Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

"If you spend your time chasing butterflies, they will run away. But if you spend your time creating a beautiful garden, then the butterflies will come to you. However, if they don't come, at least you have yourself a beautiful garden."

I have a net, corkboard, and pins but haven't actually collected butterflies since I was a child. Now I encourage a little milkweed for the monarchs and have lots of flowers. I'm more interested in attracting hummingbirds but I do like the butterflies.

I like the saying. It probably sounds better in German.

What is your problem with Darwin , my friend?

Darwin was wrong and nobody cares. His assumptions are just as wrong today as they were 200 years ago. And nobody cares. People still believe the unfit were not going to survive anyway so need no protection. Only the unfit care. People still believe the fittest will succeed and breed new stronger civilization so we shower the inventors of planned obsolescence with ever more riches. And nobody cares because money is cheap anyway. How many sides does a credit card have?

 

[Dimi95]

Actually most coins have seven sides. They have the front and back as well as a rim on both sides making four. Then they have an inner rim on both sides and an edge making seven. They have these extra sides so that they can be stacked in order to count them. Ironically few people know this and stack them to count.

The world's a funny place.

Haha
Friend you need to realize this has nothing to do with the rim on front and back pages.
They are still positioned at the same side
We don't discuss structure , we discuss sides.
Front , back , edges - that's it.
That's what most coins have.

I don't know why do you think that because they were shaped to be counted has anything to do with sides.

Again you chose to answer this non-sense with coins.

 

[cladking]

No in the history of several years you have failed to respond to the science,...

[sigh]How many times have I told you that there is no science outside experiment and that no experiment supports gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest? [/sigh]

You just ignore it or repeat your mantra of "no it doesn't". I'm sorry but "nuh uh" is not an argument it is an admission that you have no argument. Why don't you find some theory that isn't supported by experiment to prove me wrong.

Evolution sounds good. It looks good on paper. But it lacks experimental support and my arguments are mostly not being addressed. It hasn't even been admitted that Darwin et al believe that consciousness is irrelevant to species and change in species!

 

[Dimi95]

Darwin was wrong and nobody cares.
His assumptions are just as wrong today as they were 200 years ago. And nobody cares. People still believe the unfit were not going to survive anyway so need no protection. Only the unfit care. People still believe the fittest will succeed and breed new stronger civilization so we shower the inventors of planned obsolescence with ever more riches. And nobody cares because money is cheap anyway. How many sides does a credit card have?

I don't care what people believe for themselfs.

You need to make your case , not run from that.

You can always learn an example how is that done.

It is that simple.
But no , you just won't google it.

You can start with explaining what do you disagree with? I mean from what is within his books?

Which of the twenty books that Darwin wrote did you read?
Have you ever read any at least?
Be honest , no one will judge you.

 

[Pogo]

[sigh]How many times have I told you that there is no science outside experiment and that no experiment supports gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest? [/sigh]

You have told us this many times, but we are still waiting for an explanation of why this is not an experiment and why it is wrong for whatever reason, you have just asserted so. What invalid assumptions does it make, why are they invalid, what would be a correct basis for the experiment.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You just ignore it or repeat your mantra of "no it doesn't". I'm sorry but "nuh uh" is not an argument it is an admission that you have no argument. Why don't you find some theory that isn't supported by experiment to prove me wrong.

Theorys are supported by experiment, you claim they are not, so it is for you to provide the example not just claim the contrary.

Evolution sounds good. It looks good on paper. But it lacks experimental support and my arguments are mostly not being addressed. It hasn't even been admitted that Darwin et al believe that consciousness is irrelevant to species and change in species!

No your arguments aren't being addressed because they're rationally unaddressable, how do you address an argument that claims we are ignoring consciousness and then tell us that it exists in fly ash and fire. This is meaningless philosophy at this point. As with Aether, if you are going to claim it somehow pervades everything in the universe and who knows maybe beyond, to make it science you will need to demonstrate what the universe would look like without it.

 

[Dimi95]

[sigh]How many times have I told you that there is no science outside experiment and that no experiment supports gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest? [/sigh]

You just ignore it or repeat your mantra of "no it doesn't". I'm sorry but "nuh uh" is not an argument it is an admission that you have no argument. Why don't you find some theory that isn't supported by experiment to prove me wrong.

Evolution sounds good. It looks good on paper. But it lacks experimental support and my arguments are mostly not being addressed. It hasn't even been admitted that Darwin et al believe that consciousness is irrelevant to species and change in species!

Ouh Good Lord.
I have provided some info and study about consciousness , and i think @shunyadragon also opened a thread about it.

Evolution of consciousness happens mostly within the brain.
Consciousness means understanding.

The vast majority of genes don’t code for appearance. They code for things like chemical reactions, cell structure, and function. Those are the hard things to devise, especially through a system that relies on random mutation.

RNA is what serves as an agent.
The proteins are the agent that serves for coding.
We know of no life forms that do not use proteins.
So for Evolution to work , you need only one organism and that's it.
How life came to evolve is like this

These microbes are the first known to be able to eat only viruses

Lab experiments show that Halteria ciliates can chow down solely on viruses. Whether these “virovores” do the same in the wild is unclear.

www.sciencenews.org

Halteria are also able to act as virovores and can consume viruses, such as chloroviruses, to fuel growth and division.

So imagine single-celled organism having the capacity to grow and replicate by eating viruses.
For life to be today as it is you only need Halteria and chloroviruses , nothing more.

This is where we came from.
That is how single-celled organism become two-celled organism.
That is what fossils are telling us untill know.
600 milion years ago.
Everything after that is slow gradual change
That change is not also sudden , since viruses have have existed before life came into existence

It’s sort of like asking how we created motorboats when they look nothing like 18-wheelers.
The inner workings are the complex part.
In comparison, the outside is just details.

 

[cladking]

We don't discuss structure , we discuss sides.
Front , back , edges - that's it.

So how many sides does a room have?

It is that simple.
But no , you just won't google it.

Google is always wrong. At least experts have a 50: 50 chance but not google because google must reflect consensus opinion by definition.

You can start with explaining what do you disagree with? I mean from what is within his books?

Everything. Consciousness cannot be excluded. There is no such thing as species. Survival of the fittest is a circular argument. There is no such thing as continual progress. Populations are not stable. Over and over I list and they are all ignored. I've listed 100 things a million times and they are ignored.

Have you ever read any at least?

Heaven forfend. I NEVER believed in Darwin and would not waste my time with his books. I read most of a chapter once and disagreed with it. I'd rather spend my time learning something that was coherent and consistent. I don't believe the textbooks either but have read a few of these. I study experiments and raw data. This is how I approach every subject in which I have an interest. Opinions are just opinions. Darwin's opinion in 19th century tripe.

The 1890 Encyclopedia Britannica is a great read. "Origin of Species" is not. The 1952 Funk and Wagnall's unabridged is more informative than Darwin.

 

[cladking]

You have told us this many times, but we are still waiting for an explanation of why this is not an experiment and why it is wrong for whatever reason, you have just asserted so. What invalid assumptions does it make, why are they invalid, what would be a correct basis for the experiment.

As I said the first time it was presented it has several problems. First and most importantly e coli are not a major species with an easily visible consciousness. It's not a real "experiment" and there is no way to control the agar that is fed to them. There is little control of quite a few factors.

It should also be noted that the rate of change was not steady even though it was gradual. However the control was poor enough that the gradual change could have been caused by a gradual change in the food.

Don't get me wrong here; the experiment is quite impressive and far and away the best to support gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. However, other interpretations are possible and its relevance questionable. Some of the experiments with tse tse flies are more relevant but less convincing.

My contention has never been there is no evidence or that it is illogical. I maintain that the evidence is being misinterpreted. All observation suggests speciation is sudden and adaptation is even more sudden. All change in life at all levels is observed to be sudden.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't care what people believe for themselfs.

You need to make your case , not run from that.

You can always learn an example how is that done.

It is that simple.
But no , you just won't google it.

You can start with explaining what do you disagree with? I mean from what is within his books?

Which of the twenty books that Darwin wrote did you read?
Have you ever read any at least?
Be honest , no one will judge you.

I spent several years requesting a list of the assumptions Darwin used in formulating the theory of evolution and got nothing every time, except repetition of the empty claim.

Even after posting them myself along with the assumptions behind the modern synthesis, still nothing but repetition of the empty claim.

I am finally convinced there is nothing there and no point in responding any longer.

 

[Dimi95]

So how many sides does a room have?

From coins to rooms.
Stop it

Google is always wrong. At least experts have a 50: 50 chance but not google because google must reflect consensus opinion by definition.

You don't understand what i am trying to explain to you buddy, you are just losing my time.
You don't even know what to google

Everything. Consciousness cannot be excluded. There is no such thing as species. Survival of the fittest is a circular argument. There is no such thing as continual progress. Populations are not stable. Over and over I list and they are all ignored. I've listed 100 things a million times and they are ignored.

NONONONO

I am not interested in your salads.
Citation from his books , please.

Heaven forfend. I NEVER believed in Darwin and would not waste my time with his books.

So please stop wasting our time and don't just participate in this threads.
Don't reply any of our answers and we won't reply yours.
Because you don't want to engage in discussions with us.
You just say what do you want.

I read most of a chapter once and disagreed with it. I'd rather spend my time learning something that was coherent and consistent. I don't believe the textbooks either but have read a few of these. I study experiments and raw data. This is how I approach every subject in which I have an interest. Opinions are just opinions. Darwin's opinion in 19th century tripe.

The 1890 Encyclopedia Britannica is a great read. "Origin of Species" is not. The 1952 Funk and Wagnall's unabridged is more informative than Darwin.

Please , do you want me to send you some?
I will do it if you want.

Because you come here to discuss something that you have never read about in the first place.
I did not , untill i was 28.
I was like you , with understanding that was not complete and that all suddenly changed with Evolution.
Consciousness , It probably came into being within the procceses of reproduction.
When one became two.

 

[cladking]

Theorys are supported by experiment, you claim they are not, so it is for you to provide the example not just claim the contrary.

NO!!!

I claim that theory and experiment are the same thing. Theory is the paradigm that interprets multiple experiments.

It is Evolutionists who claim that the ToE can exist without experimental support.

No your arguments aren't being addressed because they're rationally unaddressable, how do you address an argument that claims we are ignoring consciousness and then tell us that it exists in fly ash and fire.

You have to be kidding.

Don't I remember you saying that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't care what people believe for themselfs.

You need to make your case , not run from that.

You can always learn an example how is that done.

It is that simple.
But no , you just won't google it.

You can start with explaining what do you disagree with? I mean from what is within his books?

Which of the twenty books that Darwin wrote did you read?
Have you ever read any at least?
Be honest , no one will judge you.

Personally, I've judged the content of those posts. I could find nothing useful there. No science. A bunch of baseless beliefs presented as if fact, semantic gymnastics, diversions and straw man nonsense from a position that I feel certain, upon careful and continuous review, is clearly meant to be perceived as omniscient.

I wouldn't recommend wasting time trying to present evidence or knowledge. I've never seen an appearance of interest in it.

 

[Dimi95]

I spent several years requesting a list of the assumptions Darwin used in formulating the theory of evolution and got nothing every time, except repetition of the empty claim.

Even after posting them myself along with the assumptions behind the modern synthesis, still nothing but repetition of the empty claim.

I am finally convinced there is nothing there and no point in responding any longer.

Dan , this just make sense to me what he is all saying.
I want to know where does this come from and how did his ideas came into being.

How do people constuct their logic when their abstract reasoning tells them they are factually incorrect.

He just creates his own metaphysics , debunks it by himself and then he says , i did not do it.

There is a reason that he does that.
I want to know what is that reason and find the source of all this.

So we can end it once and for all.

 

[cladking]

I have provided some info and study about consciousness , and i think @shunyadragon also opened a thread about it.

You've got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!

Universal Consciousness in the animal kingdom and intelligence in many advanced species.

There has been some mention of what is consciousness, when did consciousness begin and to what extent other animals other than humans have consciousness, I believe consciousness is universal with animals with a central nervous system at least, and evolved to be more complex over time. Some even...

www.religiousforums.com

I read most of the first post and saw he was supporting all my beliefs and never went back to it. I'm looking for contradicting facts, not support. I can find support for my beliefs everywhere but I can't seem to find any more contradiction than Nuh uh and word games.

I have never seen a scientific definition for consciousness other than my own. I don't know how one can even exist at this time unless someone stumbled on it the exact same way I did. It is impossible to view consciousness from inside the homo omnisciencis mind. It must be modeled. If you can't model consciousness then you can't define it. Sticking electrodes in brains might someday create a model but this is in its infancy.

I suppose the definition is hiding in the same four sided room with the Survivability Quotient and all the other things people claim but have never produced.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dan , this just make sense to me what he is all saying.
I want to know where does this come from and how did his ideas came into being.

I was interested for a time, but to no avail. There doesn't appear to be any interest in what others know or any interest in presenting support for any claim.

How do people constuct their logic when their abstract reasoning tells them they are factually incorrect.

From all I have seen, I would conclude most of it is made up.

He just creates his own metaphysics , debunks it by himself and then he says , i did not do it.

That sounds about right. @cladking is his own source, authority and peer from all I have seen.

 

[Dimi95]

Personally, I've judged the content of those posts. I could find nothing useful there. No science. A bunch of baseless beliefs presented as if fact, semantic gymnastics, diversions and straw man nonsense from a position that I feel certain, upon careful and continuous review, is clearly meant to be perceived as omniscient.

I wouldn't recommend wasting time trying to present evidence or knowledge. I've never seen an appearance of interest in it.

Yes , i would certainly agree with everything that you wrote , but i think that he should give answers , if he is at least little honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

NO!!!

I claim that theory and experiment are the same thing. Theory is the paradigm that interprets multiple experiments.

It is Evolutionists who claim that the ToE can exist without experimental support.



You have to be kidding.

Don't I remember you saying that?

Thinking about experiments, the Miller-Urey experiment needed the components they added. The components didn't add themselves or provide the enclosure. Yeah, well, on to consciousness. Once I was stung by a bee. Naturally I didn't like it, but I just wonder how much time the bee "thought about" stinging me. (lol...)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes , i would certainly agree with everything that you wrote , but i think that he should give answers , if he is at least little honest.

I agree. If anyone is serious about their claims, they should provide the evidence and explanation to back those claims up. That never happens.

I don't really think there is any interest in what anyone has to say. I've never seen anything that would make me believe there is. That applies to the literalist creationists as well.

The message I get is that they know all and don't need to know anything about what they reject. It is just known to be wrong and all should agree without evidence, explanation or review.

 

[cladking]

Don't I remember you saying that?

Yes! I was sure I remembered you saying that consciousness exists in fly ash.

"No your arguments aren't being addressed because they're rationally unaddressable, how do you address an argument that claims we are ignoring consciousness and then tell us that it exists in fly ash and fire."

The term "fly ash" by the way is usually reserved for ash from coal, especially small pieces that have very fine ash. It is sometimes used to describe ash from furnaces especially those that consume coal or petroleum products. Fly ash is pernicious and ubiquitous. It is not especially dangerous but is annoying.

While coal is residue from something that was once conscious the individual which compose it are all dead. Every single one of them died suddenly long ago and their consciousness ended at that moment. They are not reincarnated by passing through an internal combustion engine. The residue generated in the processes to make fuels contains most of the ash and could be considered even less "alive" and thereby less conscious than even gasoline or the exploding fuel inside the engine.

Life is consciousness. Everything else is either dead or never was alive. Everything changes state suddenly. Coal was never alive but its constituent parts are derived from things that were.

If this isn't clear I can further elaborate.

 

[cladking]

Thinking about experiments, the Miller-Urey experiment needed the components they added. The components didn't add themselves or provide the enclosure. Yeah, well, on to consciousness. Once I was stung by a bee. Naturally I didn't like it, but I just wonder how much time the bee "thought about" stinging me. (lol...)

There was no way around the needed components. However, a log of changes like boiler/ air conditioner upgrades or new sources for food could be critical. When the experiment started the food likely came from Ohio IMS but later it no doubt came from China so only God knows what was in it.

Many little changes occur over the years. Maybe in later years there are LED lights instead of florescent. I looked briefly to see if any specifics were listed and found nothing. I believe, I would expect e coli to have significant changes to many stimuli. But again the experiment is highly interesting and more relevant than most of the garbage people want to use to support Darwin.

If there is any exposure to ambient light then the life cycle of an individual tree outside the lab could cause profound changes to the experiment.

If these were elephants such concerns would be picking of nits but these are tiny little germs that would be lost on a nit.