Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

If it's unevidenced it holds the same epistemic status as unicorns and dragons. If we believe in God with no physical evidence, we must needs believe in griffins, trolls and and the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal. If we disbelieve in these due to no evidence, we must, to be consistent, disbelieve in God, as well.

Everything exists because God exists. Without an absolute at the beginning, there is nothing to give rise to probabilities. Everything we see or know is a probability not a brute fact.

At present I'm aware of none. So what?

So, you can accept the unknown because it’s logically necessary.

The same as yours --none.

Exactly, it’s never the nature but we can definitely infer existence/attributes.

Both are equally evidenced.

What? Do you mean both are false?

Do you believe in infinite regression?

Are you sure a first cause is necessary? Why would the first cause be a personage?

Who is taking about a personage? God’s nature is not attainable. We are relative being. Our understanding is limited to relative/caused entities within our realm, the absolute is beyond our grasp, yet must exist.

Life emerging from non-living matter, through unguided chemistry, is consistent with everything we know about chemistry and biology.

The illusion here is the impression that you have an explanation or a mechanism. You don’t have any. You cannot stop at the preceding domino and think you found the ultimate explanation. You need the first one. Chemistry is a behavior of matter, unless you explain the root cause of the observed behavior, you don’t have an explanation, chemistry is not magic or a brute fact, the observed behavior of matter as it interacts must be caused.

Life emerging magically, by an imperceptible magician, has never been seen. It's an extraordinary, unevedenced, extraneous claim.

The nature of all physical forces is imperceptible, the mechanisms through which it controls matter are imperceptible. By your logic, we should call it all the “invisible magicians” not “physical forces”. By your logic, your options are either to explain its nature/mechanism or accept it all as causeless magic that just exists on its own and takes control of matter in a mysterious unknown way. Yet we do know it’s caused since it’s not brute facts.

Life emerged, either by known, familiar chemistry, or by magic poofing. There is no evidence of conscious intention, and chemistry seems entirely adequate to accomplish the task.

If you don’t explain the root cause of chemistry itself as the observed behavior controlling the interactions of matter, you’re back to square one; without that cause, the behavior itself (chemistry) becomes a magic poof.

If the automated factory exhibit processes that collectively produce purposeful end products, then the factory and every process in it is a product of conscious intention. The factory encompasses all the natural processes that control matter and responsible for all the end products resulted from it.

there is abundant, consilient, concrete and first person evidence he existed.

Sure. Same is true for the prophets. Credibility of the person and scripture can be established through methods of historiography. If you can reasonably establish that the person is credible, then it's reasonable to trust the knowledge that he conveys.

No, you must critically evaluate the evidence. Not all historical evidence is equal.

Sure, that’s what you should do. Must people don’t, they typically shoot from the hip based on their own false presuppositions, which they consider it as facts. They don’t verify it, they presuppose it.

It's not an interpretation. It's an epistemic, logical fact.

Your opinion is relative to your perception/interpretation. It’s always a relative product of your mind/will. Everything gets its meaning/definition by being relative to something else. Without an absolute, all meanings/definitions are lost.

A distance gets defined as a meter by using a tape measure, the tape measure is calibrated by the manufacturer by being compared to a standard unit of length, the standard unit gets its definition by comparison to the national prototype, the national prototype gets compared to the international prototype, the first reference is self-defined. It doesn’t need to be compared to anything; it identifies everything, yet nothing defines it. It’s self-defined. Without it, no distance can be measured or have any meaning.

The point is, a distance is not defined to be a meter because of the tape measure, what gives definition to the tape measure itself? You need a self-defined root (absolute) at the end of the chain. Same logic is absolutely true for everything that exists. Everything is relative/contingent, and all relatives must be grounded in the absolute. Without the absolute, no relative is possible.

 

[LIIA]

I'd have to review "Descent," but I can certainly declare it misapplied.

Don’t you think it’s reasonable to get yourself familiar with “The Descent of Man” before you make any assertions?

I can claim they were poorly evidenced speculation -- and misapplied.

I agree it was poorly evidenced by Darwin but “misapplied”? I don’t think so. It’s a literal application per Darwin’s predictions in the “Descent”.

How are you conceiving"human?" Any organism with a hominin genetic complement is 'human'. I don't understand what you mean by "dehumanize." Diminish status, perhaps?

"...son of animal?!" We are animals, a species of ape, in fact.

To understand what it means “dehumanize”, you have to detach yourself from the ToE concepts to see the status of human's dignity/honor before and after the ToE. Humans are no longer humans but rather animals and sons of animals. This is literally what “dehumanization” means. It's “the consideration of humans as animals".

"...the savage?!" "Civilize?!" What are you talking about?

I’m talking about the “The Descent of Man”, the book that applies evolutionary ideas on humans. Get yourself familiar with it.

I get the impression you're just as hierarchical as the Nazis; that you see humans as placed on some divine pedestal, entirely distinct from nature.

Not distinct from nature, definitely distinct from animals.

Our unique ability to learn, contemplate, apply logic, appreciate beauty, values, morals, mercy, dignity, honor, even our ability to know and connect with God as the source and reference for every meaningful value that makes us humans as distinct from animals, all lost its real meaning as we accepted an idea that we are animals and sons of animals. Yet you can’t see any “dehumanization”. How can you say that?

I understand you may have your reasons to think evolution is true, but you cannot deny the “dehumanization” of man as a result of the ToE.

So you object to science, Darwin, and evolution because it dethrones man as the "paragon of animals?" Speciesist hubris!

I don’t object to science, not at all.

My belief doesn’t only encourage the scientific method, it mandates it and as I said Islam was the driving force behind the establishment of the modern scientific method. How can I object to science? the true science? see # 1644
Darwin's Illusion | Page 73 | Religious Forums

I indeed object to evolution. Evolution is a story, a historical narrative.
The adaptation of an organism is never a transformation into another.

TheToE is a morally neutral fact. It can be applied for good or ill. How it's applied is up to the individual. It's discoverer has nothing to do with its application.

So, you claim but no, its inventor has everything to do with its application on man. Get yourself familiar with “The Descent of Man”.

Fairytale?

A story, fairytale, historical narrative, it's just semantics.

Sorry in case the word bothers you, but you understand I don’t acknowledge evolution to be true, we discussed before but I will discuss my reasons further in following posts.

Don’t you consider the belief in God to be a fairytale? I don’t like that either, it's not true but it’s your view and you're entitled to it.

 

[LIIA]

But it has. This is old news. All these have already been observed and duplicated.

Wishful thinking. See # 1850

What alternative do you propose?

Intentional purposeful creation. As we discussed before, the initiation of a system is beyond science, not the universe and definitely not life. The system has to exist before any observation/experimentation may be possible. Science only works WITHIN a system, the fundamental questions with respect to the beginnings are beyond the domain of observational/experimental science. You can neither observe the beginning nor reproduce it. We cannot apply the wrong method in the wrong domain.

Semantics? What's hard to accept about accumulated changes?

What is hard to accept is the fact that per the proposed evolutionary concept, accumulated changes are totally random, not goal-oriented. If you literally need endless steps to get you from point A to point B, now imagine none of these steps is intentional or goal oriented, every step along the way is random, will you ever get to point B? Absolutely not, you will get to some random place but never to point B. Imagine, this is the case with every organism alive or ever lived. It’s a logical and mathematical impossibility.

Natural selection is not a creative force, meaning it cannot force a step in the right direction; it may only keep the right step if it ever happens somehow. At every step of these required endless right steps from point A to point B, there are endless possible wrong steps in the wrong directions, which are expected to happen then all the endless wrong steps are supposed to be eliminated by selection before we move on to the following step, the same extremely tedious process repeats again and again at every single step along an unimaginable long route towards an unintentional goal. In other words, for every mutation that happened to be advantageous, there should be millions of random non-advantageous mutations that got eliminated by selection. Do you understand what kind of mess the theory is proposing? And what it really entails? Do we see such mess in nature? Is it even possible? Is there enough material in the universe to try these random interactions? Absolutely not, it’s a fairytale.

In the real world, we neither see the enormous number of gradual transitional forms (advantageous mutations) nor the unimaginable number of unsuccessful mutations/life forms that supposedly got eliminated by selection.

Point B is an extremely difficult goal, harder than going from Earth to Mars. If you don’t have an intention to get there, if you don’t plan to get there, you will never be on Mars.

How are transitional forms illogical? Aren't all species transitional? Don't you believe species change over time?

Species adapt to the variables within an environment. Adaptation is very limited in the sense that it never drives a transformation into totally different species.

On the other hand, Natural selection may purify an existing species, but it doesn’t have any creative force. Selection may explain that a slow gazelle with weak legs becomes the most likely prey for a lion, but selection will never give the gazelle wings to fly away and escape. The ability to fly/escape a predator may be a matter of survival but it will never happen. A mountain goat may fall off the cliff every day, but they will never develop an ability to fly, every time it falls, it has seconds to hit the ground and die not millions of years to develop an ability to fly. A penguin may spend long hours under water every single day, but no random mutation or natural selection can cause penguins to grow gills or somehow develop an ability to breathe under water. We may see variants of penguins, but a penguin will always be a penguin.

If a necessary ability is not an intrinsic ability from day one, an organism wouldn’t have a chance of survival let alone developing further or better abilities. Simply If the organism is not initially equipped with what it takes to survive, it will never survive. If it doesn’t survive, it doesn’t evolve.

An organism may change color or grow to a different size, stop interbreeding with a variant but will never transform into a totally different organism. The mountain goat will never fly, and the penguin will never breathe under water. Such transformation is a fairytale.

Punctuated equilibrium is evolution. There's nothing radical about it.

the radical thing about punctuated equilibrium is the assertion that gradualism as proposed by Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.

You cannot deceive yourself by thinking it’s just another way and all roads lead to Rome. It doesn’t. Gradualism is an absolutely essential fundamental of evolution. If Gradualism is nonexistent in the fossil record, evolution is false.

There's nothing drastic about it. It's an accumulation of adaptations over time.
Do you not believe life has changed? If it has changed, what alternative mechanism could account for it?

The drastic thing is the claim that Tiktaalik transformed into Homo sapiens. Change/adaptation happens but alleged transformation is a story.

You keep thinking that you have a mechanism, but you don’t. Invisible laws of nature that control and impose order on matter through an unknown means is not a mechanism, it's an influence, you don’t know any mechanism of any sort. The action of the preceding domino is not an explanation of a root cause. Without a root cause, you don’t have an explanation.

The influence imposed by the preceding domino is not what caused the domino effect; it’s the causal influence that triggered the chain reaction at the very first domino and It’s not the first domino itself, the first domino is merely the first effect not the first cause. The first domino cannot trigger any action on its own or impose an influence on itself. The cause is neither another piece of domino nor an effect. It’s a causal influence of a nature different than any effect along the chain.

Adaptation transforms. How can accumulated adaptations not transform?

Because if the change is not a goal-oriented action towards a goal, you will not get there.

If I started in New York and walked West, my gradual, accumulated steps would eventually transport me to the Pacific coast. Small changes accumulate.

- If you don’t have any intention to go to the pacific coast

- If you neither have any idea nor care which road leads the pacific coast

- If every step you make is totally random and has nothing to do with the route/direction to the pacific coast

- If you have no means (or even want) to overcome the obstacles along the road.

- If you are mindless

- If you are totally blind

You will never get to the pacific coast

There is no mechanism that would stop these changes at the point of speciation.

Number of random possibilities is astronomical beyond belief, if there is no goal or a mechanism to initiate a calculated change towards a goal, you will not get anywhere.

 

[LIIA]

It's both reasonable and supported. Where are you coming up with this nonsense?

The real nonsense is the theory of evolution, here is why:

1) Randomness is a mathematical impossibility. See # 1517
Darwin's Illusion | Page 76 | Religious Forums

Considering the number of genes in a genome and possible combinations that can be randomly produced in nature for each single species, there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out all the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the alleged evolutionary process, even for a single species.

The human genome alone includes 30,000 genes; number of possible interactions gets to be so unimaginable (ten to the seventy thousand). Imagine the number of possible interactions for every single species on the planet.

2) Gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record. See # 1256
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

The alleged random transformation of one species into another is supposed to be a very slow/gradual process that entails an enormous number of transitional forms from species A to species B. every transitional form is assumed to be an advantageous random mutation that happened to be on the right track and was kept/filtered out be natural selection. It’s extremely important to understand that the alleged process is random without any intent to achieve any goal/end result, for every random mutation that happened to be advantageous, there should be millions of other random non-advantageous mutations that went in the wrong direction and got eliminated/ filtered out by selection.

Paleontologists typically focus on searching for the successful transitional forms which in theory (since the process is totally random) should be a small fraction of other random unsuccessful forms that were filtered out by selection.

Real world observations of the fossil record neither show numerous successful transitional forms which are necessarily required for an alleged transformation from species A to species B nor the literally endless unsuccessful forms that were filtered out by selection.

3) Every life form is perfect. See # 424 & # 1851
Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

If the process is random as claimed, then a very small fraction of the variants may be advantageous changes, the vast majority of variants should be errors, harmful mutation, deformations, problems of all kind, A BIG RANDOM MESS. Then selection as a purifying mechanism should not only be involved in the transforming of one perfect living organism into another but rather the vast majority of the purification process should be mainly involved in constant correction/elimination of millions of all kind of random errors in a tedious and extremely slow process as entailed by the hypothesis of random gradual change. We neither see such overwhelming random errors in living organisms nor in the fossil record.

.4) Human evolution. See # 326 & 327
Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

If speciation happens due geographic isolation (the new species can no longer interbreed with original species), then the new species will coexist independently along side with original species. Speciation is not a reason for original species to go extinct. Gradual speciation necessarily predicts enormous number of species and transitional forms/variants, both alive and in the fossil record. We don’t see that in nature.

If the alleged human transformation from LCA to Homo sapiens ever happened through speciation/transitional forms, then, we should see different human species today especially in isolated geographical areas. THEY CANNOT ALL GO EXTINCT. All living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species. The alleged speciation of humans never happened.

5) The crown jewels of alleged evolution cases and why its all false.

See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

See #1217 & #1298 for the alleged evolution of whales

Darwin's Illusion | Page 61 | Religious Forums

See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

Darwin's Illusion | Page 65 | Religious Forums

See #1252 for some evolutionary nonsense (Orce Man & Nebraska Man) that got refuted by scientists.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

6) The latest 21st century science disproved all the central assumptions of the modern synthesis (neo-darwinism). No exception. See # 753 & 781.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 38 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 40 | Religious Forums

The mainstream theory of evolution “ToE” is the “Modern Synthesis” which is a mid-20th century view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.

Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved the ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism). All the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved. No exception.

Below are the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis:

- First, genetic change is random.

- Second, genetic change is gradual.

- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.

- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.

2013 Birmingham, UK, As the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble said in his lecture, “ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPROVED in various ways and to varying degrees, and it is also important to note that a substantial proportion of the experimental work that has revealed these breaks has come from within molecular biology itself. Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

7) Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed. See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed. Cells have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur. Experiments demonstrated that cells come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply.

8) The paradigm shift. See # 911
Darwin's Illusion | Page 46 | Religious Forums

a) Here is some of what Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike”
“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them. To the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.”

Here is the link for the article that was published in 2017.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

b) Suzan Mazur book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.” The book is presenting evidence by major scientists from a dozen countries for a paradigm shift that is underway replacing neo-Darwinism. Denis Noble is credited as one of several biologists who have overturned Neo-Darwinism, along with many other top scientists such as: James A. Shapiro, Frantisek Baluska, Ricardo Flores, Nigel Goldenfeld, Eugene Koonin, Kalevi Kull, Eviatar Nevo, Peter Saunders, Stuart Newman, Luis P Villarreal, Carl Richard Woese and others.

See # 1597 for further info.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 80 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

A cause is not logically necessary,

Every contingent entity is caused. Causality is a fundamental principle. If you deny it as principle, then a “magic poof" becomes a legitimate explanation to anything. It’s not logical (unless you want to deny logic altogether).

and I have no idea why you'd think a cause/mechanism must be supernatural. All those we've discovered thus far have been natural.

Everything we've discovered thus far is within the physical realm after the Big Bang, the reality state that gives rise to the Big Bang itself (a contingent change) is necessarily supernatural; nothing beyond the BB is natural. It’s a simple logic.

Please show some evidence or examples of this 'supernatural'. Why must there be magic?

A causal influence is never magic; all causal influences that we know (physical forces) have unknown nature and exert its influence through unknown mechanisms. The unknown never means magic. There is no magic; there are unknown causes that exert observed influences through unknown mechanisms.

Are you saying it's reasonable to believe everything till it's been disproved? That's totally illogical. Believing in something with no evidence of existence is not reasonable.
Disbelief in something with no evidence of existence is reasonable; it's the logical default.

Everything we observe is evidence of God. Not only individually but rather collectively. We tend to think of individual causes for individual effects, but the absolute origin is not subject to such individuality. The causal influence of the universe is the cause for everything individually and collectively. It’s the cause for matter, laws, consciousness, intelligence, morals, values, etc. all of it without any exception are relative contingent entities and all must be grounded in the absolute. If nothing was ever there, nothing can be now. Whatever exists has to be rooted in the absolute origin.

Why are you pursuing an origin of life? Simply because an origin is logically required but not only for life but rather for everything in existence. You think of an origin as a relative necessity to an individual category and miss the fact that the origin is an absolute necessity for the collective existence. Nothing observable can account for its own existence, neither the perceived relative origins of individual categories nor the sources for these relative origins. The hierarchy of causality doesn’t stop tell it gets to the absolute origin for everything, which necessarily exists by virtue of its mere essence. Without it, no probability/contingent entity of any kind may emerge.

So God's unknowable; His existence unevidenced, and we're expected to believe in Him? Why? Why would that be reasonable?

God is knowable with respect to his existence and his attributes but not the essence of his being.

It's human culture that creates order and purpose. It's physics that produces design. There is no logical or scientific basis to believe otherwise; no magical personage is either evidenced or necessary

What produces physics and its laws? Is it magic? Why there are laws? What is the intrinsic nature of it? Why it exists? How it works?

Physics collectively is a factory that produces design. What designs/produces the factory? What is the origin source of order, rationality, purpose, design, intelligence, and consciousness?

The problem is that you think you have answers but without the origin, you have none.

 

[LIIA]

That's not what we're talking about. Remember, I showed you examples of gradualism in the fossil record and you claimed they were "challenged". So the question is, who has challenged those specific examples?

Do you mean your examples of gastropod species that are exhibiting some morphological variations? It’s an adaptation example of some variants of gastropods, so?

Gradualism is the transformation from species A to species B through numerous transitional forms that must have existed for every single organism either alive or ever lived on earth. Again, some challenged examples don’t cut it.

When I say, “Challenged examples”, I don’t mean your example (it's certainly not the ultimate evidence of the ToE) or any other individual example, I mean all alleged examples of transitional forms ever unearthed from the fossil record.

I'll take that as a "No" and conclude that you've never read any of the criticisms of Nobel.

Your guess is wrong; I’ve seen some minor criticism from noncredible sources. That’s why I asked you to provide your credible reference. But again, both gradualism and punctuation were criticized, what does that criticism mean to you?

Yet when he tells you that evolution happens, all life shares a common ancestry, and humans share a common ancestry with other primates, suddenly he's not so credible or persuasive, is he?

You don’t know what he tells about evolution, it’s your wishful thinking.

He says that evolution is a story or a historical narrative, same as what Ernst Mayr said (see # 331).

Here are Nobles exact words about evolution:

“Why should a physiologist be concerned about the question what is life? First of all to be concerned with that you have got to be concerned with the central theory of biology or THE CENTRAL STORY OF BIOLOGY because I think that what WE CALL EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS ACTUALLY A STORY AS A HISTORY which of course is the central idea”

I’m not saying he doesn’t acknowledge evolution. He does, but he acknowledges it as a story not as a theory. Yes, the story makes sense to him; I don’t deny that, yet it stays a story. I don’t acknowledge the story.

See his lecture, 5:54

(183) "What is life"-lecture: Denis Noble - YouTube

So what?

So logical impossibility means it cannot and didn’t happen.

No, I'm saying they misapplied Darwinian concepts.

Meaning, what they applied was Darwinian concepts but, on your end, you think their application of it was a wrong/misapplication.

You can't have it both ways here. You don't get to say that the Nazis accurately applied Darwinian concepts while also saying that they were wrong to commit genocide against Jews and others.

The Nazis applied Darwinian rubbish concepts accurately. Accurate application doesn’t mean that the concepts were not rubbish.

If the targets of their atrocities weren't "less fit", then the Nazis could not have been accurately applying Darwinian concepts.

So which is it?

Nazis atrocities targeted the “less fit”/unworthy of life and they considered the Jews to fit in this category.

Three things. First, what support was given for the claim that the EES is a "widespread feeling"? Any numbers?

The paper did give any numbers, just said “widespread”.

Second, "widespread" is not the same as "majority". You should know that, being an English expert and all.

I never used the word “majority”. You are the one who used it, I never did, you’re playing a meaningless semantic trick.

Third, if the EES is a majority view among biologists, why is it so controversial?

Dogmatic resistance. See # 911

Oh, one more thing. Let's say for the sake of argument that the EES is a majority view among biologists. So what? According to the Wiki page you linked to, it's simply about additional ways in which evolution occurs. So I gotta ask...do you agree that evolution occurs? It also maintains universal common ancestry and human-primate common ancestry. Do you agree with those as well?

I agree that all fundamental assumptions of the modern synthesis were disproved. You cannot disprove all fundamental assumptions of a theory and claim that the theory still stands. It’s illogical. Other than that, what is remaining is a story (historical narrative).

Oh, so he's a great scientist who we should all believe....except when it comes to the fact that evolution happens, universal common ancestry, and human-primate common ancestry. Then he's just a "meaningless story teller".

If you don't see the problem there, I can't help you.

He acknowledges evolution as a story, same as Ernst Mayr, it’s not even my claim. See above.

So you believe God is deliberately giving bacteria mutations that allows them to overcome antibiotics. God is deliberately giving pathogens mutations that allow them to evade treatments. God deliberately gave the parasite that causes malaria the mutations that allow it to infect and kill millions upon millions of humans.

Every mutation that has ever existed has been an act of God, which means God is personally responsible for every disease, pathogen, parasite, and pest that has caused immeasurable suffering and death.

That's sick.

Everything is caused, everything is intentional, the entire cause/effect system is designed to function in a specific way. If you ask why, religions (Islam) provide logical explanation.

FYI, a journal publishing an article does not constitute them endorsing its contents. You should know that.

Not true, if not endorsed, it wouldn’t be allowed for publishing.

A study by a Chinese team published on January 5, 2016 in “Plos One”, studied the human hand; the researchers mentioned the “Creator” three times. The team was under vicious attack, “PLOS ONE” retracted the article and stated, “the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.”

Nature wrote “Researchers who wrote, “design by the Creator” in a paper about the function of the human hand have triggered a debate over the quality of editing and peer review at the journal that published it — and ultimately retracted it.”

Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern | Nature

Unless the contents are endorsed, the article cannot be published.

 

[gnostic]

Irrelevant question, I’ve been talking about an influence not a curriculum. Do you understand the difference?

There are lot more to Natural Selection and to the theory of Evolution than just Darwin's original concept.

The question is why are you so fixated in trying to prove Darwin's wrong, when he is only a pioneer.

Other biologists have contributed to correcting, modifying, refining, expanding the theory BEYOND Darwin's original ideas.

You are being so blinded by what he might Darwin's original ideas, that you forget that today's theory is quite solid, and based on large numbers of evidence that support Natural Selection, including modern knowledge (eg genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, cell biology, molecular biology, modern medicine, pathology, etc) all of which support Natural Selection and other mechanisms of Evolution. Then there are modern procedures and techniques, a number of different types of DNA testings (eg genome testing, nuclear DNA (nDNA), mitochondrial DNA, plastid DNA testing of plants, algae and bacteria, protein testings, etc).

There are more to Evolution than just paleontology and fossils.

Understanding Evolution is also important in bacterial diseases and viral diseases (although technically, viruses and virions are not organisms, as they do not have cells; they are infection agents that can infect all known eukaryotic organisms).

If you really want to debunk Evolution, then try debunking the modern updated theory, and not Darwin.

Darwin's original concept is old news, and it seemed to be stupid trying to blame things that Darwin didn't know about in the 19th century.

I don't see creationists focusing on the 19th century works of Faraday and Maxwell on electromagnetic fields. While there are still applications using their equations, EM fields have also been modified, refined and updated in the 20th & 21st centuries, particularly in the area of Quantum Electrodynamics.

I just find creationists are desperate and weak in faith when they only focused on the past (eg on Darwin) and not the present theories. And they are absurd to the point of stupidity when they associate Evolution with religion or with atheism. Desperate and stupid is what I see among YEC creationists (eg some Protestants sects, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islamic literalists, etc) and ID creationists (eg Discovery Institute).

You do live in the 21st century, don't you? Do you see biologists today, ditching Evolution?

 

[cladking]

There are lot more to Natural Selection and to the theory of Evolution than just Darwin's original concept.

The question is why are you so fixated in trying to prove Darwin's wrong, when he is only a pioneer.

Other biologists have contributed to correcting, modifying, refining, expanding the theory BEYOND Darwin's original ideas.

Darwin built his "theory" on quicksand. It's far too late to go back and try to shove a foundation under it.

 

[cladking]

Our brain interfaces reality through our five sense. This allows data to enter the brain, that is not connected to our DNA. Our DNA may define how our brain will naturally interpret data, but places like culture are not natural and come to us from the outside, making the brain more than just genetics.

Humans are different than ALL OTHER LIFE. All life is individual but every other individual in existence process input in terms of the wiring of the brain and this wiring is natural and logical. The input is processed logically. Humans were once equally logical and used a logical language but such a language becomes more complex as more is learned and this language became too complex for all users beginning in 3200 BC and culminating in the "tower of babel" circa 2000 BC. Ancient people believed we have more than 200 senses.

We no longer can see reality at all. We see what we believe. Our brains are operated through the broccas area which is needed to translate to our new analog and abstract language.

My theory is one of the key external pushes, that led to modern humans, was connected our original alliance with dogs. Before domestication, we were two apex species that learned to work together, since each gave the other advantages. Human came from apes and dogs are canine. Their instincts are different, while both are apex animals at the top of the food chain fully able to thrive.

It's an interesting idea. Certainly dogs are more like us than an other life form. I suspect though that this results from selective breeding. It could also work the other way to a limited extent since those most in tune with dogs might be more successful.

Dogs are so tuned to humans and vice versa, since we became part of each other, long ago.

Much of the success of the teaming with dogs is that they expand our senses of taste and smell and to a more limited extent hearing and "danger". By the same token we are the hands and eyes of dogs. We can usually keep them safe even when chasing bears out of caves.

Domestication of dogs occurred about 30,000 years ago and shifted the balance of power. Humans had learned well and became the head of the pack.

Dogs are much better at protecting people from other people than from wild animals. Humans have long been the major threat to most humans and to their property.


Dogs still process data like other life forms but are in tune with humans if not so much our language. Other animals just can't think the way we do. Most would quickly perish if they could.

 

[cladking]

The illusion here is the impression that you have an explanation or a mechanism. You don’t have any. You cannot stop at the preceding domino and think you found the ultimate explanation. You need the first one. Chemistry is a behavior of matter, unless you explain the root cause of the observed behavior, you don’t have an explanation, chemistry is not magic or a brute fact, the observed behavior of matter as it interacts must be caused.

I couldn't agree more.

However it's entirely possible that the further we go back in time the smaller the dominos become. It is possible that there is a "natural" explanation. While "God" is the most apparent explanation there is still some probability that reality could have emerged from unseen, unknown, and/ or unconsidered forces.

This knee jerk rejection of Evolution believers that the possibility that the "obvious" answer in impossible is quite unseemly. We have an uncanny ability to not only see everything in terms of our beliefs but also to not change these beliefs even in the face of massive contradicting evidence and anomalous observation. Beliefs come to define not only how we think but who we are. Everything becomes as instinctive as birds scattering when a cat appears.

 

[cladking]

To understand what it means “dehumanize”, you have to detach yourself from the ToE concepts to see the status of human's dignity/honor before and after the ToE. Humans are no longer humans but rather animals and sons of animals. This is literally what “dehumanization” means. It's “the consideration of humans as animals".

Religion tied man to his humanity after the tower of babel. But now wholly without experiment or evidence science tells us that "morals" don't exist. The only thing that is true is your enemy will fall after he is murdered for being less fit. There is only natural "law" and there is no God's "law" or anything directing behavior other than nihilism and greed. So now we have a world with no morals except "greed is good".

Modern "morals" are inhuman and dehumanizing. It's little wonder that so few are happy and so many unsuccessful people kill themselves though suicide or the way they live. Even successful people often find no fulfillment in their lives and are very unhappy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are lot more to Natural Selection and to the theory of Evolution than just Darwin's original concept.

The question is why are you so fixated in trying to prove Darwin's wrong, when he is only a pioneer.

Other biologists have contributed to correcting, modifying, refining, expanding the theory BEYOND Darwin's original ideas.

You are being so blinded by what he might Darwin's original ideas, that you forget that today's theory is quite solid, and based on large numbers of evidence that support Natural Selection, including modern knowledge (eg genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, cell biology, molecular biology, modern medicine, pathology, etc) all of which support Natural Selection and other mechanisms of Evolution. Then there are modern procedures and techniques, a number of different types of DNA testings (eg genome testing, nuclear DNA (nDNA), mitochondrial DNA, plastid DNA testing of plants, algae and bacteria, protein testings, etc).

There are more to Evolution than just paleontology and fossils.

Understanding Evolution is also important in bacterial diseases and viral diseases (although technically, viruses and virions are not organisms, as they do not have cells; they are infection agents that can infect all known eukaryotic organisms).

If you really want to debunk Evolution, then try debunking the modern updated theory, and not Darwin.

Darwin's original concept is old news, and it seemed to be stupid trying to blame things that Darwin didn't know about in the 19th century.

I don't see creationists focusing on the 19th century works of Faraday and Maxwell on electromagnetic fields. While there are still applications using their equations, EM fields have also been modified, refined and updated in the 20th & 21st centuries, particularly in the area of Quantum Electrodynamics.

I just find creationists are desperate and weak in faith when they only focused on the past (eg on Darwin) and not the present theories. And they are absurd to the point of stupidity when they associate Evolution with religion or with atheism. Desperate and stupid is what I see among YEC creationists (eg some Protestants sects, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islamic literalists, etc) and ID creationists (eg Discovery Institute).

You do live in the 21st century, don't you? Do you see biologists today, ditching Evolution?

There is much that we do not know. That is the basis of inquiry. But what I see claimed here is just what others believe fills the gaps of the unknown. And without any benefit of evidence that their imaginary views are reality. It distills down to a god of the gaps argument by bias, deluge and failed claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Natural selection is not a random process. Nothing I have ever studied in science says that everything is random. Just that there are random components of systems. Arguing that science sees it as all random is a red herring.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you mean your examples of gastropod species that are exhibiting some morphological variations? It’s an adaptation example of some variants of gastropods, so?

Go back and look at the article (post #1406). The example I posted contains cases of anagenic speciation. Heck, it's even right there in the title, "Biological Radiations and Speciation"!

Gradualism is the transformation from species A to species B through numerous transitional forms that must have existed for every single organism either alive or ever lived on earth. Again, some challenged examples don’t cut it.

You've not shown any challenges to the examples I provided.

Your guess is wrong; I’ve seen some minor criticism from noncredible sources.

Such as?

But again, both gradualism and punctuation were criticized, what does that criticism mean to you?

It means evolutionary biologists have debates over modes of speciation and which one predominates. So?

You don’t know what he tells about evolution, it’s your wishful thinking.

He says that evolution is a story or a historical narrative, same as what Ernst Mayr said (see # 331).

Here are Nobles exact words about evolution:

“Why should a physiologist be concerned about the question what is life? First of all to be concerned with that you have got to be concerned with the central theory of biology or THE CENTRAL STORY OF BIOLOGY because I think that what WE CALL EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS ACTUALLY A STORY AS A HISTORY which of course is the central idea”

I’m not saying he doesn’t acknowledge evolution. He does, but he acknowledges it as a story not as a theory. Yes, the story makes sense to him; I don’t deny that, yet it stays a story. I don’t acknowledge the story.

LOL...so basically you're doing exactly what I said....cherry picking from your chosen expert. When he claims mutations aren't random, he's a world-renowned expert who everyone should listen to, but when he says evolution is the central story of biology, that can be waved away.

If you don't see the issue there, I can't help you.

So logical impossibility means it cannot and didn’t happen.

Is anyone arguing that every mutation that's ever been possible has occurred?

Meaning, what they applied was Darwinian concepts but, on your end, you think their application of it was a wrong/misapplication.

The Nazis applied Darwinian rubbish concepts accurately. Accurate application doesn’t mean that the concepts were not rubbish.

Nazis atrocities targeted the “less fit”/unworthy of life and they considered the Jews to fit in this category.

Again you're doing exactly what I said...trying to have it both ways. You want to argue that in declaring Jews and others "unfit" and mass murdering them, the Nazis were accurately applying Darwinian concepts, but you also want to say that Jews and others weren't actually less fit.

If you don't see the issue there, I can't help you.

The paper did give any numbers, just said “widespread”.

I never used the word “majority”. You are the one who used it, I never did, you’re playing a meaningless semantic trick.

So we can dispense with the notion that the EES is a majority position within evolutionary biology.

Dogmatic resistance. See # 911

That's it? Funny how neutral theory found its way into mainstream evolutionary biology, despite this "dogmatic resistance". I wonder what's so special about the EES that triggered this "dogmatic resistance" that neutral theory lacked?

I agree that all fundamental assumptions of the modern synthesis were disproved. You cannot disprove all fundamental assumptions of a theory and claim that the theory still stands. It’s illogical. Other than that, what is remaining is a story (historical narrative).

Um....that's not what the EES is. From the Wiki page you've linked to....

"The extended evolutionary synthesis revisits the relative importance of different factors at play, examining several assumptions of the earlier synthesis, and augmenting it with additional causative factors.[1][2] It includes multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, evolvability, and several concepts from evolutionary developmental biology."​

All of that seems relatively uncontroversial; it's just a reevaluation of the relative roles of known mechanisms and adding in a few more, which is why the Wiki page also states that some evolutionary biologists have questioned the need for a formal EES and argue that they can just modify the existing framework.

So again, I have to wonder what your point is. Some evolutionary biologists argue that there's a need for a brand new "EES" that reshuffles the roles of some mechanisms by which evolution occurs and adds other mechanisms to the mix. Other evolutionary biologists generally agree with the reshuffling and new mechanisms, but feel all that can be accomplished by merely tweaking the existing framework.

So what?

Everything is caused, everything is intentional, the entire cause/effect system is designed to function in a specific way. If you ask why, religions (Islam) provide logical explanation.

What does Islam say about God creating organisms specifically to cause human death and suffering?

Not true, if not endorsed, it wouldn’t be allowed for publishing.

Yes it is. CLICK HERE for one example. CLICK HERE for another.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is exactly the question here. Who does understand how evolution works since Darwin didn't?



But they don't go around saying Darwin was wrong much either and they still believe in "survival of the fittest".

From what I understand, some don't understand it, in fact I daresay most do not, but go on as if evolution was a fact anyway. Poor little Einstein. Couldn't understand the way of the universe...and others just philosophize about life in the cosmos etc and etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "something like that" cleared it up for you?

So it's not life evolving by natural selection, like octopuses evolving to something similar but different, I mean from an octopus by natural selection but not an octopus? By natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

Natural selection is not a random process. Nothing I have ever studied in science says that everything is random. Just that there are random components of systems. Arguing that science sees it as all random is a red herring.

Does natural selection think?

 

[John53]

So it's not life evolving by natural selection, like octopuses evolving to something similar but different, I mean from an octopus by natural selection but not an octopus? By natural selection.

That is word salad, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[gnostic]

Darwin built his "theory" on quicksand. It's far too late to go back and try to shove a foundation under it.

Darwin’s original concept (as well as the other contemporary pioneer of Natural Selection, Alfred Russel Wallace) is just a start of Evolution.

You do understand that other biologists can contribute and update Evolution, it’s called “progress”.

Progress occurred in all branches, fields and subfields of sciences. It occurred in physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy, medicine, and to all forms of technology.

From the 1930s, they were able to augmented Natural Selection with Mendelian genetics on inheritance that provided better understanding of both genetics and evolution: the Modern Synthesis.

More understanding occurred later when they were able to understand RNA & DNA. And even more so with today’s biochemistry and molecular biology.

I don’t see why you believe biology on Evolution is stuck in the 19th century? You clearly don’t understand any science at all, when you think science don’t allow for progress and update.

Even as late as 1918, astronomers were still stuck in believing that the Milky Way is the whole universe, and there is only one galaxy. They knew about Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A, and others but they were mistakenly thought and misidentified them as nebulas, not galaxies of their own.

1919 changed all that, when Edwin Hubble view the sky with the newly built Hooker Telescope, the largest optical telescope in the world at that time. Even more powerful telescopes were in the decades to follow, including radio astronomy and those that can be launched into space.

We are not stuck with telescopes that 17th century Galileo and 18th century Newton have used. Not only did technology advanced, so did our understanding of astronomy, and we still learning something new.

Galileo and Newton have made their fair shares of mistakes, as well as Einstein and many other prominent scientists, to the limitations of their times.

Why are you stuck on Darwin's limitations and not the progress made by other biologists?

You haven’t offer alternative model that explain how organisms change over time, the diversification of species.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is word salad, I have no idea what you're talking about.

OK, sorry if you don't understand it or can't explain how and what 'natural selection' animal supposedly evolved from the octopus. Thanks. Perhaps another time in the future we can talk.