Darwin's Illusion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

science is now attesting to the idea that there was and is lots of water deep in the earth.

It doesn't help the myth if it's in the earth. As you've been told, there is no known mechanism to make it flood the surface or return to the inner earth. There is also water in hydrated minerals, but that won't be flooding the earth, either.

an atheist doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence, but such a person won't definitely say there is no God, is that correct?

Yes. That's the definition of agnostic atheism. Incidentally, I don't use the phrase "no evidence." I prefer insufficient evidence of gods to justify belief in them.

Water can "suddenly unbind" when God wants it to.

Water obeys the laws of nature. It's never been seen to do otherwise.

Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Do you think that means that there is a shortcoming to the analogy? Is there another possible explanation for why you don't make sense of it? You might want to consider that before offering what makes sense to you or not as a proxy of what is sensible or not. Maybe you just don't understand it.

After I read your all's posts and offerings about what you think "really happened," what you have done is convince me that what the Bible says is true.

Learning is a cooperative effort. It cannot be done with a closed mind. The student must be willing and able to evaluate an idea dispassionately for correctness, and to recognize and be convinced by a compelling argument. It is impossible to convince a man who has a stake in not being convinced.

 

[cladking]

As you've been told, there is no known mechanism to make it flood the surface or return to the inner earth.

That is an anti-scientific position.

You can't say something is impossible because you haven't seen it and you know of no way it could happen.

It is akin to saying that animals must change very gradually because the fossil record is long. Or that they must change because the weak die and the strong survive.

Science doesn't work through popular opinion, financing only the status quo, or through pondering poor Yorick. You can't learn science reading Darwin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an anti-scientific position.

You can't say something is impossible because you haven't seen it and you know of no way it could happen.

It is akin to saying that animals must change very gradually because the fossil record is long. Or that they must change because the weak die and the strong survive.

Science doesn't work through popular opinion, financing only the status quo, or through pondering poor Yorick. You can't learn science reading Darwin.

Incorrect. You cannot say that something is impossible without evidence. He has evidence. His statement is reasonable. It is scientific. It is the people grasping at straws without any evidence that are making unscientific arguments.

 

[Valjean]

That is an anti-scientific position.

You can't say something is impossible because you haven't seen it and you know of no way it could happen.

He didn't say it was impossible, he said there was no known mechanism. That, coupled with lack of evidence where evidence would be expected, constitutes good reason for skepticism.

It is akin to saying that animals must change very gradually because the fossil record is long. Or that they must change because the weak die and the strong survive.

But noöne's saying any of that, are they?

Science doesn't work through popular opinion, financing only the status quo, or through pondering poor Yorick. You can't learn science reading Darwin.

Exactly! Science works through hypothesis testing and peer review, never popular opinion, and noöne reads Darwin to learn science, any more than they read Hippocrates to learn medicine.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Darwin provided a mechanism for the change in living things over time. That is not the origin of life.

Do you have a source that states that Darwin believed in the creationist idea of spontaneous generation?

Darwin's ideas about evolution and the mechanism driving evolution were based on his observations of living things, fossils, and animal and plant breeding. There is no evidence that the creationist notion of spontaneous generation had anything to do with the theory he formulated.

Nothing in science can offer uncontested proof of anything. The only thing that seems uncontested is the creationist pension for fallacious claims.

Particularly with finches. Direct observation.

 

[LIIA]

LOL! You don't "disprove" widely accepted science by one person's not very well accepted paper.

Your ignorant nonsensical response is simply false for many reasons,

First, your claim of “widely accepted science” is a fallacious argument. It matters not how many wrote it down or accepted it. It’s like saying that Einstein was wrong to challenge the dominant worldview of the widely accepted Newtonian physics. Your argument is nothing but a fallacious “argumentum ad populum”.

Second, your claim “one person” is totally false. Denis Noble was giving a lecture in his capacity as the president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS). The lecture was a presentation of the latest in the field and the work of numerous prominent scientists that he specifically referenced in his lecture. See the link.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

This “one person”, I.e., Denis Noble is one of the most acclaimed scientists in history who wrote over 500 published papers. Most biologists fully embrace Noble. He was Secretary-General for the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) for 8 years and the head of the Royal Society, the most prestigious body of scientists in the world, if you don’t know who is Professor Noble, see my post # 1597, but don’t take my word for it, below is a quote of what other knowledgeable and ethical evolutionist "LegionOnomaMoi" had to say about Noble in his post # 2266.

“The man was a crucial figure in the development of systems biology and a major source for work across disciplines relating to conceptual reforms in biology and related fields. He's a leading research scientist and one of the more influential researchers in the life sciences of the latter 20th and 21st centuries”

"LegionOnomaMoi” didn’t only acknowledge Noble as a leading research scientist and his paper that disproved all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism but also provided multiple other scientific sources confirming the same.

His input as an evolutionist was a rare example and a message intended to teach other evolutionists that despite having different views, but the argument should be rational/ethical based on knowledge not mere denial, back-peddling, and ad hominem. See the link below for his post #2266.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

Third, your claimed “not very well accepted paper” was published in a highly respected peer reviewed research journal “Experimental Physiology” a publication of the Physiological Society. All manuscripts must meet the journal standards before it gets accepted for publishing. Noble’s paper has been already incorporated in scientific research by others and most importantly, there is absolutely no credible scientific source rejecting Noble’s paper.

 

[LIIA]

If you want to claim that natural selection has been disproved you need to be able to support it a lot better than that. The same goes for variation and other mechanisms.

Noble's paper in question (#753 & #781) is not the only paper that challenged/disproved all the fundamental assumptions of Neo-Darwinism; many other papers/scientists did the same. We discussed that before on this thread, you seem to forget, I’ll repeat. You’re free to hold tight to obsolete science, just remember that your mere denial/wishful thinking doesn’t support your stance.

A) 2020 paper by Peter A. Corning published on “ScienceDirect” said,
“Many theorists in recent years have been calling for evolutionary biology to move beyond the Modern Synthesis the paradigm that has long provided the theoretical backbone for the discipline”... “many recent developments that pose deep challenges even contradictions to the traditional model and underscore the need for an update, or a makeover”.. “This paper briefly summarizes the case against the Modern Synthesis”

See attached and the link below.

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

B) See the link and quote below from a 2019 paper published on “ScienceDirect”,

Lamarck and Panspermia - On the Efficient Spread of Living Systems Throughout the Cosmos

We review the main lines of evidence (molecular, cellular and whole organism) published since the 1970s demonstrating Lamarckian Inheritance in animal…

www.sciencedirect.com

Lamarck and Panspermia - On the Efficient Spread of Living Systems Throughout the Cosmos

We review the main lines of evidence (molecular, cellular and whole organism) published since the 1970s demonstrating Lamarckian Inheritance in animal…

reader.elsevier.com

C) Gerd B. Müller said in the Royal Society conference in 2016,
“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”

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

D) 2021 paper titled “Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis” by Radomir Crkvenjakov and Henry H. Heng and was published on “ScienceDirect” said,
“MS's key concept, that gradual accumulation of gene mutations within microevolution leads to macroevolution, requires reexamination”

See attached and the link below.

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis

In light of illusions of the Modern Synthesis (MS) listed by Noble (2021a), MS's key concept, that gradual accumulation of gene mutations within micro…

www.sciencedirect.com

E) See the quote below from a 2021 paper by Denis Noble,

The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis - Biosemiotics

The Modern Synthesis has dominated biology for 80 years. It was formulated in 1942, a decade before the major achievements of molecular biology, including the Double Helix and the Central Dogma. When first formulated in the 1950s these discoveries and concepts seemed initially to completely...

link.springer.com

F) Dr. Gerd B. Müller concluded from this research that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation, saying: “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.”

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

G) 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 only 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.

H) See the links below for the scientific dissent from Darwinism.

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

 

[LIIA]

Not true. Your information is fifty years out of date. Haven't you heard of the Ediacaran?

Wake up! We did talk about the Ediacaran period before. See my post #3287

Again, in the Ediacaran period only macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms were found. There are no ancestors or transitional forms leading to the Cambrian creatures were found in the Ediacaran period.

 

[LIIA]

The basis for morality is "relative". But once one decides on a base then the morality that arises out of that need not be relative.

If every individual decides on a base for himself, morality will essentially stay relative.

What is the basis to define a morality base?

And a relative morality can be far superior to an " absolute" one. Your morality is probably inferior to mine.

Meaningless empty claims/wishful thinking as usual. Even if this is the case for you (which I know it’s not), can you expect the same to be true for every “relative morality"? In absence of a reference, the defining criteria of morality get determined by whichever group has power at the time. I am sure the “Third Reich" thought of themselves to have great moral standards.

In absence of a morality reference, the governing rule would be the law of the jungle, the superiority of brute force/self-interest, Survival of the fittest. But of course, all ugly self-interest motives would be sugarcoated to look justifiable.

 

[LIIA]

Even if a God exists I am probably safe.

How would you know that? Is there anything other than your wishful thinking to back this up?

At the time you find out, there is no going back.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How does a reasonable man argue with someone who refuses to argue and says that science is deflection, obfuscation, word games, and gainsaying?

I never said any such thing.

How does a reasonable man argue with someone who insists on being intellectually dishonest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your ignorant nonsensical response is simply false for many reasons,

First, your claim of “widely accepted science” is a fallacious argument. It matters not how many wrote it down or accepted it. It’s like saying that Einstein was wrong to challenge the dominant worldview of the widely accepted Newtonian physics. Your argument is nothing but a fallacious “argumentum ad populum”.

Second, your claim “one person” is totally false. Denis Noble was giving a lecture in his capacity as the president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS). The lecture was a presentation of the latest in the field and the work of numerous prominent scientists that he specifically referenced in his lecture. See the link.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

This “one person”, I.e., Denis Noble is one of the most acclaimed scientists in history who wrote over 500 published papers. Most biologists fully embrace Noble. He was Secretary-General for the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) for 8 years and the head of the Royal Society, the most prestigious body of scientists in the world, if you don’t know who is Professor Noble, see my post # 1597, but don’t take my word for it, below is a quote of what other knowledgeable and ethical evolutionist "LegionOnomaMoi" had to say about Noble in his post # 2266.

“The man was a crucial figure in the development of systems biology and a major source for work across disciplines relating to conceptual reforms in biology and related fields. He's a leading research scientist and one of the more influential researchers in the life sciences of the latter 20th and 21st centuries”

"LegionOnomaMoi” didn’t only acknowledge Noble as a leading research scientist and his paper that disproved all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism but also provided multiple other scientific sources confirming the same.

His input as an evolutionist was a rare example and a message intended to teach other evolutionists that despite having different views, but the argument should be rational/ethical based on knowledge not mere denial, back-peddling, and ad hominem. See the link below for his post #2266.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

Third, your claimed “not very well accepted paper” was published in a highly respected peer reviewed research journal “Experimental Physiology” a publication of the Physiological Society. All manuscripts must meet the journal standards before it gets accepted for publishing. Noble’s paper has been already incorporated in scientific research by others and most importantly, there is absolutely no credible scientific source rejecting Noble’s paper.

Denis Noble is acclaimed in his area of expertise. Evolution is not his area of expertise. You just used an appeal to false authority fallacy.
And you are right, a physiological journal, not an evolutionary biology journal published that non peer reviewed article. You just hit your foot with that shot. And the journal does have peer reviewed articles in it. But not all of them are reviewed. Your favorite article was not reviewed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you know that? Is there anything other than your wishful thinking to back this up?

At the time you find out, there is no going back.

Do you think that you are safe? You keep calling God a liar. I do not make that error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If every individual decides on a base for himself, morality will essentially stay relative.

What is your religion? It's morality is almost certainly relative too.

What is the basis to define a morality base?

Poorly asked question. There could be quite a few. You should have asked what mine was.

Meaningless empty claims/wishful thinking as usual. Even if this is the case for you (which I know it’s not), can you expect the same to be true for every “relative morality"? In absence of a reference, the defining criteria of morality get determined by whichever group has power at the time. I am sure the “Third Reich" thought of themselves to have great moral standards.

Sorry, that would be you. You are forgetting that you believe in fairy tales and an immoral god.

In absence of a morality reference, the governing rule would be the law of the jungle, the superiority of brute force/self-interest, Survival of the fittest. But of course, all ugly self-interest motives would be sugarcoated to look justifiable.

No, that only reflects on your poor morals. Your error was to assume that just because you do not have proper morals that others suffer the same flaw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wake up! We did talk about the Ediacaran period before. See my post #3287

Again, in the Ediacaran period only macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms were found. There are no ancestors or transitional forms leading to the Cambrian creatures were found in the Ediacaran period.

Oh thanks. So now you yourself have admitted that your post was false.

But you made another error. How would you know if the fossilized Ediacaran life did not lead to comp!ex Cambrian life? Some of them do appear to be ancestral. But I will wait for you to prove your claim first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Noble's paper in question (#753 & #781) is not the only paper that challenged/disproved all the fundamental assumptions of Neo-Darwinism; many other papers/scientists did the same. We discussed that before on this thread, you seem to forget, I’ll repeat. You’re free to hold tight to obsolete science, just remember that your mere denial/wishful thinking doesn’t support your stance.

A) 2020 paper by Peter A. Corning published on “ScienceDirect” said,
“Many theorists in recent years have been calling for evolutionary biology to move beyond the Modern Synthesis the paradigm that has long provided the theoretical backbone for the discipline”... “many recent developments that pose deep challenges even contradictions to the traditional model and underscore the need for an update, or a makeover”.. “This paper briefly summarizes the case against the Modern Synthesis”

View attachment 72570

View attachment 72571

See attached and the link below.

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

B) See the link and quote below from a 2019 paper published on “ScienceDirect”,

View attachment 72572

Lamarck and Panspermia - On the Efficient Spread of Living Systems Throughout the Cosmos

We review the main lines of evidence (molecular, cellular and whole organism) published since the 1970s demonstrating Lamarckian Inheritance in animal…

www.sciencedirect.com

Lamarck and Panspermia - On the Efficient Spread of Living Systems Throughout the Cosmos

We review the main lines of evidence (molecular, cellular and whole organism) published since the 1970s demonstrating Lamarckian Inheritance in animal…

reader.elsevier.com

C) Gerd B. Müller said in the Royal Society conference in 2016,
“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”

View attachment 72574

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

D) 2021 paper titled “Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis” by Radomir Crkvenjakov and Henry H. Heng and was published on “ScienceDirect” said,
“MS's key concept, that gradual accumulation of gene mutations within microevolution leads to macroevolution, requires reexamination”

View attachment 72575

See attached and the link below.

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis

In light of illusions of the Modern Synthesis (MS) listed by Noble (2021a), MS's key concept, that gradual accumulation of gene mutations within micro…

www.sciencedirect.com

E) See the quote below from a 2021 paper by Denis Noble,

View attachment 72578

The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis - Biosemiotics

The Modern Synthesis has dominated biology for 80 years. It was formulated in 1942, a decade before the major achievements of molecular biology, including the Double Helix and the Central Dogma. When first formulated in the 1950s these discoveries and concepts seemed initially to completely...

link.springer.com

F) Dr. Gerd B. Müller concluded from this research that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation, saying: “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.”

View attachment 72579

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

G) 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 only 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.

H) See the links below for the scientific dissent from Darwinism.

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

You need to learn how to get to the point. None of that refutes natural selection. All that article points out is that there are evolutionary forces that Darwin did not know about.

That only results in the theory being refined. Not refuted. Like it or not all of your scientific sources support the fact that you are a monkey.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Denis Noble is acclaimed in his area of expertise. Evolution is not his area of expertise. You just used an appeal to false authority fallacy.
And you are right, a physiological journal, not an evolutionary biology journal published that non peer reviewed article. You just hit your foot with that shot. And the journal does have peer reviewed articles in it. But not all of them are reviewed. Your favorite article was not reviewed.

Is it Repeat What Denis Noble Says day already? Where does the time go?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Particularly with finches. Direct observation.

Certainly, the finches were a strong piece of evidence among many that Darwin used to derive his theory and arguments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is your religion? It's morality is almost certainly relative too.



Poorly asked question. There could be quite a few. You should have asked what mine was.




Sorry, that would be you. You are forgetting that you believe in fairy tales and an immoral god.




No, that only reflects on your poor morals. Your error was to assume that just because you do not have proper morals that others suffer the same flaw.

Is anti-science a religion? Antiscientism?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never said any such thing.

How does a reasonable man argue with someone who insists on being intellectually dishonest?

That is the question that lead me to ignore those that clearly do not even know what science is or how it works. Otherwise, you end conversing with a wall that doesn't have the ability to paint over its own ignorance with a fresh coat of understanding.