Darwin's Illusion

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did mention Ben Stein’s documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” before in an argument about dogmatic control. See # 202. If you don’t agree with the content of the documentary, you may search it and verify it for yourself.

I already did a long time ago. How did you think I instantly recognized it from that one "quote" you gave of Dawkins.

The documentary is famous for that particular gem of edited dishonesty.
Not that the rest was much better. The entire thing is lie after lie after lie, with some more dishonesty and ignorance sauce on top. Not only are the contents a lie, the making of of it was also filled with lies.

The scientists they had on, like Dawkins, were lied to about what the flick was about. They were lied to about the nature of the interview. He was asked to bend over backwards and imagine a ludicrous hypothetical and was then asked questions in that context. And they then put it in the documentary as if that was his actual opinion / belief. This is the people you get your bs from.

Wonderful.

The documentary did touch on the idea of eugenics, social Darwinism influence on nazi Germany but the main subject was freedom of speech suppression to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to by the atheistic American academic dictatorship. Here is the link

There is no "freedom of speech" in science.
There is the freedom of supporting your scientific ideas with evidence.

ID lacks both the evidence and the "scientific" part.

You don’t need to speculate about my “hidden agenda”, let me clarify it to you; I have a moral and more importantly religious obligation from an Islamic perspective to make others informed. I only need to convey a message. If I don’t convey the message, it’s on me, if I do convey but you deny, it’s on you and I’m done with my part.

Your message being that dishonest Ben Stein is the one to listen to over just about all biologists in the world concerning a theory of biology?

Also, as a "theist with a moral"... what are you doing supporting and promoting exposed lying con-men like Ben Stein and his cohorts?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

Now you are talking about something entirely different.
Sneaky sneaky....

This article deals with a legit scientific matter.
How evolution affects other fields of science.
In social sciences for example, trends or certain impulses or curiosities could be explained from an evolutionary perspective.

This has nothing to do with "nazi's" or "social darwinism".

Sneaky sneaky idd

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In fact, I didn’t know it was in an interview with Ben Stein. thank you for that; at least we have a proof of what Richard Dawkins said. Here is the link. See 3:26

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - YouTube

You don't know the story behind that interview, do you?



If you do, then it is just shameless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Punctuated equilibrium rejects the degree of gradualism attributed to Charles Darwin as nonexistent in the fossil record

False.

PE deals with how species enter a local optimum when selection pressures remain stable.
When the environment changes, so do selection pressures. Mostly to similar degree.
So radical environmental changes, usually radically change selection pressures.

Meaning that in times of environmental stability, evolutionary change will at some point slow down, as species enter local optimums. At that point, natural selection will favor the status quo.
Once selection pressures change again, so is there a shift in the local optimum. Evolutionary change will now accelerate again until species enter once again in the new, shifted, local optimum.

All this is easily demonstrable with genetic algorithms.
And we see the same thing in the fossil record (and not just during the cambrian).

At no point does evolutionary change cease to be a gradual process.

but on the other hand doesn’t provide a coherent explanatory framework for the sudden appearance of new genetic info.

What "sudden" appearance?

The fact that the same results of Harvard University experiment above repeat at a frightening speed proves that the process is neither random nor gradual. It’s a directed mutation. Cells have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur. Experiments demonstrated that cells come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations

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)

This article does not support your argument.

The article describes an evolved survival mechanism, where certain parts of DNA are more protected against mutation then others.

It does not at all dispute that mutation is random with respect to fitness.
And it most certainly doesn't support "directed mutation" with intent or whatever.

 

[LIIA]

Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed.

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.

1) In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro, a biologist and expert in bacterial genetics said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”

How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome - PubMed

https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Sh...Write (RW) Genome.Physics of Life Reviews.pdf

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

2) Nature volume 335, pages142–145, The origin of mutants
“Cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur.”

The origin of mutants | Nature

3) Nature volume 485, pages 95–98, Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy

Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature

4) 2012 Suzhou, China, In the international conference of physiological sciences, Denis Noble said “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change” , “not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.”

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

5) 2013 Birmingham, UK, as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble confirmed non-random mutations in his lecture which was published in the journal Experimental Physiology, see the links below

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

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube

6) 2016 “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology” conference in the Royal Society, Gerd B. Müller discussed the challenges of MS theory and the need for the EES. The extended evolutionary synthesis acknowledges developmental bias as one of the core assumptions.

Müller said, “The kind of selectable phenotypic variation that can be produced by a developmental system of a given type is neither infinite nor random. Rather, selectable variation is both constrained and facilitated by development. Before natural selection can act, the developmental system harbours tendencies towards certain solutions, a property that has been called developmental bias”

Here is the article by Gerd B. Müller that was published on 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

7) January 2022, a recent study of mutations in Arabidopsis was published. Nature wrote, ” Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences”. “Our discovery yields a new account of the forces driving patterns of natural variation, challenging a long-standing paradigm regarding the randomness of mutation and inspiring future directions for theoretical and practical research on mutation in biology and evolution.”

Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana | Nature

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)

8) Microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance till the 1000 fold resistance was achieved in 11 days.

The experiment showed repeated directed successive mutations that produced a change that didn’t exist in original bacteria. The spread of bacteria stopped at each band until a mutant appeared then the mutants continued to spread to the next band and the mutation process repeated till the accumulating successive mutations adapted to over 1000 fold resistance level against antibiotics. The fast adaptation response was driven by the threat to the survival of the bacteria. The experiment showed repeated/predictable directed mutation. The process is neither random nor gradual.

See the link and YouTube video below (same video is included in the article).

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance (smh.com.au)

The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube

Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment itself demonstrates directed mutation. The experiment shows a mediated gene regulation adaptation event that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter through the precise placement beyond an aerobically expressed promoter to allow for the expression of the previously silent citrate transporter. It was not new info but rather an existing inactive info that was activated as an adaptive response to the specific variables within the environment. It’s a clear example of directed mutation that allows an organism to better adapt to the variables in its niche.

September 2012, Nature wrote about the E Coli experiment,” tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter.”

Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature

In fact, Research has showed that Bacteria and Viruses are very intelligent, capable of complex decision-making, they change themselves and adapt to the environment in order to survive. See more about Microbial intelligence in #226

Darwin's Illusion | Page 12 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Eugenics is not part of the fact of evolution. Nor is it even implied by the theory. The same applies to social Darwinism.

False, Eugenics is implied by the theory.
Darwin advanced the notion of a hierarchy of races, endorsed the eugenic theories of his half cousin Francis Galton and approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin was among the progenitors of so-called scientific racism.

And they are far more wrong than the interpretations by various theists that have led to genocide after genocide and war after war.

An irrelevant fourth grader’s argument, “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”. The Interpretations of theism have nothing to do with the ToE.

By your poor logic theism is false. That was the point of that. If you think that you have refuted evolution with that poor argument then you also refuted your own belief in God.

How many times I said that the damaging influence of the ToE on humanity is not my refutation of the theory? Why is that difficult to understand?

Again, a summary of the refutation is provided in #753 & #781. It has nothing to do with the negative influence of the ToE. It’s about 21st century finds of molecular biology.

 

[LIIA]

They are merely disagreeing with some aspects of the current model.

Do you think that saying that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved is a mere disagreement with some aspects?

If all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis are false, then the theory itself is necessarily false and should be replaced which is actually what they explicitly said. See #911

This again is not a winning argument on your part. It is like arguing that Bugs Bunny did not get to the beach via Phoenix but via Cucamonga. No matter how he got there we know that he got there by tunneling. The same applies to new models. They are not saying that man is not the product of evolution, they are merely disagreeing about the route taken.

You want to believe that no matter what, evolution is the only possible unfalsifiable explanation. It’s not. That is your wishful thinking.

You want to believe it’s a mere disagreement about a route but it’s obviously much more than that.

In fact, the argument of these scientists implies a lot more beyond what they explicitly say.

In his book “The Music of Life”, Denis Noble questions the prevailing view of life itself. Noble's argument is that "genes did not create us, our bodies and minds" but that they could only evolve in conjunction with the living system – which interprets them. Our DNA is the database from which the organism gets the necessary information. The cell machinery does not just read the genome. It imposes extensive patterns of marking and expression on the genome. Without purposeful interpretation of DNA towards meaningful functions, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info.

The Music of Life Preview
The Music of Life - Google Books

The Music of Life Sourcebook
The Music of Life-sourcebook.pdf

Mar 10, 2016 Prof Denis Noble, University of Oxford presented a lecture on his book, “The Music of Life”. He presented his ideas about how life really works. He dismisses the gene centered view of Richard Dawkins and challenges the fundamental assumptions of neo-darwinism, his lecture is full of stories which serve to illustrate some very complex science in an understandable way.

It’s definitely not a mere disagreement about the route taken. Here is a summary of the ideas/concepts presented in the lecture.

Music is not just a set of notes. The notes are written on the music page but that's not the music it's only music when some musicians play it to give life to those dead notes. They require a performer of course who is good to play.

So let's have a look at the metaphor “the music of life”. The set of genes in a living organism is rather like the set of pipes in a huge organ, which has to be played by the organist in order to produce the beautiful music written.

With the same human genome we find at least 200 different types of cell, some of them are cardiac rhythm, some of them are pancreatic cells controlling sugar, others are the liver metabolizing, some of them form muscles nerves and so on, Many things in the body and they all have the exact same genome.

There are about 30,000 genes in the human genome so now ask how many processes, how many combinations how many forms of music could be produced, If you allow all combinations to occur? The answer is ten to the seventy thousand. Now these are numbers that get to be so unimaginable. There wouldn't be enough material in the whole universe for nature to tried out all the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the evolutionary process, the idea therefore that we can pursue that metaphor they created us body and mind is based on the impossible calculation, we will never be able to do that calculation it's far too big so we have to look somewhere else.

There are many metaphysical questions we can ask about what is life and what am I what are you and we all have our own ways of answering that kind of question, that's the function of course of religion and there are many religions. My point is not to say which religion is right or which is wrong but to say think about it, it's not so certain we know what we are.

See the link below for his lecture on YouTube

Music of Life Lecture - Denis Noble - YouTube

And like many advocates of new ideas they appear to be over valuing the contributions that they have discovered. Will the theory change a bit? Yes, probably, but not noticeably to an amateur like you or me.

The specific language used was “a major revision or even a replacement”. Its not the same as “change a bit”. Amateurs just repeat what they were taught even if its actually outdated/disproved. Science is ever changing.

Life will have been the product of evolution. You will still be an ape.

It’s your wish. You can be if you want. I’m not.

 

[LIIA]

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."

DNA is just a stored database. Gene expression/interpretations is what translates this data to meaningful functions. Why would a mindless random process care to protect the regions of the genome with the most vital genes essential for survival?

Not only the change is directed away from these regions but also DNA damage repair is particularly effective to repair damages in these regions? Playing with loaded dice, as the article said is the exact opposite of randomness.

Per the ToE, the change process was supposed to be random then advantageous random mutations are kept through selection. This is not the case; randomness is not a component of the actual adaptation process. Organisms don’t develop millions of random irrelevant changes to be purified by selection but rather develop specific purposeful/directed changes to address the specific variables within its environment. Such as the example of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) that the Microorganisms typically develop against the drugs designed to kill them.

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.

Do you think that Shapiro, Müller, Nobel, Grey Monroe, Max Planck Institute for Biology and everyone ever talked about non-random mutations didn’t really mean it? See # 1245

”We always thought of mutations appearing solely by chance across the genome,” says Grey Monroe, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences and first author of the paper. “It now turns out that the pattern of mutation is not only very non-random, but also that it’s non-random in a way that benefits the plant.”

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

 

[LIIA]

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.

Again, you provide lots of irrelevant info about viruses, while ignoring the point of discussion about directed mutation as evident in the experiment by Harvard University. #1029

As I said before “viruses are not considered living organisms, but they’re classified as microorganisms.”. That is the way viruses are classified.

That said, it up to you if you wish to classify it differently. It’s not my concern. I’m not interested in entertaining an irrelevant argument.

 

[LIIA]

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.

I said, “Believing in God is not in any way against science”.

First, do you think that “Science” is limited to biology?

Second, do you think that all proponent of evolution are atheists? Or all theists reject evolution?

If you do, you’re wrong.

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.

Did I use my religious beliefs as refutation for the ToE? See #753 & # 781.

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.

Yes, theists may accept evolution. I don’t.

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

This achievement was evidently driven by the very idea of God’s causal influence on the world. Theism was the motivation and the driving force for the establishment of the basis of modern science.

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

Why? See #1034

 

[LIIA]

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.

Did I simply say false or provided the link showing that Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record? Here is the link again.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

If transitional fossils are abundant, why did Eldredge and Gould propose punctuated equilibrium in contrast with the Darwinian gradualism?

So what is your definition of "exact science"?

I’m quoting Ernst Walter Mayr (the Darwin of the 20th century). See # 331, page 17. In his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” He said “Indeed evolutionary biology as a science, is in many respects more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences. When drawing the borderline between the exact sciences and the Geisteswissenschaften it would go right through biology and attach functional biology to the exact sciences while including evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften.”

Here is the link for Ernst Mayr book “What Makes Biology Unique?”

What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (wordpress.com)

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.

Not arbitrarily at all. I’m not the one who included evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften. That was Ernst Walter Mayr (see above).

Again, Choosing exact science over the Geisteswissenschaften is not cherry picking.

And that's precisely what you're doing.

As I explained above, it’s not the same domain. Evolutionary biology is not within the same domain of functional biology.

And?

I said “Gould’s punctuation was disputed by the proponents of gradualism, which in turn was disputed, by the proponents of punctuation”.

In # 1104, you said it’s my mere say and in # 1215, I provided the link to show what the critics on both sides said. Dawkins was one of the critics who said that punctuated equilibrium was oversold by some journalists. After Gould’s passing, gradualism is back as the ruling dogma regardless of the evidence of the fossil record against it as Eldredge and Gould stated.

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

There is no religion that supports the nazi view that the Aryan race is the master race. The Holocaust Encyclopedia shows beyond doubt how the racial ideology of Nazi Germany was influenced by social Darwinism.

Even so the claimed ban is irrelevant since the influence of social Darwinism on Nazi Germany cannot be denied but there is no evidence that this alleged ban ever took place.

Nazi biology curriculum and textbooks published in Nazi Germany included extensive teaching about evolution. German universities embraced Darwinism before the Nazis came to power, but the Nazi regime continued to appoint Darwinists to biology and anthropology professorships. Official Nazi newspaper, magazines, and journals occasionally published articles promoting Darwinism. Some of these articles was by Konrad Lorenz, a later Nobel Prize winner, who argued that Darwinism was a firm basis for Nazi racial ideology. Articles against Darwinism were nowhere to be found in the Nazi press.

Konrad Lorenz was assigned as a military psychologist, conducting racial studies on humans in occupied Poznań under Rudolf Hippius. The objective was to study the biological characteristics of "German-Polish half-breeds" to determine whether they 'benefitted' from the same work ethics as 'pure' Germans.

Konrad Lorenz - Wikipedia

Nazi Germany racial ideology was driven by evolutionary biology at its core. It was not religious. There is no religion that supports such ideology. See the links below.

Nazi eugenics
Nazi eugenics refers to the social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany. The racial ideology of Nazism placed the biological improvement of the German people by selective breeding of "Nordic" or "Aryan" traits at its center.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia

Racial hygiene
The term racial hygiene was used to describe an approach to eugenics in the early 20th century, which found its most extensive implementation in Nazi Germany (Nazi eugenics). It was marked by efforts to avoid miscegenation, analogous to an animal breeder seeking purebred animals.

Racial hygiene - Wikipedia

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

Did I say I have no point? I said we are in agreement about this specific point and we may move forward. The specific point is the damaging influence of the ToE on humanity.

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

Take a look at #911 again, the article stated “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.”

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.......?

No, it’s not some random regions. The specific regions of the genome with the most vital genes essential for survival are protected against change with particularly effective DNA damage repair at these areas. Why/how would a mindless random process selectively protect vital areas? Playing with loaded dice, as the article said is not a random behavior.

Per the ToE, the change process was supposed to be random then advantageous random mutations are kept through selection. This is not the case; randomness is not a component of the actual adaptation process. Organisms don’t develop millions of random irrelevant changes to be purified by selection but rather develop specific purposeful/directed changes to address the variables within its environment. Such as the example of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) that the Microorganisms typically develop against the drugs designed to kill them.

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

The article in #911 by Gerd B. Müller was published on 2017.by the Royal Society. See the references on pages 9, 10 & 11 on the PDF.

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

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

In addition to the references within the article, you may also refer to the Acknowledgements and References at the end of article below by Denis Noble. Published on 2013 by Experimental Physiology.

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

 

[LIIA]

No.

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

The belief that these predictions must be true is the main reason for the extreme bias, which is necessarily leading to false interpretation

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.

Consider the example of Orce Man, 1982, a skull fragment was found near Orce, Spain. It was claimed to be definitely humanoid cranial fragment and was claimed to be the earliest human fossil in Europe, it was considered as the discovery of the century. As it turned out, the skull fragment was not human but rather came from a 4 month old donkey. Driven by strong bias, scientists couldn’t tell the difference between a human and a donkey.

The Orce skull: anatomy of a mistake - PubMed (nih.gov)

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

Their training or competence is a separate issue; I’m questioning their strong bias, which can cause false interpretation more than any incompetence or dishonesty.

1922, based on a discovery in Nebraska, a new genus called Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) was proudly presented to the world. It was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Scientists considered it an important evidence of evolution. ‘Hesperopithecus is believed to have reached America by land, travelling from Asia by “a land bridge enjoying a warm climate”.

Scientists and artists filled in missing parts and other features by relying on evolution-based assumptions to create impressive illustrations and a pedigree of the human family’ drawn up by experts. The species name became H. haroldcookii. An elaborate and imaginative reconstruction of this creature in the ancient wild was drawn.

Scientific journals such as Science and PNAS published about this great discovery, see the links below.

Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America (science.org)

Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America | PNAS

As you may know, Nebraska’s discovery that was the basis for all of the above was a tooth. The conclusion was drawn that the tooth had belonged to an anthropoid ape more closely related to humans than to other apes. Only a few months later, an article was published in Science announcing the discovery of a manlike ape in North America.

After about 5 years of the discovery, as it turned out, the tooth was nothing more than a pig’s tooth. The tooth didn’t come from either a man or an ape but rather from the jaw of an extinct pig!

The published peer reviewed info about Hesperopithecus that was accepted, as mainstream knowledge was false. 1927, “Science” published the retraction of the previous article.

Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man (science.org)

The artist had supplied the shape of the creatures’ ears and nose, hair, type of tool being used … all imagined from a single worn tooth of an extinct pig.

Indeed Paleontologists, Scientists and Artists can derive quite a lot from mere "bone fragments” but the question is whether what they drive is true or false especially if we consider the major role of extreme bias driven by the assumption that evolution is the only possible explanation and the utilization of that assumption from the very beginning to interpret all evidence. The belief that evolution is the single viable option on the table necessarily establishes a priori or an axiom that impacts perceived relationships by the observer, bias becomes inevitable. Which drives all interpretations of all observations to fit this only possible option.

That said, my argument/refutation of the evolution of whales was not about the qualification of scientists, I said, “let’s assume that scientists and artists’ imaginations are spot on and the creatures looked exactly as they appear to look in their impressive charts.” The argument was rather about the fact that descendants have to come after ancestors if evolution is correct; the fossils have to be in order.

The discovery of the 49 million year old fully aquatic whale (Archaeocete) places fully aquatic whales back at least 10 million years before almost all of their supposed ancestors (Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Procetus, Kutchicetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Aetiocetus) with the exception of the wolf-sized land-dwelling four-legged Pakicetus. Given the brand new bodily structures and biological functions of the fully aquatic whales, its impossible to be a descendant of Pakicetus in such a short time, especially without any transitional forms between Pakicetus and the 49 million years old fully aquatic Archaeocete. Fully aquatic whales already existed long before and alongside their alleged ancestors when whales were still supposedly land creatures.

 

[LIIA]

I already did a long time ago. How did you think I instantly recognized it from that one "quote" you gave of Dawkins.

The documentary is famous for that particular gem of edited dishonesty.
Not that the rest was much better. The entire thing is lie after lie after lie, with some more dishonesty and ignorance sauce on top. Not only are the contents a lie, the making of of it was also filled with lies.

The scientists they had on, like Dawkins, were lied to about what the flick was about. They were lied to about the nature of the interview. He was asked to bend over backwards and imagine a ludicrous hypothetical and was then asked questions in that context. And they then put it in the documentary as if that was his actual opinion / belief. This is the people you get your bs from.

Wonderful.

More unsubstantiated claims. It’s your imagination and wishful thinking.

Do you seriously believe that Ben Stein fooled Dawkins and asked him to imagine a ludicrous hypothetical? Any one that watches the interview can immediately tell that it was a very serious interview, there wasn’t any humor involved. Here is the link again. See 3:26

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - YouTube

There is no "freedom of speech" in science.

Yes, this is what Ben Stein’s documentary was about.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) - YouTube

There is the freedom of supporting your scientific ideas with evidence.

As long as you submit to the ruling dogma.

ID lacks both the evidence and the "scientific" part.

Simply not true. See # 1087

Your message being that dishonest Ben Stein is the one to listen to over just about all biologists in the world concerning a theory of biology?

Who is Ben Stein? You’re the one who brought his name to the discussion. Did I ever use Ben Stein work as a refutation for the ToE? See # 753 and #781

I’m referring to scientists such as Noble, Müller, Shapiro, Gould, etc. not Ben Stein

Also, as a "theist with a moral"... what are you doing supporting and promoting exposed lying con-men like Ben Stein and his cohorts?

Again, you brought Ben Stein to the discussion. I’m not using him to refute the theory. I always refer to scientists as explained above.

And with respect to Dawkins claim that the origin of life may have been seeded from outer space. yes, Dawkins indeed said that. It was neither a trick nor a joke. It was a serious interview.

Yet, your claim about Ben Stein as a lying con-man is totally an unsubstantiated and meaningless claim driven by your bias as a proponent of the ToE. I didn’t see any evidence to support such claim.

 

[LIIA]

Now you are talking about something entirely different.
Sneaky sneaky....

This article deals with a legit scientific matter.
How evolution affects other fields of science.
In social sciences for example, trends or certain impulses or curiosities could be explained from an evolutionary perspective.

This has nothing to do with "nazi's" or "social darwinism".

Sneaky sneaky idd

In #705 gnostic claimed that the work of Darwin as a naturalist specifically focused on biology has no impact on social sciences. That is false, the impact/influence of the ToE indeed encompasses social science and philosophy.

With respect to the Nazi racial ideology, The Holocaust Encyclopedia shows beyond doubt how the racial ideology of Nazi Germany was influenced by social Darwinism.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Darwin advanced the notion of a hierarchy of races, endorsed the eugenic theories of his half cousin Francis Galton and approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin was among the progenitors of so-called scientific racism.

Again, even so the damaging impact of the ToE with respect to racism and morality is a fact but it’s not part of my refutation for the theory. My refutation is based on the 21st century evidence of molecular biology. See #753 & #781.

 

[LIIA]

You don't know the story behind that interview, do you?



If you do, then it is just shameless.

No, I don’t.

What I do know is that the interview was a very serious interview and Dawkins did say that the origin of life may have been seeded from outer space.

Here is the link again. See 3:26

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - YouTube

 

[LIIA]

False.

PE deals with how species enter a local optimum when selection pressures remain stable.
When the environment changes, so do selection pressures. Mostly to similar degree.
So radical environmental changes, usually radically change selection pressures.

Meaning that in times of environmental stability, evolutionary change will at some point slow down, as species enter local optimums. At that point, natural selection will favor the status quo.
Once selection pressures change again, so is there a shift in the local optimum. Evolutionary change will now accelerate again until species enter once again in the new, shifted, local optimum.

All this is easily demonstrable with genetic algorithms.
And we see the same thing in the fossil record (and not just during the cambrian).

At no point does evolutionary change cease to be a gradual process.

Meaningless denial. These are not my words. This is an exact quote from the link below. See the link again.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

The question is not about how long a population of a species stay stable till the next change of selection pressures. The alleged speciation as driven by the transition from one local optimum to another is always gradual regardless of how long was the stasis. Time is irrelevant to the process. Long stasis doesn’t change the fact that predicted transitional forms should exist in the fossil record if the alleged gradual evolutionary process is true.

Yes, the assumed evolutionary change doesn’t cease to be a gradual process, which greatly contradicts real world observation. Alleged gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.

“Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record”

see the link
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

What "sudden" appearance?

See the quotes below. The sudden appearance of fully formed species in the fossil record necessarily means a massive sudden (unexplainable) appearance of new genetic info.

“Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)

This article does not support your argument.

The article describes an evolved survival mechanism, where certain parts of DNA are more protected against mutation then others.

It does not at all dispute that mutation is random with respect to fitness.
And it most certainly doesn't support "directed mutation" with intent or whatever.

If we get same results repeatedly,
If the response is very fast and specifically/effectively addressing the pressure,
If the vital areas are always protected and repaired,
If not only we can predict but also know exactly how the bacteria is going to respond/change to address the pressure, Then, nothing is random about this process.

This directed behavior is neither a reflection nor an outcome of a random process.

Selection may eliminate an existing system or keep another but doesn’t create a system (selection has no creation or innovative capacity). How such intelligent behavior came to existence can neither be attributed to selection nor a purposeless random mutation process.

Attributing this non-random behavior to random evolutionary process is only your wishful thinking. Mutations are never random. See#1245

 

[Subduction Zone]

False, Eugenics is implied by the theory.
Darwin advanced the notion of a hierarchy of races, endorsed the eugenic theories of his half cousin Francis Galton and approved Herbert Spencer’s “social Darwinism,” calling Spencer “our great philosopher”. Darwin was among the progenitors of so-called scientific racism.

You don't understand the theory. But go ahead show how it is implied by the theory. Quotes and links are a must.

An irrelevant fourth grader’s argument, “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”. The Interpretations of theism have nothing to do with the ToE.

LMFAO!! Oh you are hilarious! No, there was no wrong done by the theory itself. This is massive projection on your part. You still have not brought up one valid argument against the theory.

How many times I said that the damaging influence of the ToE on humanity is not my refutation of the theory? Why is that difficult to understand?

Once again, you have not refuted anything. You have not shown any damage done by the theory. You have only provided us with light entertainment. And trust me. The misunderstanding is not on our side.

Again, a summary of the refutation is provided in #753 & #781. It has nothing to do with the negative influence of the ToE. It’s about 21st century finds of molecular biology.

Oh! You mean the one that was totally beyond your understanding? Well that does not look good for you then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed.

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.

1) In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro, a biologist and expert in bacterial genetics said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”

How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome - PubMed

https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2013.How Life Changes Itself- The Read-Write (RW) Genome.Physics of Life Reviews.pdf

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

2) Nature volume 335, pages142–145, The origin of mutants
“Cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur.”

The origin of mutants | Nature

3) Nature volume 485, pages 95–98, Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy

Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature

4) 2012 Suzhou, China, In the international conference of physiological sciences, Denis Noble said “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change” , “not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.”

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

5) 2013 Birmingham, UK, as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble confirmed non-random mutations in his lecture which was published in the journal Experimental Physiology, see the links below

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

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube

6) 2016 “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology” conference in the Royal Society, Gerd B. Müller discussed the challenges of MS theory and the need for the EES. The extended evolutionary synthesis acknowledges developmental bias as one of the core assumptions.

Müller said, “The kind of selectable phenotypic variation that can be produced by a developmental system of a given type is neither infinite nor random. Rather, selectable variation is both constrained and facilitated by development. Before natural selection can act, the developmental system harbours tendencies towards certain solutions, a property that has been called developmental bias”

Here is the article by Gerd B. Müller that was published on 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

7) January 2022, a recent study of mutations in Arabidopsis was published. Nature wrote, ” Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences”. “Our discovery yields a new account of the forces driving patterns of natural variation, challenging a long-standing paradigm regarding the randomness of mutation and inspiring future directions for theoretical and practical research on mutation in biology and evolution.”

Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana | Nature

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)

8) Microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance till the 1000 fold resistance was achieved in 11 days.

The experiment showed repeated directed successive mutations that produced a change that didn’t exist in original bacteria. The spread of bacteria stopped at each band until a mutant appeared then the mutants continued to spread to the next band and the mutation process repeated till the accumulating successive mutations adapted to over 1000 fold resistance level against antibiotics. The fast adaptation response was driven by the threat to the survival of the bacteria. The experiment showed repeated/predictable directed mutation. The process is neither random nor gradual.

See the link and YouTube video below (same video is included in the article).

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance (smh.com.au)

The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube

Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment itself demonstrates directed mutation. The experiment shows a mediated gene regulation adaptation event that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter through the precise placement beyond an aerobically expressed promoter to allow for the expression of the previously silent citrate transporter. It was not new info but rather an existing inactive info that was activated as an adaptive response to the specific variables within the environment. It’s a clear example of directed mutation that allows an organism to better adapt to the variables in its niche.

September 2012, Nature wrote about the E Coli experiment,” tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter.”

Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature

In fact, Research has showed that Bacteria and Viruses are very intelligent, capable of complex decision-making, they change themselves and adapt to the environment in order to survive. See more about Microbial intelligence in #226

Darwin's Illusion | Page 12 | Religious Forums

Wow! Do you copy and paste this? The papers do not support your conclusions you are misinterpreting them at best.
By the way, where are you? Why do you only post in the dead of night?

 

[rational experiences]

Say you did a healers assessment.

Have patients. They don't give you any advice first. They trust you. They Lie on a table are told to relax but are scared.

Then the healers ask by prayer spiritual help. Meditate. Scan the body. See spirit. Get told a huge amount of personal medical advice plus remedies.

You stop. You don't talk. You write it down. Correlate many points the same. Tell the patient. Proven real.

Now you're trusted .....

The patient so relaxed many go to sleep. Some snored.

X-rays. Bone spurs.

Proven a bone evolved past what it exists as in nature.

It disappears without surgery. Proven.

A type of evolution. But it's the human body type that changed.

What about given six weeks to heal a mass that was adhered by a medical hysterectomy. Was drawn on bodily for a colostomy bag. The surgeon went looking for it. Just a few strands only left.

No need for colostomy bag?

Body changed. Evolution of natural body type previously owned.

Proving you live you are human yet your cells evolve into different forms.

You can just inherit what you should have owned yet it also is not evolution.

As if I'm a human doing I compare my body to yours. I know what's missing in your body isn't evolution. It's grown differently.

Doing that same asserted human reasoning to animal body types is no different whatsoever.

Grown differently.

 

[cladking]

See the quotes below. The sudden appearance of fully formed species in the fossil record necessarily means a massive sudden (unexplainable) appearance of new genetic info.

“Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

Nazis arose suddenly. They came and murdered and went in less than a generation. If they had murdered enough a new species would be emerging now that reflects their actions caused by their beliefs in Freud and Darwin. This new species wouldn't be so much different probably but there would be far less diversity and no one would have a heart or a mind.

This is simply the nature of reality itself and life is literally reality on steroids. Reality is change. It is infinitely complex and based in logic. All things emerge from initial conditions according to logic and what appears to our limited understanding as randomness. All of reality affects all other reality and all things are cyclical until they break down and cease to exist as part of larger cycles.

Each bee watching a waggle dance knows this.

Homo omnisciencis has beliefs about reality and life and never notices we don't even understand consciousness. We each must give up such understanding to acquire language. Everything but man is conscious because it is alive but we humans believe "I think therefore I am". We were born, we learned language, which puts the cart before the horse.

Mebbe I'm speaking Greek.