The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

Umm, okay. So that's a no?

Then I'm wondering why you expect to be taken seriously, if you can't (or won't?) attempt to demonstrate the veracity of your claims.

No, salad. Mmmm. Not very nutritious, but it is full of "fiber" to clean out the system. A good start to every morning. Word salad, my favorite!

So neither of you are going to address a single point in any post that doesn't agree with scientism.

Until such time as ANYONE either addresses a single point OR creates a counter argument I am no responding further.

Good luck with your beliefs and assumptions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So neither of you are going to address a single point in any post that doesn't agree with scientism.

Until such time as ANYONE either addresses a single point OR creates a counter argument I am no responding further.

Good luck with your beliefs and assumptions.

Why bother? Your beliefs don't match the available evidence on the matter.
Hence my question about publishing in journals. You need to have your ideas vetted by the scientific community.

 

[cladking]

You need to have your ideas vetted by the scientific community.

"The scientific community" is BY DEFINITION the group of individuals who all share the same premises.

Can you not even see the sentence above or are you incapable of understanding simple English?

 

[SkepticThinker]

"The scientific community" is BY DEFINITION the group of individuals who all share the same premises.

Can you not even see the sentence above or are you incapable of understanding simple English?

They're the ones best suited to discuss and analyze your scientific views/beliefs, given that they are the experts in their respective fields.
Who do you suggest discussing it with? Laypeople? Why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct."



Every time one of you posts you are merely proving my point.

Scientism is the greatest threat to the human race today. It is driving the construction of building in DC for lobbyists. Unless we attempt to tie the various branches of science back together it will all collapse and with a far more dire result than the last time.

There are no specialists in the fragmentation of science. There are no specialists in the study of consciousness and little theorizing on its effect on life, science, business, and governance. Though, of course, most will agree that consciousness plays extremely little role in Congress.

You had me at nonsense. No need to expound on it further.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct."



Every time one of you posts you are merely proving my point.

Scientism is the greatest threat to the human race today. It is driving the construction of building in DC for lobbyists. Unless we attempt to tie the various branches of science back together it will all collapse and with a far more dire result than the last time.

There are no specialists in the fragmentation of science. There are no specialists in the study of consciousness and little theorizing on its effect on life, science, business, and governance. Though, of course, most will agree that consciousness plays extremely little role in Congress.

There is no evidence to support the failed assertion that all change in life is sudden. You can believe all you like, but it will not materialize into reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, salad. Mmmm. Not very nutritious, but it is full of "fiber" to clean out the system. A good start to every morning. Word salad, my favorite!

I consider the nonsense to be the stuff that needs to be cleaned from the system.

It sure is a hearty, heaping helping of word salad.

 

[cladking]

Who do you suggest discussing it with?

Mathematicians, philosophers, thinkers, laypeople, and any scientist who hasn't swallowed doctrine hook, line, and sinker.

While biology is real science they won't discuss things that lie outside of their assumptions. It might be more accurate to say they can't discuss things that lie outside their beliefs. They can't discuss it because it is hard for them to understand or see the argument and it is impossible for them to discuss what they know in terms they can't define. As soon as I say "all the evidence shows consciousness lies at the heart of survival rather than fitness" they are incapable of responding. They could if they would entertain my definition of consciousness but they can't do that either because they are too busy doing anything else.

Nobody is very good at discussing things that lie outside of their assumptions. But believers in "science" (people who believe science is correct by definition) are the least capable of discussing anything and this includes the discussion of science. People who believe in science not only don't understand metaphysics or why science works but they don't understand science either. They make false statements and many of these are difficult for me to correct because I'm, not all that knowledgeable myself. People who believe in scientism often use equations but they use them wrong. They cite experiment that is irrelevant to the subject. They provide a hodge podge of mixed up and confused science that has no meaning in the real world. And God help us, this even applies to many people who earn a living as "scientists" now days.

Peers are best suited to considering evidence, ideas, and experiments that are extrapolated from what is already known. Peers are the worst suited to considering any idea that lies outside of these assumptions or is dependent on concepts for which they lack a coherent definition. How ironic that Darwin could be utterly wrong but biologists still believe in his assumptions.

 

[cladking]

There is no evidence to support the failed assertion that all change in life is sudden. You can believe all you like, but it will not materialize into reality.

I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them. Instead you merely claim it isn't true.

How long do you believe it takes for a person to pass from alive to dead or non-existent to alive?

Why don't you tell me one single change in any life that happened slowly? Then back it up with actual evidence including relevant experiment?

 

[tas8831]

So neither of you are going to address a single point in any post that doesn't agree with scientism.

Well golly - PROVE US ALL WRONG.


Indeed - I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mathematicians, philosophers, thinkers, laypeople, and any scientist who hasn't swallowed doctrine hook, line, and sinker.

While biology is real science they won't discuss things that lie outside of their assumptions. It might be more accurate to say they can't discuss things that lie outside their beliefs. They can't discuss it because it is hard for them to understand or see the argument and it is impossible for them to discuss what they know in terms they can't define. As soon as I say "all the evidence shows consciousness lies at the heart of survival rather than fitness" they are incapable of responding. They could if they would entertain my definition of consciousness but they can't do that either because they are too busy doing anything else.

Nobody is very good at discussing things that lie outside of their assumptions. But believers in "science" (people who believe science is correct by definition) are the least capable of discussing anything and this includes the discussion of science. People who believe in science not only don't understand metaphysics or why science works but they don't understand science either. They make false statements and many of these are difficult for me to correct because I'm, not all that knowledgeable myself. People who believe in scientism often use equations but they use them wrong. They cite experiment that is irrelevant to the subject. They provide a hodge podge of mixed up and confused science that has no meaning in the real world. And God help us, this even applies to many people who earn a living as "scientists" now days.

Peers are best suited to considering evidence, ideas, and experiments that are extrapolated from what is already known. Peers are the worst suited to considering any idea that lies outside of these assumptions or is dependent on concepts for which they lack a coherent definition. How ironic that Darwin could be utterly wrong but biologists still believe in his assumptions.

Well, the place where you challenge science is within the science community, using science.

Discussing it here is fun and all, I guess, but the place where your ideas are going to make an impact on the scientific community, are within the scientific community, where science is done.
That's how things become established science, like evolution, or germ theory. Do you think everyone was on Darwin's side immediately after he presented his evidence on evolution?

 

[tas8831]

I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them. Instead you merely claim it isn't true.

I sincerely doubt that you've "listed hundreds of cases" of anything - believe it or not, you just re-writing things over and over (things that were never supported in the first place) does not actually count as you supporting your repeated claim.

And you seem to think that your make-it-up-as-you-go-along-as-long-as-it-makes-you-feel-special pseudoscience has merit because you are generally clueless about everything you write about - curious, what do you do for a living? I am thinking you are living off of some kind of disability, but who knows.


Anyway...
Your ignorance regarding this 'sudden' thing is your reductionism. You think death from sepsis is 'sudden', that there is a point at which life functions cease, and that - and that alone - is all that matters.
It can takes days to die from sepsis. It is not like you get a diagnosis of sepsis and you immediately drop dead.
Same with speciation. Speciation is a process that can take dozens or hundreds or even thousand of generations for sufficient change to accumulate that finally results in permanent reproductive isolation.
But ignore all of the events leading up to that point and declare it 'sudden'. Absurd.

Riddle me this - when is your birthday? I don't really care, let's say that you were born on May 22, 2021 (it does seem in many ways that you were born yesterday) at 9:02 AM EST.
Do you really think you stay the exact same age until May 22, 2022 at 9:02 AM EST, and at that instant the aging process suddenly kicks in and you are 1 year older? That the previous aging events that had been continually occurring since May 22, 2022 at 9:03 AM EST account for nothing until that very instant you "turn" 1 year older?

How long do you believe it takes for a person to pass from alive to dead or non-existent to alive?

Why don't you tell me one single change in any life that happened slowly? Then back it up with actual evidence including relevant experiment?

Sure - I will do that suddenly after YOU back up your claim with actual evidence including relevant experiment.

Keep in mind - merely re-asserting the same thing over and over, or providing a list, is neither experiment nor evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I consider the nonsense to be the stuff that needs to be cleaned from the system.

It sure is a hearty, heaping helping of word salad.

Yes, after a good dose of word salad the colon of the mind has been scoured clean.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them. Instead you merely claim it isn't true.

How long do you believe it takes for a person to pass from alive to dead or non-existent to alive?

Why don't you tell me one single change in any life that happened slowly? Then back it up with actual evidence including relevant experiment?

You have supported nothing. You created a fictional science in the form of your very own belief system that has no probative value and you declare it real by fiat.

No one is denying that some things happen rapidly, but not all change is rapid. And you have not supported your assertion. You cannot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, after a good dose of word salad the colon of the mind has been scoured clean.

There are several nutritionists on this forum that promote heaps of word salad daily. It keeps my mind sharp I suppose, though, I wish they had some substance with their salad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So neither of you are going to address a single point in any post that doesn't agree with scientism.

Until such time as ANYONE either addresses a single point OR creates a counter argument I am no responding further.

Good luck with your beliefs and assumptions.

The "beliefs and assumptions" are on your side. And I already explained what you need to do if you want answers. All you have right now are false accusations and nonsense.

The rules: One idea at a time. Proper questions only.

 

[cladking]

You have supported nothing. You created a fictional science in the form of your very own belief system that has no probative value and you declare it real by fiat.

No one is denying that some things happen rapidly, but not all change is rapid. And you have not supported your assertion. You cannot.

Let's play a game then since you don't want to discuss anything rationally.

I'll list a change in life that occurs suddenly within a single generation of a species and you list a change that requires many generations. Since you won't list any, I'll go first;

CONCEPTION.

I can list several hundred such sudden changes and you can list none. Should I prove conception is sudden or will you stipulate that it is?

Now you'll hem and haw because you don't even have one other than "evolution".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's play a game then since you don't want to discuss anything rationally.

I'll list a change in life that occurs suddenly within a single generation of a species and you list a change that requires many generations. Since you won't list any, I'll go first;

CONCEPTION.

I can list several hundred such sudden changes and you can list none. Should I prove conception is sudden or will you stipulate that it is?

Now you'll hem and haw because you don't even have one other than "evolution".

Evolution occurs on the species level. The sort of changes you are discussing are not evolution.

 

[tas8831]

I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them.

Searching for the term "sudden" and Cladking as username produces 44 posts in this thread. Here is what I have found.

First post containing the word 'sudden':

"All observed change in species is sudden just as all observed change in living individuals is sudden."​

I will not link to every post in which this is comes up, but I will quote from all 44 of them, and I will seek these mysterious lists of changes that are sudden, according to our local world's greatest Egyptologist that not a single person in the world recognizes as such and report on what I find. These quotes are all in order of appearance in this thread:

"and all observed change in life is sudden...All observed change in all life is sudden...It is a collection of unusual behavior that is bred to create new species and these species are sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden..."​

This one is a good one:

"ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN. It is YOUR JOB to show ANY CHANGE AT ALL to individuals, species, or any life on any level that is gradual."​

This was after I asked him for actual evidence for his claim. Some things never change in creationist-land... Back to the list:

"There are countless examples of sudden change from death to birth or even marriage. There are countless examples. There are also countless examples of sudden changes in population and group behavior but I don't believe in "groups" and "species' or even "civilizations". "
" I present extensive evidence for ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN; in a word "agriculture"....All OBSERVED change in life is sudden....Meanwhile ALL OBSERVED CHANGE TO ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN and not gradual....From the perspective of "evolutionary changes" man's extinction would be quite "sudden"... and all change is sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden. Gradual change exists but accounts for little of the aggregate change in most major species...There are as many causes as there were deaths and every death was sudden...I could work on the list of things about life that are all sudden. Of course the fact that all observed change to life are sudden isn't the kind of thing that a reductionistic mind which.. operates on belief uses to think...Each individual plague germ is suddenly created and suddenly destroyed....Most major change in most major species in most instances is sudden and occurs at population bottlenecks where the survivors are selected for behavior rather than "fitness". I was merely saying that species suddenly adapt to changes in their niche. All change in life in all ways is sudden...Change in life is sudden and you still haven't shown any exceptions... I wonder how many sudden changes in life I've mentioned in this thread without even trying but still NO NONE HAS SHOWN A GRADUAL CHANGE IN LIFE...I said "sudden" can be defined as no moment between two events....I said the effects and causes of life are sudden...All change in life is sudden. Meanwhile I've listed a couple dozens changes in life that are sudden and you've failed to list even one that is gradual. Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden....All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) Yes, this is your contention but everything that is offered as evidence supports my contention that all change is sudden....The evidence all supports my contention that everything that affects life including change in species is sudden.... Every single source linked by believers in evolution shows sudden change just as all observation shows....I agree and would add all change in species is SUDDEN.... All evolution is sudden...ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden....ALL the evidence shows ALL change in ALL life is SUDDEN. Then you merely claim you provided evidence while ignoring mine such as ALL OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN LIFE OF ALL TYPES IS SUDDEN!!... People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden...​

Examples supporting claim listed:
ZERO

Examples merely listed without any rationale or reference to experiment supporting his claim:
Peppered moths...
Dogs ("There were no dogs and then there suddenly were.")
Mink...
"agriculture"?
"contagion"
plague germs


Example in which he offered some attempt at explanation (from a flawed memory) was shown to be wrong (ignored by him, of course):

"One of the best examples of sudden change in species caused by behavior is a very modern one; 'tame minks'. Minks are hard to raise because they are mean. Someone selected sedate and friendly minks and got a new species in a single generation; SUDDEN!"​

Me, disproving his 'single generation' claim:
The Believabliltiy of Evolution



Admits some change is gradual, even as he biffs the details:

"Try showing a fossil of something that gradually changes into something much different. "Horse" is the best example that comes to mind but this isn't so gradual (think punctuated equilibrium) and today's horse isn't so much different than fossil horses as it is smaller. "​

Ironic/weird/dopey/insane claims, commentary by me in red:

"But I am not giving myself a pass on the requirement of science to be based on experiment. "

"All individuals of species are equally fit but have different genes."

"I strongly suspected it was not but it just doesn't matter because the point and the "proof" stand." = he admitted he was wrong, but then claimed it was OK anyway...

"A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."

"All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) " which is it? Less than a nanosecond, or a couple of generations?

"All evolution is sudden." unless it takes a generation or two?

"ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden." and yet he has not once referred to any experiments that support his claims...

"Experiment" of sorts can be done in "evolution" but all such experiments ever performed have clearly shown all change in life of all types and sorts is "sudden". despite the fact that he never mentions a single one...

" Go back and read my posts. They contain several dozens pieces of evidence. " no, they really don't - LOTS of repetition of the mantra, that is about it.


CONCLUSION:

Cladking claims to have listed "hundreds" of cases supporting his position that all changes in life happen suddenly. He DEFINES this as 'less than a nanosecond.' He also admits that there is some gradual change (negating his repetitious mantra) and allows that it can take 'a generation or two' - then goes back to saying "all change is sudden".
AT BEST, he has listed not hundreds, but SIX (2 of which refer to the same thing).

So, this claim is an OUTRIGHT LIE, or perhaps an act of delusion:

"I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them. "

 

[tas8831]

Let's play a game then since you don't want to discuss anything rationally.

I'll list a change in life that occurs suddenly within a single generation of a species and you list a change that requires many generations. Since you won't list any, I'll go first;

CONCEPTION.

Where is the experiment to support this?

You claim that you have experimental evidence for everything.

And what does that have to do with evolution? Is this a pathetic diversion?

I can list several hundred such sudden changes

No, you can't. You cannot even tell the truth about how many you have already 'listed'.