Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:09 pm

UW:

1. Extinction doesn't invalidate dumb luck, as I told before a propos of whales. According to evolutionism, extinctions had to happen in exactly that order for whales to be there. Fossils from common ancestors are nowhere, but let's forget about it.

2. Further, let's suppose we have now 5 species living. Once 99% extincted, then 500 species existed in the past.

Does does prove evolution? Why?

3. If the last panda dies (I hope this will never happen), is that evolution? We'll have one less species. Think again.

4. Frankly, I have never understood extinction in natural selection.

Neanderthal evolved to Homo sapiens, they say, and that's OK for me.

My question is: why did Neanderthal extinct? Because they had already evolved to sapiens and were no longer needed? Why not before? Dumb luck.

In fact, they don't know why Neanderthal extincted. I know there are lots of theories and I could make mine, too. No need to add links here. The best theory I've read was that sapiens simply killed all Neanderthal with a thump. Great. Natural selection is fantastic indeed.

Darwin was right save for details, Greta would put it elegantly with chromatic harmony.

"Evolutionism" is not supported by empirical evidence!

This is why I'm not wasting anymore time on your boneheaded posts. The cockroach example is empirical. Antibiotic resistance is empirical. Darwin's findings were empirical. And actual speciation events have been observed to occur many times. All of this is empirical.

Engaging with you is beyond dumb. Goodbye.

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:00 pm

Bye, David. Everybody here will miss you.

I answered all your delicious and very cleverly masterminded empirical examples, but you ignore me. Quite unfair.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:10 pm I answered all your delicious and very cleverly masterminded empirical examples, but you ignore me.

When you answer them conviningly is when you should be congratulating yourself and so far you haven't convinced anyone. And you're still ignoring the question: what's your alternative to natural selection and evolution?

Darwin’s findings was a theory inferred from the empirical observations of variety.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:10 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:00 pm

Bye, David. Everybody here will miss you.

I answered all your delicious and very cleverly masterminded empirical examples, but you ignore me. Quite unfair.

I'm not saying goodbye to this thread. I'm saying goodbye to YOU. I refuse to engage with someone so dumb and dishonest. It's beneath me.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:31 pm1. Extinction doesn't invalidate dumb luck...

No indeed, but before we get to why a species dies out, do you not think it worthwhile to establish how it got there in the first place? It's a serious question: if the millions of species that are alive today are not related, (to say nothing of all the ones that are now extinct) by what mechanism did they come into being? And do you have any examples of this actually happening?

Just think about this, folks -- some smug, uneducated rando on the internet is actually so full of himself that he honestly believes he has overturned the entire scientific edifice of evolution that has so painstakingly been built up since Darwin, and which is supported by a massive array of evidence -- the fossil record, molecular biology, observed evolution (including observed speciation), and more. Isn't he cute?

Moreover, note that in the morass of his ludicrous mind, it couldn't be the case that biologists are just honest but wrong -- they're NOT wrong, of course, but that's not my point. According to hm they are dishonest. Thus does this ignorant little rando besmirch and slander untold numbers of trained professionals who have forgotten more than he'll ever know.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:21 pm Darwin’s findings was a theory inferred from the empirical observations of variety.

Well yes. That's called science. It is contrasted with affirmations of knowledge, based on anything but empirical observations.

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:07 pmJust think about this, folks -- some smug, uneducated rando on the internet is actually so full of himself...

Welcome to the forum, davidm.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” — Charles Darwin

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:09 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:21 pm Darwin’s findings was a theory inferred from the empirical observations of variety.

Well yes. That's called science. It is contrasted with affirmations of knowledge, based on anything but empirical observations.

Yep, it’s just a theory within the field of science. It’s not some golden edifice for those who worship it with a level of emotionalism which spontaneously appears in defense and reverence of the idolized. This is why there will always be some religion or another, even if it’s Eloi worshipping Morlocs. It’s the worship gene.

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:29 pm “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” — Charles Darwin

Or as Bertrand Russell put it: "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

I think Bill Murray nails it: "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person."

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:42 pm I think Bill Murray nails it: "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person."

The monkey says that if the dummy is the only one arguing then the dummy never wins.