Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Lets try again for those who may benefit from it.

Evolution is not about the origin of life, its about the diversity of existing live, evolution may change existing live but doesn’t cause life to exist/originate from nonliving matter.

An organism that is alive with the ability of growing and reproducing is an absolute prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. Without a living organism that can pass changes to offspring, no evolution would exist. evolution didn't play any role for the appearance of first life.

Life with the ability of reproducing is the starting point, from which the alleged evolutionary process may take place. Life creates a chance for the alleged evolution to exist. Evolution doesn’t create life. It changes life.

That said, the real process is adaptation as a result of directed mutation to allow an organism to better fit an environment. Survival is not a function of natural selection, survival depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit an environment. See # 1080

January 2022, SciTechDaily wrote,” DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution” , “Mutations of DNA do not occur as randomly as previously assumed, according to new research from Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen in Germany and University of California Davis in the US. The findings have the potential to dramatically change our view of evolution. “

DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution (scitechdaily.com)

Did you read that article? It does not seem to support you. It is saying that some areas of the genome are better protected than others. if anything it only says that change is "directed" away from the more important parts of the genome. It describes a survival mechanism. Not an intelligent force guiding evolution:

"Sophisticated statistical analyses revealed that these mutations were by no means randomly distributed in the genome, as the researchers had expected. Instead, they found stretches of the genome where mutations were rare, and others where mutations were much more common. In those regions with few mutations, genes needed in every cell and thus essential for the survival of every plant were greatly overrepresented. “These are regions of the genome most sensitive to harmful effects of new mutations,” Weigel says, “and DNA damage repair seems therefore to be particularly effective in these regions.” It is as if evolution were playing with loaded dice – it minimizes the risk of damaging the most vital genes."

You appear to be only reading the titles of articles and sources. You make refuting you all to easy when you do that since your own sources disagree with your interpretation.

 

[gnostic]

Bacteria, algae, protozoa, fungi, and viruses are all categories of microorganisms.

No, LIIA, viruses aren't organisms or life form at all.

You really should be reading modern biology sources. I am not even a biologist, but even I can see that you are reading OUT-OF-DATE materials.

As I have explained in previous post, viruses are not organisms.

The current knowledge on viruses, is that viruses are no longer considered as organisms.

Do you know what every organisms have in common, LIIA?

All life forms - meaning all biological organisms - from microorganism to larger organisms, all have something in common:

They all have CELLS.​

Virions and Viruses DON'T HAVE cells.

You're not paying attention to the current biological definition of organism or life. Organisms have cells.

Microorganisms are often unicellular organism - meaning each organism has only one cell. These cells in microorganisms can be

• prokaryotic - cell with no nucleus and no organelles (eg bacteria, archaea) or
• eukaryotic - cell with nucleus and organelles (eg protozoa, only some families and species of fungi and only some families and species of algae).

You are only partially right about fungi and only partially right about algae. Some algae are microorganism, while other algae are multicellular organisms, hence larger in size. And it is the same with fungi, only some of them are microorganisms, while the rest, like mushrooms are not microorganisms.

And I have already explained to you what virions and viruses are in my previous reply.

They are infectious agents, that have some organic molecules in their composition, but they don't have cells.

Viruses can infect any organism, by infecting the host cells. They can infect cells of animals, plants or fungi, but they can also infect bacteria.

You really should do research on biology and virology more contemporary than relying on sources that are 2 or 3 generations ago.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see there was a deluge in the night. Good grief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. I said there is no such thing as "Evolution". You are confusing change in species associated with consciousness with Evolution caused by survival of the fittest.

I am once again very tempted to calling you a blatant liar.

Let me remind you of your own words:

I certainly admit my knowledge of the ToE is very shallow but as I've said many times, I don't believe in Evolution so never saw much point in learning more than I needed for tests in school.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've already stated a few of these in the past and more are apparent. Our theories are very very different so experiments are easily invented.

All your questions here look like you are just ignoring my theory altogether. You want me to devise an experiment that assumes a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest and publish the results for Peer review. I can't do this because your assumptions are all wrong and Peers have no interest in evidence, logic, and experiment brought out by a different paradigm.

Frankly I wouldn't even bother to start with biology since it's more difficult to employ experiment. I would start with the hard sciences applied to things more easily defined and measured.

You quoted my question, but you did not answer it.
Stop with the evasion and the claiming that you "already gave your theory" without even linking it or citing it or whatever.

Instead of making me hunt for it, just state it here in response to my question. A link to a post where you explain it is fine also.

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?
2. What are the expectations and testable predictions that flow naturally from this thesis?
3. How do the facts, observations and experiments match these expectations and predictions?

 

[gnostic]

That said, believing in God is not in any way against science. As I said before, Founders of modern science were very favorable to this idea of God’s causal influence on the world. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein believed in God. See# 1034

The Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” that established the basis of the modern scientific method was driven by the very idea of God’s causal influence on the world.

Neither Newton, nor Einstein, were biologists, LIIA. They were physicists, while Newton was also a mathematician. So they weren't experts about life or biology.

LIIA, I have no problems with scientists and mathematicians who are theists.

My problems with religious people today, especially creationists, trying to mix their religious beliefs with sciences.

I don't have problems with all theists, especially those who understand modern Natural Sciences. Many theists here, do accept Evolution as tested explanation of biodiversity of life.

And I don't have problems with achievements of Muslim naturalists, mathematicians and inventors.

Applying "God", "allah", "creator" or "designer" to any natural phenomena, is nothing more than superstitions.

 

[cladking]

I am once again very tempted to calling you a blatant liar.

How can you possibly not understand such a simple concept as I don't believe in Evolution??!!

Based on experience and experiments done for many decades I believe species change but do not evolve. The mechanisms of change are NOTHING like Darwin believed.

 

[cladking]

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?
2. What are the expectations and testable predictions that flow naturally from this thesis?
3. How do the facts, observations and experiments match these expectations and predictions?

You continue to ignore everything I type out. Rather than copy and pasting everything I compose a unique post in every instance and see no point in typing out a whole book every time you want me to jump. \

I've told you many times all the evidence agrees that all change in life is sudden and change in species results from near extinction events which are dependent on consciousness which is related to genetics. Until you actually address any part of this there is no need for details such as how this theory makes different predictions than Evolution.

 

[cladking]

The influence of the biological ideas on evolution on social sciences and philosophy is a fact that shouldn’t be subject to any argument. The denial of such fact can only be attributed to ignorance, dishonesty or both.

You have to differentiate between the original purpose of the theory with respect to biology and the fact that its actual influence/impact on humanity extends beyond biology.

The 2017 article below published by the Royal Society stated:
“There cannot be much doubt that biological ideas on evolution have greatly influenced the social sciences and philosophy.”

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Thanks for the great posts. I'd love to comment extensively but lack the time. I'm in general agreement with you. People fail to recognize the importance of religion in general and Arab scholars in particular to the invention of science and getting it off on the right foot. But then most people now days think that science is a kind of magic that operates on intelligence so it's not surprising they don't understand even what they know.

Modern humans are walking babbling collections of what we believe. Pour in any sort of beliefs and we act accordingly. Darwin is the worst single thing that ever happened to the human race and more relevantly he was wrong across the board. Mans inhumanity to man was legendary long before Darwin but countless millions have been slaughtered in his name. Probably no single belief has caused more death, destruction, and misery than the belief in survival of the fittest and a gradual change in life taking us ever closer to perfection.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can you possibly not understand such a simple concept as I don't believe in Evolution??!!

That's not what the point was about.
The point was about you admitting / acknowledging that your knowledge about it is severely lacking.
Nobody cares what you believe.

But if you are going to insist on arguing against an idea, the least you can do is make sure to know what the idea is about. Your claims reveal your ignorance, you know...

Based on experience and experiments done for many decades I believe species change but do not evolve.

//facepalm

The mechanisms of change are NOTHING like Darwin believed.

How would you know? You said your knowledge is lacking.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You continue to ignore everything I type out. Rather than copy and pasting everything I compose a unique post in every instance and see no point in typing out a whole book every time you want me to jump. \

I've told you many times all the evidence agrees that all change in life is sudden and change in species results from near extinction events which are dependent on consciousness which is related to genetics. Until you actually address any part of this there is no need for details such as how this theory makes different predictions than Evolution.

And I have told you many times that we can't even BEGIN to discuss evidence for your ideas until you present your ideas in such a way that they even can have evidence.

And you do that by answering these questions:

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?
2. What are the expectations and testable predictions that flow naturally from this thesis?
3. How do the facts, observations and experiments match these expectations and predictions?

 

[cladking]

How would you know? You said your knowledge is lacking.

Incredible!

So you now believe one can't speak against Evolution unless He is a Peer but that being a Peer by definition means You believe in Evolution.

...the evolution of a paradox!

 

[cladking]

1. What is your falsifiable thesis?
2. What are the expectations and testable predictions that flow naturally from this thesis?
3. How do the facts, observations and experiments match these expectations and predictions?

And you need to address the basics of the theory before I'll repeat the details for the 50th time.

 

[cladking]

I've told you many times all the evidence agrees that all change in life is sudden and change in species results from near extinction events which are dependent on consciousness which is related to genetics.

I wrote this out with invisible ink and then typed it with invisible electrons. If you want to read it you might need to quote it, highlight it, and click the B. Address this and we can move forward.

 

[cladking]

Incredible!

So you now believe one can't speak against Evolution unless He is a Peer but that being a Peer by definition means You believe in Evolution.

...the evolution of a paradox!

Of all the incredible things I hear here perhaps the most incredible is that so many people think the burden of proof is on whomsoever doesn't believe in Evolution. It simply doesn't work this way. "Evolution" doesn't get a free pass because Peers believe in it. ALL theory is always under attack from new experiment, new observation, and new interpretations. This is how science works. Expecting challengers to disprove existing theory before establishing their own is more like religion than science.

 

[Jose Fly]

False.

Um....no. You keep quoting Gould as saying there are no transitional fossils, yet Gould specifically said people who do that do so either out of stupidity or intent (deceit) and that transitional fossils between larger groups are "abundant".

You simply saying "False" doesn't change that.

The universal common ancestry is a hypothesis that belongs to the Geisteswissenschaften, its not an exact science as Ernst Walter Mayr said in his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” on the other hand latest 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology (which disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis) is exact science. see #331 & #753.

So what is your definition of "exact science"?

Choosing exact science over the Geisteswissenschaften is not cherry picking.

Yeah, you're cherry picking. You quote and cite scientists when you think they agree with you, but then arbitrarily reject them when they don't.

Cherry picking happens when you selectively pick from within the same domain

And that's precisely what you're doing.

See the link below under "Criticism”

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

And?

no, this is a myth (you didn’t even bother to substantiate your claim)

Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and opposed to Darwinism | coelsblog (wordpress.com)

Therefore we are in agreement about this specific point and we may move forward.

LOL...so you have no point....just empty mud-slinging.

In these international conferences, scientists such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble present the latest in the field. As the President of the International Union (2013 Birmingham) of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble lecture was not about personal opinions. He cited many other scientists in his lecture. Again, its not a minority view see # 911.

Um....there's nothing in your post #911 that supports your assertion that their views are in the majority. Care to try again?

I provided many different articles about directed mutations in previous posts that have nothing to do with Denis Noble. See below

January 2022, SciTechDaily wrote,” DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution” , “Mutations of DNA do not occur as randomly as previously assumed, according to new research from Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen in Germany and University of California Davis in the US. The findings have the potential to dramatically change our view of evolution. “

DNA Mutations Do Not Occur Randomly – Discovery Transforms Our View of Evolution (scitechdaily.com)

Um....did you bother to read the article? All this work shows is that some regions in genomes are more likely to have mutations than others, and the regions where mutations are more rare still have them (just at a lower rate).

"However, despite the uneven distribution of mutations in a typical genome, the important regions are not entirely devoid of them, and these regions can therefore also evolve, although at a slower pace than other parts of the genome."​

So again I have to wonder...what exactly is your point? Some genomic regions experience higher rates of mutations than others, therefore.......?

Again, Noble was not presenting a personal claim and it’s not a minority view. See above.

You're going to have to support that claim. Your post #911 does not do that.

 

[gnostic]

No. I don't know anything unlike everyone else who knows everything.

Such hypocrisy. You don’t see the ignorance and arrogance that you have projected upon “everyone”.

I certainly admit my knowledge of the ToE is very shallow but as I've said many times, I don't believe in Evolution so never saw much point in learning more than I needed for tests in school. I've read a little but I've never found the "theory" convincing because I don't find it logical or in accord with other things I know. I never believed people when they told me babies can't communicate and animal are not conscious. I never liked taxonomies and have studied metaphysics preferentially to science since a young age. I know most people misapply math and theory to their daily lives because most people can compare reality to only one or two models simultaneously.

You have admitted that you have not study biology, beyond high school.

How could you possibly know what are convincing or not convincing when you actually know nothing about the evidence in biology?

You say you know what biologists got wrong, but you have never analyzed and understand the evidence.

So you admitted that your knowledge on Evolution, and yet you think you know everything that you tell all biologists they are wrong.

You are projecting your own stubborn ignorance and failing in education upon everyone but yourself.

That “you”, cladking, you are the one who “think you know everything”.

Metaphysics is a philosophy that don’t require any tests, observations, experiments or evidence, so Metaphysics isn’t science at all. It is outdated and overrated philosophy. The whole point to Metaphysics is to apply the “first principles” to nature, but these principles are only illusions, if there are no evidence to support the wishy-washy speculation, hence Metaphysics often relied on circular reasoning and confirmation bias to support their claims.

This is problem why you like Metaphysics so much, because if anyone say claims need to show “testable evidence”, a typical metaphysician would answer “who needs it?”

 

[cladking]

You don’t see the ignorance and arrogance that you have projected upon “everyone”.

Yes!!!! By George you finally have it. We are homo omnisciencis because we each believe we know everything. Of course we don't and we are individually and collectively highly ignorant. It is arrogance that makes people believe we sit at the crown of creation. In many ways there is no species on earth more ignorant or wrong headed than man. As little as an animal knows it understands how it knows it and why it must know it. Humans ask their priests of science and religion what's what and then they believe it. Believing it allows them to know everything and to see the world in terms of what they know. Homo omniscience is all knowing except for everything.

Where I embrace my ignorance most people think they know exactly what a river is and that once it is named they can step into it again and again.

Taxonomies, abstractions, and inductive reasoning might be great for communication but they have no referent in the real world where all consciousness exists.

 

[cladking]

You have admitted that you have not study biology, beyond high school.

I did not. I said I learned it enough to parrot back the "answers" the teachers wanted and even specifically stated I studied it several times in school. I am not a Peer nor a peer. I don't believe in Evolution.

How could you possibly know what are convincing or not convincing when you actually know nothing about the evidence in biology?

I have read many f the experiments and accounts of others. I am wholly unimpressed that they show what the experimenter concluded from them.

You are projecting your own stubborn ignorance and failing in education upon everyone but yourself.

Lol.

I don't believe n Evolution. I believe Darwin was deluded by what he wanted to believe.

This is problem why you like Metaphysics so much

I'm not sure I do "like" metaphysics. It is what it is and to know what you know you must know metaphysics. As such I am a metaphysician. While my math skills aren't what they once were I am adept at applying it to the real world and making good real world predictions. We all evolve over time but each of our lives still come, are, and end suddenly. We shuffle off the mortal coil much as we were when we flopped into it because our genes determine our natures and the experience that changes us. The parallels between individuals and species are strong. There are obvious reasons for this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many evolutionists consider that evolution of whales to be a crown jewel in evolution's case, a masterpiece thought to be an undeniable example of evolution in action.

The tale about the transformation of a four-legged wolf-sized land mammal into fully aquatic whale-sized animals spending no time on land needs quite a leap of faith but does the evidence justify the leap?

Evolutionists claim that they have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, a lineage of ancestors and descendants showing their movement from land to water.

The general timeline that evolutionists claim is as follows:

Pakicetus: around 50 million years ago, complete skeletons are rare but fossils suggest Pakicetus was a four-legged land mammal a bit like a wolf only one to two meters long

Ambulocetus: around 48 million years ago Ambulocetus which means walking whale was larger than its supposed ancestor

Rodhocetus: around 46.5 million years ago, showing features that would have benefited the creature to move through water

Procetus: around 45 million years ago

Kutchicetus: around 43–46 million years ago

Dorudon: around 37 million years ago, fully aquatic animals

Basilosaurus: around 37 million years ago, 50 foot long fully aquatic animals

Aetiocetus: around 24–26 million years ago, fully aquatic animals

This fossil sequence elongating bodies, nostrils moving around on the skull is considered some of evolution's best evidence transforming from a wolf-sized land-dwelling Pakicetus to whale-sized sea-loving Basilosaurus that evolutionists point to as picture perfect evidence for whale evolution but it is the tail created using these fossils true?

The fact is that these are fossils of different species. Evolution is assumed from the beginning as the only possible explanation and then that assumption is used to interpret the evidence.

No.

The model of evolution makes predictions and expectations, and those fossils exhibit traits matching those predictions and expectations.

That makes them evidence.
That the fossils belong to the same branch / group of species is determined through comparative anatomy etc. Not unlike how we group extant species.

Paleontologists and other people who are literally trained and qualified to do so, can derive quite a lot from mere "bone fragments".