Darwin Was Full Of Crap

[Devin]

I think something grossly overlooked by evolution deniers is the role human civilization has played in it the last 10k years, developing land, not just for building but also livestock grazing, and growing food, exterminating predators, ivestock breeding, fishing, whaling. Reducing prey, harms predators.

Reducing the physical area, and then reducing predators further in the area left is going to slow evolution.

Also, isn't it possible there's a point of homeostasis we are moving toward, and the closer you get the slower evolution would happen?

Edited July 6, 2022 by Devin

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

That was the topic, Carl.

Darwin = Full of crap. Why? Because of the lie.

I asked you a sincere question about that, and instead of answering, you engaged in the armchair guru game where you act condescending and weird. I saw through it the moment you started.

[JuliusCaesar]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think the level of variability in species you're looking for is untenable.

This is always the excuse used by evolutionists to justify their unsubstantiated beliefs. It can't in any way discount the fact that if it were true(the hypothesis of macro evolution) there would be millions of living interstitial lifeforms when in reality there are none. In fact, the argument you're making not only changes nothing but actually makes things worse for you. Because if this highly progressionistic view is true, then there would be even more living interstitial organisms of which in reality there are none. So the only possibility then would be exactly the opposite of this. That for instance a pure ape gave birth to a pure human. Which obviously is also unsubstantiated nonsense as well.

 

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The principles behind evolution by natural selection (how life behaves) has really nothing to do with abiogenesis (how life arose from non-life). It's kinda like how the instructions for making a pizza does not involve growing a tomato.

You're conflating different definitions of things here. Natural selection has nothing to do with neo-Darwinian delusions. Furthermore, abiogenesis is relevant as such a thing has never been observed before, and without it, Darwinian theory is effectively multiplying by zero as you need a simple organism in the first place before it could be possible for it to evolve into greater organisms.

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

(...) there would be millions of living interstitial lifeforms when in reality there are none.

Why?

 

13 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

You're conflating different definitions of things here. Natural selection has nothing to do with neo-Darwinian delusions.

What does that mean?

 

13 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

Furthermore, abiogenesis is relevant as such a thing has never been observed before, and without it, Darwinian theory is effectively multiplying by zero as you need a simple organism in the first place before it could be possible for it to evolve into greater organisms.

Is it not possible to describe how creatures evolve without knowing how the first creatures were made? Is it not possible to know how to make a pizza without knowing how the ingredients were made?

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano

Your whole point is essentially "relative knowledge is not true, because only absolute knowledge is true". It's a completely irrelevant, stinky red herring of a point, because most people with a brain have already conceded that point 10 years ago. You're preaching to the choir. Drop your guru game already.

[Devin]

27 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

Is it possible to know how to make a chicken without knowing how to make an egg?

Abiogenesis is just another instance of infinite regress, i.e. turtles all the way down, i.e. the foundational lie upon which the air castle rests. That's why it is relevant. Nothing that starts with a lie can ever be true. tadaaaaa... 

Cheers

How can you know that?

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

How do you not see it?

I'm not being facetious here, not trolling, not guruing. I'm really asking, how is this not plain as day?

Cheers

We get it, you're the ultimate skeptic — all knowledge other than your own live feed of phenomenological experiences is false: your car is not in the garage, there is no earth beyond the horizon, the sun will not rise tomorrow etc.

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

I spelled it out for you

I thought there was at least a glimmer of hope of a properly formulated answer, rather than a list of Zen koans. I was mistaken 

[JuliusCaesar]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

1 hour ago, JuliusCaesar said:

(...) there would be millions of living interstitial lifeforms when in reality there are none.

Why?

It's clear you fundamentally fail to understand the argument I was making. Let me try to spell it out in no uncertain terms why the above is so. Under this hypothesis(the notion that the diversity of lifeforms present today occurred by macroevolution gradually over great durations of time in the past) requires that at some point in Earth's history, there were interstitial lifeforms(to get from an ape to human, there has be a part human part ape organism). The reason these interstitial lifeforms would still be living today is much for the same reason that the noninterstitials(pure apes, and pure humans for instance) are present today.

 

Imagine that around 13 million or so years ago, a pure-blooded Chimp somehow acquires .000000001% human DNA. Then the generation afterward does the same, this pattern continues. Now fast forward a few hundred thousand years, and we have the original chimps with 100% chimp genes descended from the original pure chimps, as well as chimps with 99.999999991% chimp DNA, descended from the generation after, as well as chimps with say 99.9991%  chimp DNA also descended from a later generation, as well as all the other interstitials from every generation in between that arose in that period of a few hundred thousand years all living together at the same time. Fast forward a few million years forward from that point, and chimps with say 60% chimp DNA would arise. Living alongside all the descendants of their ancestors(the chimps that are purely chimp, alongside the ones slightly more human, and the others slightly more human than them, and so on).

 

Do you see the problem here? If we fast forward to the present, all of the missing links' descendants bearing their mixed genomes would be living on Earth NOW just as they would have been millions of years ago(in addition to all the interstitials since then). Or in other words, you'd have chimps that are, for instance, .5% human descended from chimps early in their evolution towards humanity, living alongside chimps that are 40% chimp(which were descended from an original missing link that arose a few million years later), and you'd be able to show me every single of them in nature today as such. When in reality, there are only pure-blooded humans and pure-blooded chimps.

 

Now, you could posit punctuated equilibrium, but it makes no difference. It doesn't matter if they evolve at the rate of say 1% per 1000 years or at .0000000000001%, either way, you'd still have living missing links descended from the original missing links alive today. You could also argue that since humans are superior to chimps, all the missing links have been removed by natural selection in the past. But if this were so, then pure-blooded chimps wouldn't exist today either. As obviously, a partially human ape would be superior to a full ape. And as such the pure-blooded chimps would have gone extinct eons ago even before their increasingly human descendants would have.

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

What does that mean?

It means you're confusing natural selection, which is a concept that refers to something that is observed to occur in reality. With other things like macroevolution, a process that has never been observed, nor can be observed in any capacity. Not any more so than purple unicorns gallivanting about the moon can be observed anyway.

 

59 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

We get it, you're the ultimate skeptic — all knowledge other than your own live feed of phenomenological experiences is false: your car is not in the garage, there is no earth beyond the horizon, the sun will not rise tomorrow etc.

The irony about your statement is that QM(the most successful theory in the history of science) being true necessarily means that your perception of reality is all that there is(or in other words, there's actually some substantial truth to this kind of solipsistic skepticism). And I was about to mention how even Einstein had a hard accepting QM because of this, and how he was in spite of that still a brilliant physicist. But you had to go and engage in reductio ab absurdum fallaciously.

 

But to be fair, when you're up against philosophical jibber-jabber, I suppose you can take a liberty or two in the way of logical loosegooeynessss.

 

1 hour ago, JoeVolcano said:

Is it possible to know how to make a chicken without knowing how to make an egg?

To be fair, we don't need to know how to do either in order to do both.

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

@JuliusCaesar

If what you're assuming here were to be correct (that the number of viable phenotypes can just keep multiplying forever), you'd have to stop almost all of evolution: all phenotypes would need to have equal and perfect fitness (no differences in selection pressures, no extinctions etc.), and there can be no interbreeding between similar species. In such a world, the only thing driving "evolution" would be intraspecies breeding (a poorly defined concept btw), mutations, and genetic drift ?

[JuliusCaesar]

9 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

(I'm sure you know all this btw.)

I do, mate. And I'm not disagreeing with you, and as near as I can tell, @Carl-Richard here isn't endeavoring to debunk anything you've said there. Which is why it's altogether perplexing that you're capable of arguing when ostensibly there's nothing about which to argue.

 

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

almost all of evolution stops

This is non sequitur as in my argument the entire hypothetical process is assumed to be carry on every step of the way.

 

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

all phenotypes have equal and perfect fitness (no differences in selection pressures, no extinctions etc.), and no interbreeding between similar species

None of these circumstances are necessary for the scenario I've presented to occur as an inevitability. How many interstitials in your view exist between chimps and men? I know you probably don't have an exact answer to this question, but to counter your argument I need to at least have a ballpark estimate.

[Devin]

4 hours ago, JoeVolcano said:

How do you not see it?

I'm not being facetious here, not trolling, not guruing. I'm really asking, how is this not plain as day?

Cheers

Abiogenesis; as in organic from inorganic. It has nothing to do with where the inorganic came from. It could be true, all it takes is energy

How inorganic or energy came about is unrelated. You can't know it's not true unless you know how it did start.

That's not infinite regress

[Devin]

3 hours ago, JuliusCaesar said:

It's clear you fundamentally fail to understand the argument I was making. Let me try to spell it out in no uncertain terms why the above is so. Under this hypothesis(the notion that the diversity of lifeforms present today occurred by macroevolution gradually over great durations of time in the past) requires that at some point in Earth's history, there were interstitial lifeforms(to get from an ape to human, there has be a part human part ape organism). The reason these interstitial lifeforms would still be living today is much for the same reason that the noninterstitials(pure apes, and pure humans for instance) are present today.

 

Imagine that around 13 million or so years ago, a pure-blooded Chimp somehow acquires .000000001% human DNA. Then the generation afterward does the same, this pattern continues. Now fast forward a few hundred thousand years, and we have the original chimps with 100% chimp genes descended from the original pure chimps, as well as chimps with 99.999999991% chimp DNA, descended from the generation after, as well as chimps with say 99.9991%  chimp DNA also descended from a later generation, as well as all the other interstitials from every generation in between that arose in that period of a few hundred thousand years all living together at the same time. Fast forward a few million years forward from that point, and chimps with say 60% chimp DNA would arise. Living alongside all the descendants of their ancestors(the chimps that are purely chimp, alongside the ones slightly more human, and the others slightly more human than them, and so on).

 

Do you see the problem here? If we fast forward to the present, all of the missing links' descendants bearing their mixed genomes would be living on Earth NOW just as they would have been millions of years ago(in addition to all the interstitials since then). Or in other words, you'd have chimps that are, for instance, .5% human descended from chimps early in their evolution towards humanity, living alongside chimps that are 40% chimp(which were descended from an original missing link that arose a few million years later), and you'd be able to show me every single of them in nature today as such. When in reality, there are only pure-blooded humans and pure-blooded chimps.

 

Now, you could posit punctuated equilibrium, but it makes no difference. It doesn't matter if they evolve at the rate of say 1% per 1000 years or at .0000000000001%, either way, you'd still have living missing links descended from the original missing links alive today. You could also argue that since humans are superior to chimps, all the missing links have been removed by natural selection in the past. But if this were so, then pure-blooded chimps wouldn't exist today either. As obviously, a partially human ape would be superior to a full ape. And as such the pure-blooded chimps would have gone extinct eons ago even before their increasingly human descendants would have.

 

It means you're confusing natural selection, which is a concept that refers to something that is observed to occur in reality. With other things like macroevolution, a process that has never been observed, nor can be observed in any capacity. Not any more so than purple unicorns gallivanting about the moon can be observed anyway.

 

The irony about your statement is that QM(the most successful theory in the history of science) being true necessarily means that your perception of reality is all that there is(or in other words, there's actually some substantial truth to this kind of solipsistic skepticism). And I was about to mention how even Einstein had a hard accepting QM because of this, and how he was in spite of that still a brilliant physicist. But you had to go and engage in reductio ab absurdum fallaciously.

 

But to be fair, when you're up against philosophical jibber-jabber, I suppose you can take a liberty or two in the way of logical loosegooeynessss.

 

To be fair, we don't need to know how to do either in order to do both.

 

 

We don't have the original chimp form, we're not evolved from the modern chimp. Humans evolved one way and our furry cousins another.

[kag101]

On 04/07/2022 at 1:13 PM, something_else said:

Quote

I highly doubt in a trillion years a giraffe could happen to have a big neck variant

Just look at how humans have selectively bred apex predator wolves into chihuahuas, pugs and sausage dogs over only 30,000 years. If you can go from wolf to sausage dog in 30,000 years you can go from giraffe with short neck to giraffe with long neck in 50 million years.

On 04/07/2022 at 0:15 PM, SQAAD said:

I think not in a billion years, a turtle could develope a shell by some random luck that just happened.

You are underestimating just how much time a billion years is.

A turtle doesn't just spontaneously generate a shell. It happens very gradually. Maybe you had a population of something that looked like a lizard, then the members of the population with the hardest skin survive more. Once you have a population with hard skin, eventually one of them has a mutation that very slightly infuses the bone and the hardened skin, giving it even greater defense. And then over time the members with greater degrees of this bone/skin infusion survive longer, and eventually you have a shell.

The reason I think these things seem unrealistic to you is that it's so difficult to process these timescales. It's also difficult to process just how much life there is on earth at any given time, all of which is evolving and mutating.

Quote

I think you're right. Maybe it's just the best we can do within the obviously false paradigm of the universe as a blind mechanical machine.

When you start from false assumptions, nothing that comes out of it will ever be true.

In a relative sense, from your POV, the universe is very very mechanical and operates pretty much like clockwork. From an absolute perspective reality is mystical and intelligently designed. It is possible for both of these things to be true at the same time.

God could conceive of a reality that is mechanical like clockwork

 

That makes sense. I didn't quite understand the nuance that evolution doesn't happen overnight. But instead, it's usually small changes that happen over a veeeery long period of time. And, yes, we humans have a very hard time grasping how much a billion year actually is.  

Anyway, you explained all of that well and clearly! Thanks  

[JuliusCaesar]

2 hours ago, Devin said:

We don't have the original chimp form, we're not evolved from the modern chimp.

This is an assumption only. You'd have to compare genomes between the original hypothetical chimp from millions of years ago against modern chimps to test this position(which obviously can't be done by any ordinary mortal, and if you could do that you wouldn't need to debate the facts here, you could simply observe all organisms from Earth's history going all the back to the first lifeforms, knowing from direct experience whether or not any macroevolution occurred).

 

2 hours ago, Devin said:

Humans evolved one way and our furry cousins another.

This doesn't address anything I've stated at all, and it's also rather obvious that if macroevolution were a real process this would be true on one level and false on another.

 

Something I haven't mentioned so far is the logical fallacy of equating microevolution to macroevolution built into the phraseology I'm using here. The processes by which, for instance, short-haired dogs evolve into long-haired dogs acts on and uses genetic information already existing within the genome which was dormant in the prior generation. The kind of change however that macroevolution requires would add not only novel information to the genome, but information that isn't deleterious junk dna(as is commonly created by all known mutation variants except for deletion mutations which simply remove information from the strand of DNA affected). This is because, for instance, there are DNA sequences present in all higher lifeforms(humans, fish, dogs, scorpions etc, etc) which are absent entirely from the genomes of unicellular lifeforms. So in order for such an organism to develop into anything other than a single cell it needs entirely new and useful/beneficial genetic information. A function no known naturalistic process has.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, JuliusCaesar said:

How many interstitials in your view exist between chimps and men?

You think humans evolved from chimpanzees? ?

[Devin]

7 hours ago, JuliusCaesar said:

This is an assumption only. You'd have to compare genomes between the original hypothetical chimp from millions of years ago against modern chimps to test this position(which obviously can't be done by any ordinary mortal, and if you could do that you wouldn't need to debate the facts here, you could simply observe all organisms from Earth's history going all the back to the first lifeforms, knowing from direct experience whether or not any macroevolution occurred).

 

This doesn't address anything I've stated at all, and it's also rather obvious that if macroevolution were a real process this would be true on one level and false on another.

 

Something I haven't mentioned so far is the logical fallacy of equating microevolution to macroevolution built into the phraseology I'm using here. The processes by which, for instance, short-haired dogs evolve into long-haired dogs acts on and uses genetic information already existing within the genome which was dormant in the prior generation. The kind of change however that macroevolution requires would add not only novel information to the genome, but information that isn't deleterious junk dna(as is commonly created by all known mutation variants except for deletion mutations which simply remove information from the strand of DNA affected). This is because, for instance, there are DNA sequences present in all higher lifeforms(humans, fish, dogs, scorpions etc, etc) which are absent entirely from the genomes of unicellular lifeforms. So in order for such an organism to develop into anything other than a single cell it needs entirely new and useful/beneficial genetic information. A function no known naturalistic process has.

A comparison of thousands of human and chimpanzee genes suggests that chimps have actually evolved more since the two species parted from a common ancestor approximately five million years ago, according to Jianzhi Zhang, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who led the research.Apr 17, 2007

https://www.technologyreview.com › ...

Chimps Are More Evolved than Humans - MIT Technology Review

 

 

Unicellular comment

We don't know a lot of stuff, that doesn't mean it can't be true. I don't see how you writing everything off as fallacy is any different than the people coming up with these theories.

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano Literally just conflating science and metaphysics. No better than a materialist. 

[Carl-Richard]

@JoeVolcano You can make hypotheses and do experiments without caring about metaphysics (that is what most scientists proport to do) and learn a lot about the behavior of nature. In fact, that is how science should ideally be done, but humans can't help themselves but to ground their reality in a metaphysics. However, metaphysics is concerned about what reality is, not only how it behaves. It's concerned with interpreting science, not disproving or discarding it. This is only made confusing by physicalists who place an equal sign between science and metaphysics. I'm telling you that is not necessary.

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

I still don't know what you're doing here.

I'm saying that you, along with OP, is trying to use metaphysics to discard science, because just like physicalists, you're conflating the two. You're both saying something along the lines of "all of reality, including rocks, fundamentally consists of consciousness, therefore rocks do not undergo erosion". The first part of the sentence is a metaphysical claim, and the second part is a scientific claim. OP is saying "all of nature is infinite intelligence, therefore mutations are not random", and you're saying "we can't encapsulate the infinity of nature as a whole, therefore we can't encapsulate the behavior of parts of nature".