Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
There are four basic food groups: ice cream, pizza, soft drinks, potato chips.
You cannot invert here to there if there is no there..
Hmmm... In a first reality or in a second reality.?.
Illusion has a basis in reality for it to be illusory.
I think if you investigate Speciation, it is another illusion. Punctuated equilibria places emphasis on speciation: dominance and non-directionality. Punctuated equilibria says speciation events are where most evolution occurs..that it allows change to happen. Eldredge and Tattersall state" Most major change is related to speciation events. Certainly no one has ever shown much real evolutionary change to occur in lineages where there has been no speciation." During these speciation/punctuation events, a new species experiences a large amount of evolutionary change. Gould, Stanley and Eldredge admit that the direction of speciation is highly unpredictable or "random". "There simply is no hard and fast relationship between the origin of new species and the sorts of anatomical and behavioral changes which are the stuff of adaptive evolution" (Eldredge and Tattersall)
So since they claim most evolution occurs in short, rapid bursts (punctuation) followed by stasis. This produces a large morphological gap. They then claim most evolution occurs at speciation. Also Speciation has no inherent directionality. A daughter species, for example, tends to originate in a random, non-adaptive direction from the parent species.
So how do you explain adaptation. How can adaptation arise if change is concentrated in events that are random concerning adaptation?
Guess what they come up with? A mechanism they call species selection: selection at the species level. According to this, entire species are selected, rather than individual organisms. So entire species survive or perish, according to their adaptations.
Speciation is to species selection as mutation is to individual selection.
So see the illusion? evolutionary theory has structure.
They claim species selection reequires that species are driven extinct because they are less adapted. BUT this is speculative and not supported by the fossil record.
Raup, evolutionist, admits this "Sadly, the only evidence we have for the inferiority of victims of extinction is the fact of their extinction" A circular argument.
Also John Maynard Smith used population genetics to show that species selection is inadequate to account for the degree of adaptation observed in the record.
One could go on and on and on but every time a theory is revealed to have flaws, they simply try another one. If one actually trys to keep up with all these "scientists" you can spot all the conflicts, contradictions, circular reasoning and illusions. Evolutionary theory is not science; it is a smorgasbord.
Recall, the classic evidences for evolution never were valid because evolution never predicted them. They were merely used as evidence against a designer. Evolutionary theory has no coherent structure. It is amorphous. It is malleable and can readily adjust to disparate patterns of data. Kinda like how fog accommodates landscape. Evolutionary theory FAILS to clearly predict anything about life that is actually true.
We'll each find out about reality soon enough. In the meantime serve justice: do good to friends and evil to enemies. Merry Christmas!
I don't know what illusion is, but it is definitely something.
But can they hold a candle to all those "scientists" faking the data to advance their careers, lol.
I thought the essential food groups were caffeine, alcohol, fats, and sugars.
Or are some of those vitamins?
I can think of many reasons why they would or wouldn't. It depends where the discourse takes place. On the popular level where Dawkins lives and breathes, he knows better than any which one he'll choose.
Additional dimensions are increasingly accepted - both of space and time - as physics continues to search for the Higgs field/boson: Mysteries of Mass
Inversion in 1D is an operator I such that, for every x, I x -> -x.
Do you see any t there? Do you see any other coordinate y there?
He [Darwin] discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design.
Not true. Darwin hypothesized that the laws of physics could lead to the great variety of living forms in the fullness of "geologic" time. He did not discover that they "could" or "did".
The breathtaking power and reach of Darwin’s idea—extensively documented in the field, as Jonathan Weiner reports in “Evolution in Action”—is matched by its audacious simplicity. You can write it out in a phrase: nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions for building embryos.
And still no one has shown this can lead to life as we know it in "geologic" time.
True design, the kind we see in a knapped flint, a jet plane, or a personal computer, turns out to be a manifestation of an entity—the human brain—that itself was never designed, but is an evolved product of Darwin’s mill.
But, then, "true" design is also not by design, hence, not true. Is this a contradiction?
Paradoxically, the extreme simplicity of what the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett called Darwin’s dangerous idea may be its greatest barrier to acceptance.
Dennett is the kook who thinks that not only do you not exist, neither do your thoughts.
The arguments of creationists, including those creationists who cloak their pretensions under the politically devious phrase “intelligent-design theory,” repeatedly return to the same big fallacy. Such-and-such looks designed. Therefore it was designed.
This is painting with a very broad brush indeed. More accurately: some who reject the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories of evolution have argued that living structures of the complexity existing could not have evolved in "geologic" time by random variation and natural selection
If, as the maverick astronomer Fred Hoyle mistakenly thought, the spontaneous origin of life is as improbable as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and having the luck to assemble a Boeing 747, then a divine designer is the ultimate Boeing 747. The designer’s spontaneous origin ex nihilo would have to be even more improbable than the most complex of his alleged creations.
Unless He has always been around. Then, you don't need an explanation of where He came from.
"intelligent-design bullyboys"
No propaganda here! Just rational argument!
The equivalent gaps for any creationist or intelligent-design theory would be the absence of a cinematic record of God’s every move on the morning that he created, for example, the bacterial flagellar motor. Not only is there no such divine videotape: there is a complete absence of evidence of any kind for intelligent design.
The absence of a testable model for Darwinian evolution is evidence for intelligent design. The essence of intelligent design seems to be that the Darwinians have no model for how life could have evolved by random variation and natural selection. What does that leave?
“Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise.
It's just a coincidence that children, after 150 years of Darwinism, are now behaving much more like animals.
Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism.
Does the following from Mein Kampf sound more like it came from a Catholic or a Darwinian? "The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind everything in the ruck that is weak or diseased or wavering, while the fight of the male for the female gives the strongest the right, or at least the possibility, for the propagation of its kind."
... doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. ... Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live.
So, what is your point?
Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company.
Dawkins is opposed to physical law! What a mass of contradictions he is!
Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics.
And just what in the heck is a normative force, Mr. Dawkins? Is it a physical force or some other kind? If it's not physical in origin, how can you blithely ascribe everything that happens in evolution to physical forces?
Evolution is a fact.
Yes, but the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is a theory.
A line would have cartesian attributes, positive in one direction, negative in the other. Any mathematical operation could be performed on these ordered numerical values, including inversion, negation, addition, scaling, reordering, rotation, reversion, eversion, metaversion, paraversion, or any symmetry operation.
Jeepers, b_sharp, you seem quite disappointed that anything can be conceived that is beyond the realm of science -- and that you actually appreciate/approve the aim of scientific materialism: to reduce God to "nothing" because God is (a) outside spacetime; (2) not physical; and (3) therefore not properly an object for science at all. But because God does not reduce to your method does not mean that God does not exist.
By now we have something like 39 millennia of human testimony/experience that God exists. That testimony (in some form or other) seems to be universal to all human cultures, at all times and places, throughout human history.
If you were a half-decent empiricist, I think you'd have to qualify such testimony as directly admissible in the evaluation of the question of whether God exists. To do otherwise amounts to the claim that humanity has been totally irrational, the whole human race just a gang of superstitious morons, easily misled, prior to the Enlightenment. And then -- and only then -- did humankind acquire the habits of reason and start to get things "right" -- for the first time in the history of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Instead, because you can't stick God under the microscope and subject him to direct empirical tests, or observe him through a high-power telescope, you simply say he does not exist.
And you accuse me of telling "just-so stories!" It is inconceivable to me that something outside of spacetime that is not physical can have a physical cause that arises in spacetime. And I gather that "physical cause" is what you mean by "cause."
Not at all. One of the early solutions involved five dimensions. The four-dimensional solution was Minkowski's. Modern solutions involve 10, 11, or 26 dimensions.
Huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.