise and could apply it all simultaneously.

It is a word invented by the science fiction author A.E. van Vogt in the book "The Voyage of the Space Beagle". A fictional job for a fictional character in a fictional story.

The title is a reference to Charles Darwin's "The Voyage of the Beagle" a story of his five year voyage on the HMS Beagle where he made his observations of evolution that lead to the formulation of the theory.

This would be a great word except I have no expertise.

You mention that, but that is not the way you present yourself or the claims you make. Having read what you have posted about biology and science, I recognize that you have no expertise and don't even seem to know much if any basic information either. What you post has all the appearance of being fabricated on speculation that you seem to see as real and factual in your presentation of it.

Most of my "beliefs" spring from viewing "all" experiment simultaneously in the light of metaphysics.

A proposition that doesn't bear realistic possibility and I challenge your claim to use metaphysics, given that all you do is make claims about metaphysics and never really employ it. How would you even have access to "all experiments"? How can you claim not to have expertise while claiming to be able to view all experiments simultaneously (again, how is that possible?) and come to the best conclusions (also something that doesn't hold up to scrutiny)?

This has been complicated in recent years by the discovery of other sciences and other metaphysics.

I'm guessing you mean more science that you aren't likely to understand any better than what you have demonstrated here.

I do have have some specialized knowledge in several fields but these tend to be considered irrelevant to science. Things like expertise in the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts doesn't go over very big anywhere at all.

Do you really have expertise in ancient Egyptian religious text or do you mean you post on other forums about it a lot? From what I have read, your expertise is not widely recognized there either.

I see a lot of opinions about things, but not a lot of effort to support them. Most of what you claim is either not possible or doesn't compare to what we know of the subjects from knowledge acquired through the scientific method. What you claim about biology bears little or no resemblance to what is known about biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nothing is static and nothing is gradual. Things that happen on long time lines still happen suddenly as seen from a longer timeline. The collision of galaxies is very brief from the perspective of the age of galaxies.

No one is claiming that biological organisms or systems are static. They do change or stabilize for varying durations. Many things related to living things are not in constant flux either.

That is just word games. These semantics are a recent addition and all your previous claims of "sudden" have not been so qualified. Neither have you been challenged on perspective. Your previous claims of sudden were levied as absolute conditions.

 

[gnostic]

This isn't tough. I'm a scientist and a metaphysician who has no expertise in the sciences. There is no word that defines what I do so I could either invent a new one or adapt old terms. I've always considered myself a "generalist" which I define as an individual who looks at all the sciences simultaneously. Nobody is aware of this definition so some have applied the term "nexialist" which was used to describe individuals who had far ranging expertise and could apply it all simultaneously. This would be a great word except I have no expertise. Most of my "beliefs" spring from viewing "all" experiment simultaneously in the light of metaphysics.

This has been complicated in recent years by the discovery of other sciences and other metaphysics.

I do have have some specialized knowledge in several fields but these tend to be considered irrelevant to science. Things like expertise in the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts doesn't go over very big anywhere at all.

cladking.

You claim you have no expertise, and yet you then would contradict yourself by saying that you are one of the those people who have "far ranging expertise".

Either you do have the expertise or you don't.

In many of the posts in threads, you have argue against other people with alternative ideas, AS IF THEY WERE FACTS.

But facts required evidence to support your ideas, which you have not demonstrated. Plus, many people here, have corrected you when your ideas shown to be wrong, but you refused to acknowledge your errors.

The thing is that you would claim - "all evidence" or "all experiments" support your idea, but when asked to present even one of those "ALL" those you have, you would ignore their requests, make excuses, or worse, even make another claims more outrageous than the original claims.

Yes, you do invent terms or modify old terms to suit you, but they are terms that no one else uses, except you. You complained and whined about me being semantic or playing word game, but that exactly what you are doing, except the words you have modified are not used by anyone else in the world. Your semantic and word game, only demonstrate you're not being intellectually honest with us and to yourself.

Here is an example of your invention, not based on any evidence.

You claimed of the existence of ancient science written in ancient language from 40,000 years civilisation that don't exist. You have also made up the fantasy that the Homo sapiens are extinct, when non-existent and mythical Tower of Babel were built, and Homo sapiens were being replaced by Homo Omnisciensis.

Not only you need evidence to support such outrageous claims, which you have none of them to be true, you also made fantasies as if these claims/fantasies were facts.

There are no evidence to support your claims, you only have circular reasoning and confirmation biases.

Even your claim that you have "all the evidence" to support it, is nonexistent, based on circular reasoning & confirmation biases.

The worse part of all this, you keep repeating the same mistakes (eg the "bottleneck" argument or the argument of speciation occurring in single generation) and the same fantasies (eg 40,000 years old science), over and over again.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

If generalist means just have general knowledge of number of different things, then many of us are "generalists", including me.

Having general knowledge don't mean having specialized knowledge or having expertise.

The thing is, you are not biologist, and yet you are challenging Natural Selection Evolution. There lies your problem, you don't even have a basic knowledge of biology, let alone in biological classification (taxonomy) or specialized in fossils (paleontology).

If you have never worked as a biologist or as a paleontologist, then how you possibly know Evolution occurred sudden, as in "sudden" like a single organism or single generation. That's not Evolution, and not even biologists proposing Punctuated Equilibrium, wouldn't proposed the ridiculous version of Evolution that you are claiming.

What you are claiming of "sudden" Evolution would only exist in science fiction or in some comic books.

Even bacteria which have shorter lifespan and reproduce at much shorter time, don't evolve that quickly, like a single generation - no organisms can change as fast as what you are suggesting.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, but that is empty beyond the formal proof you just gave. It only says God is absolute as the creator of the universe. It doesn't tell if She is friendly or evil.

Yes, you may infer that God is absolute as the creator, but we cannot speculate the attributes of God or what God wants from us, that is why God approached humanity with messengers. See #4896

Darwin's Illusion | Page 245 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

And it is if Noble is right, it is replaced with another model of the scientific theory of evolution.

It’s not only Noble, it’s the work of may scientists that disproved the Modern Synthesis. But again the Modern Synthesis is not a model of evolution; it's the scientific theory of evolution. The theory was disproved and it was not replaced with another agreed upon theory. Meaning, currently, there is no valid or agreed upon theory of evolution.

 

[LIIA]

Noble still accepts the fact of evolution. He merely disagrees about its mechanism.

No, Noble still accepts the “axiom" of evolution. He completely disproved the scientific theory of evolution (MS) and all of its central assumption. No exception.

Again, it’s not Noble alone. See # 5258 & # 4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 263 | Religious Forums

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you may infer that God is absolute as the creator, but we cannot speculate the attributes of God or what God wants from us, that is why God approached humanity with messengers. See #4896

Darwin's Illusion | Page 245 | Religious Forums

Yeah, and I am the correct messenger and you will burn in Hell, because you have faith in the wrong ones.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It’s not only Noble, it’s the work of may scientists that disproved the Modern Synthesis. But again the Modern Synthesis is not a model of evolution; it's the scientific theory of evolution. The theory was disproved and it was not replaced with another agreed upon theory. Meaning, currently, there is no valid or agreed upon theory of evolution.

You can't even read and understand the link. You are under the sway of the wrong messengers and you will burn in Hell.
As long as you play absolute truth, I can do that too and you will burn in Hell.

 

[LIIA]

The evidence for evolution is separate from the mechanisms that explain it.

What is evolution if not the scientific theory of evolution/MS? If the mechanisms are false and the framework is false, the theory is necessarily false. Evolution is a scientific theory not an axiom.

The Modern Synthesis is false as demonstrated and the alleged evidence is an illusion. (Again, "illusion" is not my word, see #4899). Get rid of the axiom and you will be able to see different interpretations of what you used to perceive as evidence of the ToE. Keep the false axiom and force every observation to fit within your view. If your axiom/premise is false, everything that follows is false.

Unless your lenses are neutral, you will never see the true colors. It’s very hard to be neutral, we’re all inclined towards one view or another, such inclination is driven by our “free will", first step is to be aware of your own bias. Once you’re aware of it, try to free yourself from it. If you honestly want to be neutral, you can. We’re never neutral.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, and I am the correct messenger and you will burn in Hell, because you have faith in the wrong ones.

fine

 

[LIIA]

You can't even read and understand the link. You are under the sway of the wrong messengers and you will burn in Hell.
As long as you play absolute truth, I can do that too and you will burn in Hell.

ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Noble still accepts the “axiom" of evolution. He completely disproved the scientific theory of evolution (MS) and all of its central assumption. No exception.

Again, it’s not Noble alone. See # 5258 & # 4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 263 | Religious Forums

I know, there are a couple of others. So what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is evolution if not the scientific theory of evolution/MS? If the mechanisms are false and the framework is false, the theory is necessarily false. Evolution is a scientific theory not an axiom.

The Modern Synthesis is false as demonstrated and the alleged evidence is an illusion. (Again, "illusion" is not my word, see #4899). Get rid of the axiom and you will be able to see different interpretations of what you used to perceive as evidence of the ToE. Keep the false axiom and force every observation to fit within your view. If your axiom/premise is false, everything that follows is false.

Unless your lenses are neutral, you will never see the true colors. It’s very hard to be neutral, we’re all inclined towards one view or another, such inclination is driven by our “free will", first step is to be aware of your own bias. Once you’re aware of it, try to free yourself from it. If you honestly want to be neutral, you can. We’re never neutral.

Yeah, but you are special, because you are neutral and we are never neutral, but you are not a part of that we. Got it.

 

[LIIA]

Yes and no. It is more about the interplay of different genes in effect.
Remember the replication of the fittest genes. How that happens is irrelevant if it happens how it happens.

No, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info. Again, it’s not about the info but rather the controlling processes. See #5291

The notion of replication of the fittest genes is misleading/false. All genes get replicated but the unfit is more likely to naturally perish. It’s not selection of the fittest it’s a process of maintaining the species by keeping the favorable healthy traits. In addition, the cell machinery can control directed mutations to intelligently address environmental pressures.

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

 

[LIIA]

I know, there are a couple of others. So what?

so, the MS is false, and your axiom is an illusion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info. Again, it’s not about the info but rather the controlling processes. See #5291

The notion of replication of the fittest genes is misleading/false. All genes get replicated but the unfit is more likely to naturally perish. It’s not selection of the fittest it’s a process of maintaining the species by keeping the favorable healthy traits. In addition, the cell machinery can control directed mutations to intelligently address environmental pressures.

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

Yeah, I am not going to play that game with you. You don't understand when you are subjective, because you take your own thinking for granted.