Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

I love Darwin as much as any Egyptologist. He was a little ahead of his time and helped remove a little "magic" from the thinking of the age at least for the common man. He was a (little) giant upon whose shoulders anyone could be proud to stand.

Actually, Darwin did no such thing.

Darwin was pretty neutral about religion, and was a Christian for half of his life, but became more "agnostic" with time (meaning as he got older), after the publication of On Origin of Species.

It was his friend, colleague, and contemporary - Thomas Henry Huxley - who advocated for removing religious concepts (like miracles and magic, superstitions) from science classrooms and lectures in schools and universities, throughout Britain.

It was sort of like, a "separation" of religion from science education, just as the previous century, Europe's Age of Enlightenment, have separated religions from states and from laws. Huxley did the similar thing that happen with the Age of Enlightenment, except he did it for universities and schools.

Unlike Huxley, Darwin never got into politics, he didn't try to change the system. And it is why I think you are clueless, making up things, like LIIA do, regarding to Darwin, trying to pin Social Darwinism on him. Like LIIA, you are trying to re-write history to suit you.

 

[gnostic]

ANY belief can lead to evil just as the belief in "survival of the fittest" has been one of the leading causes of death since Darwin came up with it.

Again, you have forgotten so easily that Darwin didn't come up with "survival of the fittest".

I have told you, not so long ago, that the person who came up with that, was Herbert Spencer, a sociologist and political philosopher. It was this same Spencer, who came up with Social Darwinism.

You have forgotten this, have you?

 

[gnostic]

You live in a very very simple black and white world where science is the white light and belief in your version of God is the blackness.

Well, I am not the one living in deluded fantasies about 40,000 language and science that don't exist.

 

[cladking]

Again, you have forgotten so easily that Darwin didn't come up with "survival of the fittest".

I have told you, not so long ago, that the person who came up with that, was Herbert Spencer, a sociologist and political philosopher. It was this same Spencer, who came up with Social Darwinism.

You have forgotten this, have you?

This took me less than 20 seconds to find. I would have found it long ago but it is irrelevant to Darwin's belief in "survival of the fittest".

The belief in this nonsense is still killing people today and will remain a leading cause of death until it is shown to be poppycock.

survival of the fittest | Definition, Applications, & Examples

A lot of believers don't follow links or care about evidence so suffice to say that the term appeared in "Origin of Species; 1869" by Charles Darwin.


I am being barraged by a straw army and semantical arguments.

 

[cladking]

"Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art."

This took me a minute and a half to find he not only agrees with the term but believes it is more accurate than the words he had been using.

Chapter 3 "Origin of Species".

Your argument has no weight at all. It is mere words and semantics just like twisting my meaning of "basis of science" (metaphysics). You have never addressed my argument or shown you understand it. You keep reciting your beliefs and lecturing about what you have read in textbooks. What you have read is mostly irrelevant to reality, experiment, AND my argument. It is based largely on extrapolation of observation and inductive reasoning neither of which are science. Induction, extrapolation, and interpolation are extrametaphysical. In tandem they are what I call "Look and See Science" and depend not on reality affecting experiment but on the beliefs of the observer.

 

[gnostic]

The belief in this nonsense is still killing people today and will remain a leading cause of death until it is shown to be poppycock.

There have been wars and massacres long before Darwin.

There have been persecution, torture and genocide going on in Europe back in the Early Middle Ages, where Christians have attacked Jews.

You are just blindsided with your hatred for Darwin, blaming something was never involved in, like the Nazi Holocaust.

Darwin was never politicians or generals, he had no powers to change policies or laws, or implement military strategies. You are nothing more than shameless and dishonest propagandist, trying to rewrite history and using false equivalence, to associate Darwin with Nazi, forgetting that the Brits and Germans were enemies in WW2.

You do that a lot, don’t you? Attempting to rewrite history to fit in your wild fantasies that you believe in.

 

[cladking]

There have been wars and massacres long before Darwin.

There have been persecution, torture and genocide going on in Europe back in the Early Middle Ages, where Christians have attacked Jews.

You are just blindsided with your hatred for Darwin, blaming something was never involved in, like the Nazi Holocaust.

Darwin was never politicians or generals, he had no powers to change policies or laws, or implement military strategies. You are nothing more than shameless and dishonest propagandist, trying to rewrite history and using false equivalence, to associate Darwin with Nazi, forgetting that the Brits and Germans were enemies in WW2.

You do that a lot, don’t you? Attempting to rewrite history to fit in your wild fantasies that you believe in.

As I said I love Darwin as much as any Egyptologist. No matter how many ways you parse this I do not hold Darwin in low esteem. As I've said countless times every man is a product of his place and time and Darwin was a remarkable individual for his place and time. He may not have been a genius but he was sharp and could think clearly. He took the beliefs of the time and ran them forward. The fact he was wrong about everything doesn't detract at all from his accomplishments. I'm sure he couldda been a friend. If you took my words literally you'd have a better chance of understanding my meaning. Except for obvious hyperbole my words are usually literal and precise.

There have always been enemies individually and collectively and there have always been conflicts over land and resources. While I hardly approve of war and believe most are unnecessary they were not caused by one side believing that the species would be better if all their opponents were dead. Doctors didn't make life and death decisions based on the quality of insurance or wealth of the patient or on whether the world could profit by his genes. Whole peoples weren't eradicated for sport.

We each choose our beliefs and then we interpret all reality through these beliefs. Most people believe in survival of the fittest so of course those deemed less fit are always at greater risk than others. In triage the sickest are treated first but in real life the strongest get preferential treatment. Those deemed weakest don't matter because they'll all die anyway and lack the genes to produce viable offspring.

EVERYTHING EVERYONE does is based on his beliefs. Powerful people aren't even responsible for their actions because people believe that education determines competence and the id drives behavior. Why punish a leader for bad results since he still has education and he's learned his lesson. We allow the incompetent and dishonest to run government, industry, and finance.

You see history in terms of generals and wars but I see it in terms of the average man and the demand he puts on supplies. I see history in terms of technological change and invention. I see individual actions and words in terms of beliefs. War is a failure of diplomacy and reason. It is a breakdown in communication. Diplomacy has always broken down but today most diplomats believe in "survival of the fittest".

This is all beside the point because it doesn't really matter how many have been killed because of your beliefs and the number is unquantifiable. The world is infinitely complex and even the tiniest event has countless trillions of causes. What really matters isn't why Darwin had these beliefs or the outcome but what the realityy of change in species really looks like in a reductionistic perspective because this is the only way we can perceive anything. The reality appears to be that change in species is effected by consciousness and is sudden.

 

[gnostic]

As I said I love Darwin as much as any Egyptologist. No matter how many ways you parse this I do not hold Darwin in low esteem. As I've said countless times every man is a product of his place and time and Darwin was a remarkable individual for his place and time. He may not have been a genius but he was sharp and could think clearly. He took the beliefs of the time and ran them forward. The fact he was wrong about everything doesn't detract at all from his accomplishments. I'm sure he couldda been a friend. If you took my words literally you'd have a better chance of understanding my meaning. Except for obvious hyperbole my words are usually literal and precise.

There have always been enemies individually and collectively and there have always been conflicts over land and resources. While I hardly approve of war and believe most are unnecessary they were not caused by one side believing that the species would be better if all their opponents were dead. Doctors didn't make life and death decisions based on the quality of insurance or wealth of the patient or on whether the world could profit by his genes. Whole peoples weren't eradicated for sport.

We each choose our beliefs and then we interpret all reality through these beliefs. Most people believe in survival of the fittest so of course those deemed less fit are always at greater risk than others. In triage the sickest are treated first but in real life the strongest get preferential treatment. Those deemed weakest don't matter because they'll all die anyway and lack the genes to produce viable offspring.

EVERYTHING EVERYONE does is based on his beliefs. Powerful people aren't even responsible for their actions because people believe that education determines competence and the id drives behavior. Why punish a leader for bad results since he still has education and he's learned his lesson. We allow the incompetent and dishonest to run government, industry, and finance.

You see history in terms of generals and wars but I see it in terms of the average man and the demand he puts on supplies. I see history in terms of technological change and invention. I see individual actions and words in terms of beliefs. War is a failure of diplomacy and reason. It is a breakdown in communication. Diplomacy has always broken down but today most diplomats believe in "survival of the fittest".

This is all beside the point because it doesn't really matter how many have been killed because of your beliefs and the number is unquantifiable. The world is infinitely complex and even the tiniest event has countless trillions of causes. What really matters isn't why Darwin had these beliefs or the outcome but what the realityy of change in species really looks like in a reductionistic perspective because this is the only way we can perceive anything. The reality appears to be that change in species is effected by consciousness and is sudden.

You are still forgetting that Natural Selection is explanations for life biodiversity.

Natural Selection are not about human cultures, not about human behaviour or psychology, not about human activities that include building, invention, technology, writing, art, music, war or peace, diplomacy, business, careers, etc.

None of these applied to physical changes at cellular level and genetics level, none of them would be biological inherited.

Plus, you also forgetting that Natural Selection also applied to non-human life.

What you are talking about have nothing to do with biology or biological changes, changed physical traits that can be inherited by descendants. Everything you have talk about, in the above quote don’t apply to bacteria, plants and other animals.

You continued to talk about stuff that aren’t relevant to biology.

If you want to talk about human inventions and technology, then start a new thread. If you want to talk about war and peace or diplomacy, then start another thread about them.

Why start new threads? This is rhetorical question that you don’t need to answer. The answer is because you still continue to go off topic with things that are not relevant to Darwin’s Natural Selection and not relevant to modern Natural Selection that are taught now.

You are still mixing Evolutionary Biology with Social Darwinism, which SD being a political and social philosophy (or ideology) that have absolutely nothing to do with Natural Selection.

Lastly, Darwin was a pioneer in the theory of Evolution, and Natural Selection is one of the 5 evolutionary mechanisms, that EXPLAIN how natural environment changes can have impact on life, survival of the fittest is not a sufficient or accurate scientific explanation of natural selection mechanism, because people like you, misuse it with your pathetic ignorance and with your false narratives.

 

[cladking]

I do not know how you can consistently wander so far from the topic. Rather than respond to my points that are a response to yours you take every conversation down a new track without addressing what I said. "Survival of the fittest" originated with Darwin's grandfather I believe. I don't care. My point was Darwin was just expanding on then current knowledge.

There is no such thing as survival of the fittest so when i don't agree with you then you'll need to substantiate your beliefs rather than repeat them. You not only can not show gradual change in species but you can't show that speciation results from survival of the fittest. You can't even show some individuals are more fit than others.

You believe consciousness isn't relevant to biology which is Latin for the "study of life" and then ignore my argument that life is consciousness. If you twist my arm I might agree that reductionistic science has little use for "consciousness" but this was a very poor decision and it has led to erroneous beliefs in "Evolution".

It's like you actually believe only Darwin is relevant here and not his delusions (or illusions).

You are wrong and Darwin was wrong. The Bible is closer to the truth than is Darwin. This is only logical since the Bible was based largely in ancient science from whose perspective speciation was more visible.

If species gradually change as Darwin supposed then why are the old versions missing? What happened to those four legged whales? What a coincidence one species dies out just in time for a new one to take its place. There are no old species and no missing links. The fossil record can not be used to induce the nature of change in species. It is Look and See Science.

Don't change the subject.

 

[gnostic]

Don't change the subject.

I am not changing the subject.

Survival of the fittest was coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864, in the Principles Of Biology.

Darwin never used that term in his On The Origin Of Species, By Means Of Natural Selection, in 1859.

Did Darwin later used the term, the answer would be yes, in his later book about plants.

But as I repeatedly said in the past, Darwin was a pioneer, on the theory of Evolution. While some of his framework on Natural Selection, and still taught today, the rest are replaced by the modern concept of Natural Selection, where contemporary students study the mechanism Natural Selection in regarding to the theory of Evolution, not “survival of the fittest”.

Biology students are not required to read Darwin’s original works, except in their own time, if they are interested in its historical background. Biology students just what are provided in the textbooks, reading the current knowledge and learning the current practice and techniques.

Meaning students don’t normally spend much times on reading history, when they have so many different subjects in each semester, with papers (projects, assignments, thesis, essays, etc) to write up, reading and researches to be done, plus exams to prepare for.

Biology textbooks would only give very general background about Darwin’s contribution to Evolution in the introduction, but the rest of chapters, involve information about current knowledge.

That’s the fact.

You are wasting your time on Social Darwinism, which have nothing to do with Evolutionary biology, and you wasted time on the term survival of the fittest, which Spencer also used in his other books on sociology and on economics, which also have nothing to do with Natural Selection with bacteria, plants and other animals.

Do you think mammals (other than humans), reptiles, amphibians, birds, fishes, etc, concern itself where survival of the fittest applied to social Darwinism, sociology and economics?

Did you forget that there are more to biology than just humans?

Cats and dogs don’t concern itself with Social Darwinism, nor do elephants and hippos, nor do fishes and whales, nor do birds, etc.

You are still mixing biology with Social Darwinism.

Answer me these questions:

Have you even read a modern biology textbooks that are currently used in universities?

Do any of these books that mentioned Social Darwinism at all?

Have you ever attended any biology subjects (classes or lectures) that teach Social Darwinism to students?

Are there even a single subject devoted entirely to the topic of Social Darwinism?​

You are behind the time, wasting them on archaic subject (Social Darwinism), that no one really teaches today.

 

[cladking]

I am not changing the subject.

Survival of the fittest was coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864, in the Principles Of Biology.

Darwin never used that term in his On The Origin Of Species, By Means Of Natural Selection, in 1859.

Did Darwin later used the term, the answer would be yes, in his later book about plants.

But as I repeatedly said in the past, Darwin was a pioneer, on the theory of Evolution. While some of his framework on Natural Selection, and still taught today, the rest are replaced by the modern concept of Natural Selection, where contemporary students study the mechanism Natural Selection in regarding to the theory of Evolution, not “survival of the fittest”.

Biology students are not required to read Darwin’s original works, except in their own time, if they are interested in its historical background. Biology students just what are provided in the textbooks, reading the current knowledge and learning the current practice and techniques.

Meaning students don’t normally spend much times on reading history, when they have so many different subjects in each semester, with papers (projects, assignments, thesis, essays, etc) to write up, reading and researches to be done, plus exams to prepare for.

Biology textbooks would only give very general background about Darwin’s contribution to Evolution in the introduction, but the rest of chapters, involve information about current knowledge.

That’s the fact.

You are wasting your time on Social Darwinism, which have nothing to do with Evolutionary biology, and you wasted time on the term survival of the fittest, which Spencer also used in his other books on sociology and on economics, which also have nothing to do with Natural Selection with bacteria, plants and other animals.

Do you think mammals (other than humans), reptiles, amphibians, birds, fishes, etc, concern itself where survival of the fittest applied to social Darwinism, sociology and economics?

Did you forget that there are more to biology than just humans?

Cats and dogs don’t concern itself with Social Darwinism, nor do elephants and hippos, nor do fishes and whales, nor do birds, etc.

You are still mixing biology with Social Darwinism.

Answer me these questions:

Have you even read a modern biology textbooks that are currently used in universities?

Do any of these books that mentioned Social Darwinism at all?

Have you ever attended any biology subjects (classes or lectures) that teach Social Darwinism to students?

Are there even a single subject devoted entirely to the topic of Social Darwinism?​

You are behind the time, wasting them on archaic subject (Social Darwinism), that no one really teaches today.

You just keep changing the subject. No matter what I say. I don't even know what "social darwinism" is and never heard of it till now. I don't really care and find labels and all taxonomies are more likely to confuse issues than to define them. Darwin led people to believe in "survival of the fittest" and it has been a belief underlying a leading cause of human deaths ever since. The words you or I use to describe this are irrelevant. That I am out of date is irrelevant.

What is relevant is you refuse to address any of the logic or facts that I present to refute Evolution and survival of the fittest. You evade, ignore, and change the subject. You create strawmen and word games.

I don't believe in Egyptology, anthropology, Evolution, psychology, etc, etc, etc so I don't read text books about any thing of this sort. I read some original source material and compilations of relevant material but wouldn't touch a textbook on such subjects with a 10' pole.

Apropos of nothing in particular I started monitoring a (major eastern university) class on Egyptology some time back (it was really nice of them to let me do this). The class was remarkable. the lecture was what I expected pretty much though not so dogmatic as the Peers in the subject but the test just floored me. Every single question but one was so easy many people and all Egyptologists would know the answer. The one question that wasn't "easy" I spotted the answer before I was done with the question but it was one anyone could miss (even Egyptologists). The only reason I had the answer was I've constructed detailed models of everything about Giza so the anomaly leaped out. I don't know anything and maintain a lot of respect for (the major eastern university) and several other universities in this country but my impression is mebbe even a dolt can ace the coursework and miss only one question on every test.

Education is not what it was in the 1890's. In those days they taught you how to think and provided you a framework of knowledge in which to do it. This is the type of education I attempted (and largely failed) to achieve. It appears that today they just teach you to consult Peers and charge you what the degree is worth on the open market.

In 12th grade I was provided a faulty trigonometry text. I should have spotted the error immediately but was so distressed that I was having difficulty in the class that I overlooked it. Indeed, I got a tutor who pointed it out but I didn't want to hear of it and instead had him show me the best work around he had. It wasn't until years later after taking some calculus that I looked back and saw the error and remembered the tutor had showed it to me. I don't know why anyone would write a bad textbook but it set me back years. The teacher was unqualified and dependent on the teacher's edition which I also possessed but it was wrong too and of no benefit.

You believe what you read, I believe experiment and observation. You believe Peers and I know everyone has always been wrong since the dawn of time. No matter how right I am about change in species someday it will be known I was mostly wrong and even where I am right it is true only from some limited perspectives. Darwin has been shown to be wrong. Now it will just require many funerals for science to change. But the shufflers of these funerals are no less fit really or at least were not before they got old (and dead); they were merely a product of their time and place just like everyone who has ever lived whether they are homo omnisciencis, homo sapiens, or bees.

 

[LIIA]

Claims that a scientific theory is the basis of evil in the world or possessing some intrinsic state that encourages evil have all the characteristics of claims that can be dismissed as hogwash. In my view, the position doesn't rise to the level as the basis of a rational argument and ignores the reality that it is people that use these things in support of their evil and not the other way round.

Atrocities of extraordinary magnitude have been cared out under claims of the inspiration of Christianity, Islam or other religions. If the irrational notion that the misapplication of ideals, ideologies, theories and objects in the commission evil acts signifies some evil inherent in those things, then all of those things can be viewed as a source of evil and should be rejected on that basis. Singling out a theory that makes some uncomfortable due to ideology or ignorance while ignoring the wider application of that notion reveals the extent of hypocrisy in such a claim as I see it.

Dismissing that fact of this wider application with hand waving, swamping and demeaning comments claiming a juvenile level of understanding by those that have already pointed this out is an object lesson in how ideas without inherent evil can be twisted to the purposes of people for whatever underlying agenda they promote.

There is no wording in the theory of evolution that commands others to act with good or evil intent. There is no evidence that the theory of evolution has intrinsic properties supporting evil or good. It is an explanation of the evidence of change seen in experiments and observations of the natural world.

You may debate that deviations, alterations and misinterpretations had found its way into religions but that is not relevant in any way to the damaging influence driven by the true interpretations of the ToE when applied on humans. The first one who tried to apply the evolutionary ideas on humans is Darwin himself in his book “The Descent of Man”. In that very book he said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost CERTAINLY EXTERMINATE, and replace, the savage races throughout the world”.

What Darwin wrote is a fact that cannot be disputed; Darwin’s own view of evolution as it applies to human, predicted the inevitable extermination of the so described “savage races” by the “civilized races”. Then how can you say, “There is no evidence that the theory of evolution has intrinsic properties supporting evil or good”?

The theory that dehumanizes man, the theory that establishes basis for racism and designation of humans as worthy or unworthy of life, the theory that totally eliminate any basis of morality and replace it with natural selection of the fittest, such theory Is indeed possessing an intrinsic evil state that encourages evil conduct.

The question is what is evil and how is it identified in light of the ToE. What we used to identify as evil was not only committed but became justifiable under the name of science and was considered as a legitimate embracement of the course of nature as it purifies the human race towards future prosperity. The murder of those unfortunate humans stigmatized as unworthy of life was not considered as a crime in light of the evolutionary concepts.

Thank you for own clear and concise words that accurately describes the claim that the ToE establishes basis of evil in the world or possessing some intrinsic state that encourages evil. Indeed, it is.

 

[LIIA]

That’s not what Abiogenesis is studying. Nothing just pop into existence, certainly not flys, maggots or rats.

Abiogenesis is a felid of study based on a false assumption without evidence. Abiogenesis holds a false axiom (assumed to be a fact) and uses it as the foundation to build on.

There is no evidence that live of any kind or even a non-living self-replicating genetic material can emerge from non-living matter. None.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation share the same roots/history. The understanding of spontaneous generation that some complex life forms may emerge relatively quickly from non-living matter, evolved to be the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis today, which is restricted to the presumption that relatively simpler, earliest forms of life arose gradually from non-living matter.

The Term “Abiogenesis” itself was initially coined to refer to “Spontaneous Generation”. Go back to #1448, read it more carefully, it’s clear enough, you should get it.

Abiogenesis today didn’t progress much beyond the 1920 ideas of Oparin-Haldane and 1953 Miller-Urey experiment which showed that some non-living organic compounds may emerge from non-living inorganic matter, other than that, there was never any evidence to support that metabolic functions or the ability of self-replication may emerge on its own from non-living matter. That is why some scientists hypothesized that extraterrestrial life may have migrated to Earth via collision with extraterrestrial objects “panspermia”. It’s another story or “historical narrative” to shift the problem to “elsewhere”, which is a lot similar to Dawkins claim against observed punctuation in the fossil record that gradualism must have happened “elsewhere” and the typically observed punctuation is driven by migratory events. “elsewhere” is always the magic answer to support the ridiculous fairytale.

We don’t need to know what life exist earliest, because we already know that prebiotic species of unicellular organisms, from bacteria, have been around for billions of years before multicellular organisms.

Yes, unicellular organisms have been around before early Cambrian. Then all major animal phyla suddenly appeared in the fossil record “The Biological Big Bang” in the Cambrian period approximately 541 million years ago, which is known as “Cambrian explosion” but no intermediate varieties of the Cambrian explosion species were found.

Primitive microorganisms exist as early as 3.6 billion years ago, from microfossil evidence found in Precambrian rocks in Canada and Western Australia. Animals didn’t exist until 600 million years ago (eg invertebrates like the primitive sponges), plants even later still after the Cambrian period.

Yes, all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record in the Cambrian Period accompanied by major diversification in groups of organisms . Almost all present-day animal phyla appeared during this period.

Preceding the Cambrian period, no fossils were found other than microscopic fossils of microbial life, but no intermediate varieties of the Cambrian explosion species were found.

The Cambrian explosion is known as ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’. He was aware of it and mentioned it in his book the Origin of Species. He wrote, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory”.

2013, the Paleontologist Dr. Mark McMenamin said, “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”.

 

[LIIA]

Science is forced to stay within its limits by its methodology. Step over the line and science can't work.

Agreed, the understanding of reality as perceived by humans (or any conscious organism for that matter) is a relative concept dependent on the capacity of sense perception and mental power.

Deep-sea fish that live in the darkness below the sunlit surface waters may not and cannot know what the sun is or whether it exists. If they have the mental capacity, they may think that it’s reasonable to withhold belief that the sun exists. It doesn’t mean anything in their realm/domain but maybe some phytoplankton in the water provide a clue about the existence of the sun. Whether they acknowledge the existence of the sun or not, it's irrelevant to the fact that without the sun, life on the deep see (actually on earth) would not exist.

"Whatever's beyond our ability so see can't exist?" Nobody says this. It's not an axiom, and not logical.

Yes, it’s definitely not logical. Nonetheless, it resides in the subconscious of many of the so-called proponents of science as an axiom that shapes their mindset/perspective even if they are not aware of it. Simply,” don’t/can’t see it, don’t believe it or it cannot exist”.

"Entities must be grounded in the absolute?" "Logical necessity?" This doesn't follow. You're presupposing the absolute, and your conclusion doesn't follow.

I’m not presupposing anything. The causal dependency of relative/caused entities cannot continue in infinite regression. An absolute is necessary at the end of the chain. It’s not a presupposition; it’s a logical necessity. Infinite regress is a logical fallacy.

What biased axiom?

As explained above, “can’t see it, can’t experiment with it, it doesn’t exist”

The absolute reality is not confined within the domain of our ability to observe/comprehend. The observable domain of science doesn’t establish a sufficient disclosure of objective reality that independently lies outside the limits of awareness/knowledge.

What scientist says this?
Science's boundaries are dictated by what can be directly or indirectly observed

Most if not all scientists believe only the information obtained through observation or through experimentations, which is a logical approach only within a limited domain. The boundaries of such domain don’t create any limitation to the absolute reality that independently lies beyond that domain.

Exactly. Science, of course, is forced by its methodology to use appropriate means. Religion, on the other hand, has always felt free to trample on science's domain, opining on biology, physics,geology, &c.
Religion's not an investigative modality. It doesn't test. In fact, it actively resists testing and criticism, which science demands.

The scientific (physical) domain is not the only domain of reality. We can logically understand the existence of other (non-physical/metaphysical) domains, but the specific knowledge of such domains is not attainable through experimental/observational science. Beyond the limits of observational science, logic/philosophy and historiography/religions are the means to gain such knowledge, not observation or experimentation.

Prof Denis Noble, as a scientist is cognizant of the deficiency of the experimental/observational science to provide fundamental answers concerning the metaphysical domain. In the University of Oxford, Noble presented a lecture on his book, “The Music of Life”, he addressed this issue when he said “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, The important point ….my point is not to say which is right or which is wrong is to say think about it it's not so certain we know what we are”

The lecture is on YouTube. here is the link. See 38:38

(138) Music of Life Lecture - Denis Noble - YouTube

It is logical and reasonable to withhold belief in God, just as it is reasonable to withhold belief in leprechauns and unicorns -- because there is no empirical evidence that they exist.

Here is the paradox, if you understand that God is necessarily “non-physical”, and the methodology of observation/experimentation cannot deal with the “non-physical”, then you cannot deny the existence of God or insist to understand God's nature on the basis of empirical evidence. It doesn’t apply. Empirical evidence is only applicable within the physical domain and cannot be used to understand the nature of God’s being. You cannot apply the wrong means in the wrong domain. You want to bring God to physical domain to verify what he is but if you can do that, then he is not God. God is neither physical nor confined within the limits of space or time. These limitations define our realm, it limits us but it’s totally irrelevant to God’s being/nature.

But beyond God’s nature that cannot be observed/understood, we can definitely utilize observational science, logic, philosophy and historiography specifically with respect to data drawn from authentic historical religious records to understand God’s attributes.

If the authenticity of historical religious records can be verified and the drawn data from these records are consistent with both logic and observational science (without any contradiction), then there is neither logical basis nor scientific basis to deny it.

See #1450 for the religious perspective of God and the Universe in Islam.

This doesn't mean we declare them impossible, we just withhold belief pending evidence. I have seen no concrete evidence for a god.

Because you’re looking for the wrong kind of evidence that doesn’t apply to the Nature of God. If you know that the missing item is within a dark house (domain of search), you may get a flashlight (appropriate means) and search within that house. You don’t go search outside (wrong domain) and expect to find it there merely because “outside” is where you can see.

Einstein correctly identified the problem of God as the "most difficult in the world”. He said, “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds”.

Reality is not limited to entities that can be observed or experimented with. We cannot observe everything at all times, Inductivism is deficient in the sense that inductive evidence are always limited, that’s why we use deductive reasoning to verify the validity of an initial premise.

Logic can provide initial predictions/premise independent from observations. Such as the mathematical physics of the general theory of relativity, that successfully provided proven predictions consistent with experimental data. Einstein didn’t rely on a sophisticated space telescope to spot some extraordinary observation but rather his tools were pen, paper and the power of the human mind.

Logic and the intellectual power of the human mind can go further beyond physical observations. Yet, consistent observations support the validity of the premise.

The logical premise of the necessary (absolute) being “God” is supported by observations of design, purpose, and order that can be witnessed in the fine-tuned universe, every single life form (see #424), even at the atomic and molecular level (see #226).

You've taken the comments out of context. Einstein was, at best, a pantheist or agnostic. Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Not at all, read it again. Einstein was not an atheist, pantheist or agnostic.

First, I never said that Einstein followed a specific religion. He didn’t.

Second, Einstein was neither an atheist nor a pantheist. He clearly said, "I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist.” .

Third, Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. That was not his view. he was not agnostic. Einstein said "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver”. He acknowledged God’s causal influence as the “lawgiver” but he correctly identified the specific problem as the nature of God. He said “but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified”.

To summarize, Einstein was not an atheist, He acknowledged God’s causal influence as the “lawgiver”, his view was that the problem is too vast for our limited minds with respect to the nature of God’s being. He said “but how does this lawgiver look?”.

People have been "understanding God's attributes through his manifestations" for millennia: Earthquakes, tides, plagues, comets, seasons.... They were wrong. They were trespassing onto science's domain.
Science has been explaining the unintentional, undirected mechanisms of such "proofs of God" for hundreds of years. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't "explain," it just attributes. It doesn't posit any mechanism, so infers magic.

you are referring to witnessed phenomena but you neither understand the root cause nor have any logical or scientific basis to claim undirected mechanisms.

Logically, any witnessed effect is a component of a chain reaction or a domino effect. a witnessed phenomenon at a specific point in time is analogous to the last domino’s fall in a “domino effect” and can be sufficiently explained by the fall of the domino immediately preceding it. But does such explanation provide sufficient disclosure of a root cause or justify a claim for an undirected mechanism? Absolutely not. unless you explain the absolute beginning of the domino effect, you neither have an explanation nor can claim that the mechanism is undirected. All what you did is you moved one step back to find that you are back to square one with the exact same question.

Yes, natural laws explain observable phenomena. natural laws are the “preceding domino” per the analogy above but what explains the natural laws itself? What is the root cause? We know natural laws exist and act in a specific way. That’s very much it, but why does it exist? Why it acts in such specific manner? We have no idea; we don’t even care for an explanation as if these laws or physical forces are brute facts. It's not. it's all contingent entities that came to existence with the Big Bang. Even the term “physical” doesn't represent true knowledge or understanding of its nature. If we know nothing about the intrinsic nature of these forces, how can we with any level of certainty call it physical or metaphysical? If this is the case with the natural laws, how about the nature of its causal influence? We don’t have a clue, as Einstein said, “There are not laws without a lawgiver …but how does this lawgiver look?”.

See # 490 for causality levels/ hierarchy

Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums

 

[rational experiences]

As a human. My just a human consciousness as the human. Naturally selects in thinking what it wants to human believe.

Majority cult choice behaviour human is by money control threat determines whose forced to agree. Terms conditions. Title. Awards by title. Subject. Subjected to and by humans thinking only.

Once human memory chose to collect food. Walk ...wander. Drink water. Bring food back to family.

Live as family ...trade as extended family. Were very spiritual and true to their nature. Human. Spirituality. Basic. Mutual. Balanced.

Then a changing God as determined by science man himself rock.. fell.....burning. .. plummeted to earth.

Burnt his chemical brain. The God in human science. Rock.

Thinking to be selective in selecting thoughts by causes then changed.

He said he was that Rock god that had changed species already existing and named it as humans science.

He lied. It was a direct inherited passed down through men's DNA to biology mind generation himself. Thought.

By human sex.

By animal sex and for thousands of years.

Human the whole time as he speaks. Stating as if he personally as did his bio review of nature changed no longer wholly existed as origin type.

Mind theist self dominion as a human false god possession. By title and subject.

Taught already known about his mind changed human Consciousness. A healers testimonial. Inherited theists.

So I know my ancient philosopher brother said what an egotist he was to placate that he was that gods advice. And that he lied as no man was God.

Reason.

Whilst we still own a human awareness to learn egotists just human are wrong.

If you didn't force unnatural schooling you choose rich men for civilisation status and just allowed life to just...be.....we'd be okay.

All forced types of subject indoctrination are man owned.

 

[LIIA]

Magic never posits a mechanism, and "goddidit" is not a cause.,

Why?

A cause that has an unknown nature beyond the scientific/physical domain is still a cause. Being external to your domain of knowledge/awareness is not a refutation.

The contradiction is the notion that the scientific method demands a cause for everything to end up satisfied with the conclusion that the universe and life itself are not caused. Do we really trust the logical principle of causality? If we don’t, the entire scientific method collapses. There is not known physical mechanism to initiate/cause the universe, natural laws and life but that doesn’t mean the cause doesn’t exist.

Experimental/ Observational Science is the wrong domain to search for such causal influence beyond the beginning. Science is about observations of the interactions that take place within an existing system (universe, life) not the initiation of the system. The initiation of the system is beyond the domain of science.

Science doesn't make this claim.

Science doesn’t acknowledge the metaphysical merely on the basis that it’s beyond the scientific observable domain (outside of human sense perception).

Religion's domain is value, purpose, meaning, &c. How would science study or test these? You'll never find an "explanation" in these areas.

Natural Sciences are not concerned with these. It fits within the domain of Social Sciences. Even so “explanation” is possible, but I think more appropriate term here is “knowledge” in these areas not explanation.

Even religion posits no explanation or mechanism.
Science is not trespassing on these domains. Religion, on the other hand, is always making claims that are testable or explainable -- science's domain. Yet religion never tests or explains.

Religions are not scientific disciplines. Religions are concerned with metaphysical domains. Religions (Islam) do provide insight on areas within the scientific domain mainly as a sign of authenticity and encouragement to pursue the scientific method where it applies. There is no conflict.

Huh????

Every effect we may observe in our realm is a component of a chain reaction (cause/effect chain) as analogous to a domino effect. The very first effect that we can (indirectly) observe is the Big Bang. Beyond that first physical effect, nothing physical existed.

Meaning? Science doesn't deal in meaning.

It’s not about semantics. The intent here is “nothing physical existed” but I find it inappropriate to use the past tense beyond the Big Bang (which imply the continuation of time) because time itself didn’t exist. Even our language cannot properly deal with the non-physical state beyond the Big Bang. When we try to address this domain beyond the Big Bang; we find no choice but to use the past tense. Yet there was nothing physical not even time or space (spacetime).

???? -- When does science do this?

When science searches for empirical evidence (necessarily physical) beyond the Big Bang to explain it, which is an illogical contradiction. if we already acknowledged that no particles, no radiation, no natural laws, no time, no space, nothing physical of any kind existed, then why do we insist that the explanation has to be supported by empirical evidence?

Is it? Physics hasn't established it.

Physics did establish that nothing physical existed beyond the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a physical change (first caused physical effect) that took place at a specific point in time. The change requires a cause. The cause must be non-physical (unknown nature). Nothing physical existed.

If God is somehow involved in the BB, it's an extraordinary and entirely unevidenced claim. It's a false dilemma conclusion.
The fact is neither the initial singularity is physical nor the cause of the instantiation of the universe in reality is physical. Being non-physical, the cause is necessarily beyond the domain of science.The cause, if any -- physical, non physical, other -- is unknown. Whether we're capable of figuring it out remains unknown, as well. We're still data-gathering. But unknown ≠ God. Again: a false dilemma.

Data gathering takes place only within the physical domain. We may speculate but the fact remains that no data-gathering/observations are possible beyond the Big Bang.

Yes, unknown ≠ God. You didn’t get it. I’m presenting the position of physics, logic and religion as follows:

1) Physics: nothing (physical) existed beyond the BB.

2) Logic: the BB requires a cause. The cause is non-physical/unknown.

3) Religion (Islam): a cause of a totally unknown/ incomparable nature (God) is the absolute first cause for everything. At the beginning, heaven and earth were a single entity (Singularity) that God broke it apart and the heavens are continuously expanding.

Now, our knowledge stops at the BB, we cannot observe any further. It’s a fact. Islam reconciles the view of physics, logic & religion. The Islamic view neither contradicts logic nor the latest scientific finds. Islam is not a scientific discipline yet offers scientific insights to prove its authenticity (such as the initial singularity, expansion of the universe & ellipsoid shape of earth). There are no logical or scientific reasons to deny the Islamic view.

Again, unknown ≠ God but both logic and science provide insights on the attributes of the necessary being. See the link below for #132, item 3 on page 7 of the thread (Necessary Being: Exists?). Islam confirms these attributes. All sources of the collective human knowledge (natural science, logic, historiography/ religion) coexist in harmony in a reconciled view, which is “Islam”.

Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists

Islam was the driving force that established the basis of modern science. Without Islam, modern science as we know it today wouldn’t be possible. See # 1452

Darwin's Illusion | Page 73 | Religious Forums

Illogical? Silly, useless, foolish, perhaps.
The big bang describes the evolution/expansion of the universe from an initial state. Any causal mechanisms are, as yet, unknown and may well remain so. Asserting the magical will of an invisible, intentional personage as a cause, however, is wild speculation.

[/QUOTE]

Foolishness is the inability to understand the threshold beyond which you cannot continue utilizing inapplicable methodology to pursue further knowledge. Foolishness is the denial of sources of knowledge beyond observation/experimentation. Foolishness is the denial of God on the basis that we cannot observe or experiment on his being.

If you claim that believing in God is driven by illogical thinking/foolishness, then you’re wrong. The brightest and most logical minds of all time, such as Albert Einstein, James Maxwell and Isaac Newton were all theists.

In our realm, nothing is uncaused. There is no such thing as magic but indeed there are unknown causes beyond our limited knowledge/awareness. If the effect is observed, the cause must exist. Every physical effect is dependent on a cause. Causality as we understand it and natural laws cease to exist only beyond the physical realm.

No one is saying anything about magic personage. We are talking about an absolute causal influence of a totally unknown/incomparable nature that must exist (necessary being) to explain everything in existence whether physical or metaphysical. Everything, the universe, life, consciousness are all relative entities and must be grounded in an absolute being.

By your definition, all physical forces are indeed magic. It’s all invisible. We cannot see the gravitational field/force, electromagnetic force, weak and strong nuclear force, dark energy, we don’t know its nature, how/why it exerts such influence on matter. We only know it exists and it has an observed influence. The influence is specific and can be measured. But what is the mechanism that gives these forces its power? Why/how it came to existence?

So, all matter is controlled by these invisible forces of unknown/unexplained nature, how is that different than magic? Isn’t that your definition of magic? How is that a satisfactory explanation of a causal mechanism? The only difference than magic is that we see these forces in action repeatedly so we’re very familiar with its specific behavior as it controls matter. Yet, it remains invisible and of unknown nature similar to the causes of the so-called “magic”. So, our familiarity with it removes the element of wonder and makes it less magical relative to our perception of it. Is that really an intrinsic difference or a merely a relative perception?

The point is unless you have a root/absolute cause, you have nothing. The last domino falls because of the preceding domino but you cannot stop at the preceding domino (an effect) and fool yourself that you have found the ultimate explanation. You didn’t. You’re just not cognizant of it. See # 490

 

[LIIA]

your latest replies are little more than "Nuh uh" and simple repetition of your assertions. For those, I will just note what they are and leave it at that

Nuh uh

Your reply is an escape tactic, not an ethical debate.

This is merely "Nuh uh". You were provided examples of gradual change in the fossil record.

Again, the prediction is millions of transitional forms for every organism alive or ever existed on earth. Some challenged examples don’t cut it.

Empty assertion. YT videos are irrelevant in science.

Seriously?

This was Noble’s lecture In the University of Oxford on his book, “The Music of Life”, the links were previously provided in #1247.

(Below is a copy from #1247)

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

See the two pages below with highlights

Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You made the assertion, so it falls on you to back it up. You don't get to make an empty assertion and then tell others to "verify it for themselves".

Possible number of random interactions is obviously enormous beyond belief. There is no need to debate about this. Try to debate ethically.

Again, it’s not my claim. See above.

Really? Do you believe Jews are less fit?

I don’t. The Nazis did.

Completely false.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics | PLOS Computational Biology

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.
It's right there in the name of the model....Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships.

If you claim the process to be totally random, how can you make functional predictions? Its only possible if the process is directed not random.

Where did anyone (besides you) claim that support for EES is a majority position in evolutionary biology?

Gerd B. Müller and the royal society!! (a fellowship of many of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence)

See #911
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary | Interface Focus (royalsocietypublishing.org)

So you're saying that because he's an expert in his field (biology) we should all take whatever he says on the subject as true?

Do you suggest we ignore whatever he says on the subject because he is an expert in his field?

The point is, as a source, he is credible; yet you don’t have to take anything as true. Verify it for yourself.

Why, because you say so? The scientists who actually did the study didn't say that.

Do you know the definition of “random”? Do you see any randomness in the observed behavior of the bacteria? Do we really need to debate about this?

You didn't answer the question. You believe mutations are "directed". The question is....by whom?

Isn’t that obvious? The bacteria are intelligently designed to function and behave in a very specific manner, which has nothing to do with alleged randomness. Obviously if we acknowledge the fact of intelligent design, then the design has to function per the purpose intended by the designer.

Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

How is the credibility of the source/journal a logical fallacy? You do acknowledge the credibility of the source (the royal society), don’t you?

The credibility is granted, yet I say go the extra mile, verify further if in doubt.

 

[LIIA]

This represents a strange distortion of what 'fitness' relates as it pertains to the ToE. It does NOT mean 'intrinsically better'. It is ALWAYS contextual.

So, in a Nazi-run society Jews, atheists, disabled people and many other groups were indeed 'less fit' to survive in the prevailing environment. That isn't exactly news, given that they were being actively persecuted by Nazis, but it has nothing to do with the inherent value those groups hold.

Nazis, of course, believed that it did. Nazis were, imho, a parasitical group of brutal, cultish humans (because it's important we don't dehumanize them, honestly) who I have exactly no interest in defending. How they can be used to decry science is quite strange. Better we use them as an example of what happens when good men stand idle, or how we should respect those different to ourselves, lest their fate become ours.

Science is just science. What humans use it for, where it is controlled or unfettered, and how we change our environments/society because of it is ENTIRELY ON US. Science doesn't care. It can't.

You think the Nazis misinterpreted the ToE. I don’t.

The first one who tried to apply the evolutionary ideas on humans is Darwin himself in his book “The Descent of Man”. In that very book Darwin said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost CERTAINLY EXTERMINATE, and replace, the savage races throughout the world”.

As it turned out, the selection criteria to determine “the savage races” was up to whichever group has political power at the time.

The outcome was a direct interpretation of the theory as it applies to humans. In any way you look at it, it’s a racist unethical concept that dehumanizes man.

 

[rational experiences]

A human is a human as the human conscious human.

Claim by filled in empty space heavens awareness given.... I own dominion consciously. By my human worded explanations

Even over the universe. By filled in space. Heavens. Not being honest.

Without my life ...human. Notating we all die. Just not in the exact same moment.

Ground hog day for human man and woman.

Variables advised....what no other one same human doesn't say or quote as a self.

I claim fake universal dominion. Myself.
I claim fake earth dominion. Myself.

I die. I see my own man or woman self die. Everything else natural is unnamed. Exists without a human.

Correctly advised.

I read a Thoth saying that said God owned no name. It was obviously thought upon before. Human terms... why my life gets destroyed.

Subject topic. Natural life's owned sacrifice.

 

[LIIA]

The Miller Urey experiment confirmed the hypothesis of abiogenesis since of its claims was that for abiogenesis to occur nucleic acids have to be able to form on their own. At that time it was thought that only life could make nucleic acids.

Totally and dishonestly false.

The Miller-Urey experiment neither confirmed the hypothesis of abiogenesis nor confirmed that nucleic acids may form on their own. It merely showed that some organic compounds (amino acids) could form from simpler inorganic matter. That's all the experiment achieved. The experiment didn’t show any formation of nucleic acids as you implied. Why the dishonesty? You’re deceiving no one but yourself.

There is no process in nature to create nucleic acids. If it happens miraculously somehow, then its unprotected structure would very easily and very quickly get disrupted. If its structure miraculously stays intact as long as needed, then it has no chance to self-replicate without a living cell. It’s multiple layers of scientific impossibilities.

Let's assume that a strand of RNA can miraculously emerge from non-living matter and somehow its structure can stay intact (for thousands or millions of years), go ahead and demonstrate that such RNA strand may self-replicate without a living cell. Let alone how can this non-living strand turn into a living cell with metabolic functions and self-replication ability. It’s ridiculous.

abiogenesis is not even a theory, it's a felid of study and a hypothesis. How do you confirm a felid of study in progress? Unless it becomes a theory, your claim of a confirmation doesn’t even apply. It’s a dishonest claim merely to confuse the uninformed readers. Stop the nonsense.