Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

I think cladking take the cake with the most absurd notion of Evolution, that speciation occurred at individual level, where a single organism can “consciously” choose to evolve into new species.

No biologists think that possible, not even among the world of Bacteria, where a single generation or even within 2 generations.

Bacteria age of death and age of reproduction rates varied widely, but they do have very short lifespan, so they reproduce earlier than the eukaryotes.

In the lab somewhere, they have tested that a single particular bacteria can start binary fission at 19 minutes old.

Let’s say we rounded that up to 20 minutes (eg E.coli), so by 1 hour, you would have 3 generations of bacteria (4 generations if you count the original bacteria) with population of 8. By end of the day, there could be as many as 71 generations, and I don’t have calculator to do the population, I can certainly write computer codes. In one month, there would be 2150 generations.

Now supposedly, this bacteria is a cause of bacterial disease, and you administered antibiotic that either kill or stop the growth of the pathogens. Now, there might be mutations that don’t kill of this disease, but in order for the bacteria to shared the resistance of this particular antibiotic, for new strain of bacteria. New strain don’t instantly occur in the next generation. It would still take months for the original pathogen, to form into new strain.

So even with bacteria, it will still take time and so many numbers of generations for speciation to occur.

The Evolution that cladking have claiming, where speciation can occur almost instantaneously, only exist in sci-fi (novels, tv or films) or in cartoons and comics.

Worse of all, he seriously believe that consciousness play a key role of evolution, an organism being able to decide whether to biologically evolve or not. That’s just more comic book type “evolution”.

I have to wonder where he has been getting these ridiculous idea from.

Often from creationist sites. They are well known for demanding "tests" of evolution that would actually refute the theory if they were passed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think cladking take the cake with the most absurd notion of Evolution, that speciation occurred at individual level, where a single organism can “consciously” choose to evolve into new species.

No biologists think that possible, not even among the world of Bacteria, where a single generation or even within 2 generations.

Bacteria age of death and age of reproduction rates varied widely, but they do have very short lifespan, so they reproduce earlier than the eukaryotes.

In the lab somewhere, they have tested that a single particular bacteria can start binary fission at 19 minutes old.

Let’s say we rounded that up to 20 minutes (eg E.coli), so by 1 hour, you would have 3 generations of bacteria (4 generations if you count the original bacteria) with population of 8. By end of the day, there could be as many as 71 generations, and I don’t have calculator to do the population, I can certainly write computer codes. In one month, there would be 2150 generations.

Now supposedly, this bacteria is a cause of bacterial disease, and you administered antibiotic that either kill or stop the growth of the pathogens. Now, there might be mutations that don’t kill of this disease, but in order for the bacteria to shared the resistance of this particular antibiotic, for new strain of bacteria. New strain don’t instantly occur in the next generation. It would still take months for the original pathogen, to form into new strain.

So even with bacteria, it will still take time and so many numbers of generations for speciation to occur.

The Evolution that cladking have claiming, where speciation can occur almost instantaneously, only exist in sci-fi (novels, tv or films) or in cartoons and comics.

Worse of all, he seriously believe that consciousness play a key role of evolution, an organism being able to decide whether to biologically evolve or not. That’s just more comic book type “evolution”.

I have to wonder where he has been getting these ridiculous idea from.

That instantaneous speciation of individuals by will alone is just pseudoscience with nothing to back it up.

Somebody posted that experiment with E. coli in the giant square Petri dishes and how they developed resistance over a 2 week period to show that change is not gradual. But that is something on the order of 800 generations which isn't reasonable to claim as instant change or refute gradualism. It demonstrates evolution and shows that E. coli--a species with a very short generation time--evolve at a higher gradual rate.

In that demonstration, the E. coli grew in a part of the plate with no antibiotic up to a part of the plate with something like 10X antibiotic and then to a part beyond that with 1000X antibiotic. At the boundaries, you can see where a mutation providing resistance took place, because it was in that area that the population, selected by the antibiotic, slowly swelled and grew to take over the 10X and then later the 1000X regions of the plate.

The rapid development of bacterial populations in small areas is why they make such good lab rats for studying. It does not refute gradual change. It is widely known that different organisms evolve at different rates and that is dependent on the selection they are under.

Of course, this will be dismissed as believers succumbing to the preaching of Peers and not as a sound conclusion based on evidence, knowledge and reason. I predict it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Often from creationist sites. They are well known for demanding "tests" of evolution that would actually refute the theory if they were passed.

Yep.


I can't even count the amount of times I had to correct certain individuals on this very forum who will, ad nauseum, repeat nonsense like "...But they remain bacteria / dogs / birds / flies / cats / ....!!!!"

As if dogs producing non-dogs would support evolution theory.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

 

[LIIA]

Then the only correct answer is "we don't know",

True, the issue is the false perception/claim of knowing what is not known.

Instead of just asserting "(my) god did it".

God is the necessary absolute causal influence. The effects are the evidence for the cause.

The observed behavior of galaxies (effect) is the reason behind the inference that “dark energy did it" (cause). Other than the given name (dark energy) for a necessary causal influence, we cannot observe it, experiment on it or have any clue how it exerts its controlling power over galaxies. All what you know is a given name that you assigned to an unknown, which gives you a false illusion of knowing what you don't. You cannot make any step further, yet you deceive yourself that you know. You know nothing.

If this is always the case with fundamental causes, then what do you expect for the ultimate cause of all causes, what kind of evidence you would logically seek for God other than the observations (effects) of design/purpose/intention in all caused entities even in the specific behavior of the natural forces itself?

Data becomes evidence when an explanatory model exists that makes testable predictions, and when that data then supports or contradicts that model.

You need a model / testable proposition first, before data can become evidence.
Without such, data is just data.

Very true.

The model is that God is the absolute causal influence that purposefully caused all contingent entities of all kinds. The predictions are purpose/design/intention in every entity from the entire universe to subatomic particles.

All observations support that model.

 

[LIIA]

Causality is a phenomenon that happens in the universe and which is dependend on aspects / physics of the universe (like the flow of time, which literally is an aspect of the universe).

You are trying to use the physics of the universe in an environment where the universe does not exist.

It's a very unsophisticated way of trying to sound smart.

Causality is a necessity for every contingent entity (an entity that doesn’t exist by virtue of its mere essence). Every single entity in the universe is a contingent entity. The sum of contingent entities doesn’t add up to a non-contingent. The entire universe is a contingent entity (the universe had a beginning /didn’t always exist). The instantiation of contingent entities into reality is not possible without a cause.

Causality has its domain; its domain is the realm of contingent entities.

The fact is that there is good reason to assume that causality as we understand and observe it, might not apply if the universe doesn't exist.

it's true that causality doesn’t apply beyond the universe or more specifically beyond the realm of contingent entities, but the universe does exist and its existence (as a contingent being) is dependent on a cause.

 

[LIIA]

This was unexpected back then. It is very well understood today.
Also, PE is still gradual. The type of gradualism that PE disproved was the idea of a constant trend of gradualism instead of more "burst like". Before PE, they assumed a constant rate of change through time.

PE has shown us that this rate isn't constant through the ages. It slows down, speeds up, slows down, speeds up, etc. But in both cases (slowed or speed up), change still occurs gradually.

Today PE is very well understood and explained. And it is also very easily demonstrated using a genetic algoritm. Even with a very simplistic one like this right here:

HTML5 Genetic Algorithm 2D Car Thingy - Chrome recommended (rednuht.org)


The original one in flash was a lot better though, but flash is no longer supported. Hopefully the devs will expand on this new one to make it better cause it was loads of fun.

Anyhow..... let's just summarize what PE is about.

It is the simple idea that in periods of environmental stability, species close in on their "local optimum". Meaning that they become so specialized in the niche they live in, that evolutionary processes can no longer offer "easy" pathways towards further improvement. The closer to the local optimum, the more Natural Selection will favor the status quo. The amount of potential beneficial changes will become smaller and smaller.

When a significant change then occurs in the environment, the local optimums shift.
This change can be anything. A meteor impact. Climate change. A desease going rampant. A geological event. Anything that stirs up the balance of an eco system really.

Now, natural selection no longer favors the status quo. The amount of potential beneficial mutations (= mutations that get you closer to a local optimum) goes up. So the rate of change in the population (evolution) speeds up.

But how those changes spread in the population and achieves fixation, doesn't change. It's still gradual. Natural selection selects changes, they are inherited by off spring and so spread throughout the population over generations. Gradualism.

We can easily see this in action in that genetic algoritm I linked.

Leave it open for say 30 minutes (and click "surprise" so that it fast forwards without playing the animation).
You'll see that the top performers will have reached some local optimum. The properties of the top performers will exhibit very little change for the generations to come.
Now introduce an impactful change. In that example, all one can really do unfortunately, is change the gravity. The default setting is earth's gravity. Now put it on Jupiter. Wait another 5 minutes. You'll see noticeable change in the design of the top performer now. Then it will again reach its local optimum for the "new" environment, with little change for the generations that follow.

Now put it on the gravity of the moon. Wait 5 minutes. Now you'll notice BIG change in a short time. And once again it will settle in a new local optimum.


PE in action. It's not rocket science.

In the original version in flash, we would be able to take the population and put it on an entirely different track. For example, one that had movable obstacles and alike. That was great. You could first have race cars evolving on relatively flat tracks and then put them on the obstacle one and pretty soon, those race cars would change in snowplow-like trucks allowing them to "scoop" the obstacles away. lol

Meaningless speculations that have nothing to do with the real-world evidence.

First, the state of “local optimum” of a species/becoming perfectly specialized in the niche in which it lives, must be preceded by gradual changes slowly spreading in the population before any fixation may be achieved. it should be a long gradual process. Meaning the geological history should first show a long “pre-stasis phase” of gradual changes that finally reach a “local optimum” then it would be possible to see long stasis. But we don’t see that in the fossil record, the “pre-stasis phase" is totally missing in the geological history. All what we see is only the long stasis.

Second, with respect to gradualism, the rate of change is irrelevant. Regardless, the process must be gradual, i.e., how long it takes before a change emerges is irrelevant, if gradualism is true, then when the change emerges, it must be gradual. The stasis after a “local optimum” can be very long but it’s irrelevant to the fact that the following change must be gradual. this is not what we observe in the fossil record, long stasis are not followed by a gradual change but rather always by “sudden jumps”. The massive addition of the genetic information after the stasis is not explainable through any possible mechanism. This observation is persistent throughout the geological history.

To summarize, neither the “pre-stasis phase” (before a local optimum) can be seen in the fossil record nor stasis is followed by gradual changes. The predictions assumed by the theoretical framework are contradictory to the real-world evidence.

 

[LIIA]

That is how Mendeleev postulated the existence of germanium (17 years), gallium (6 years) and scandium (10 years). Figures in bracket indicate the number of years since Mendeleev postulated their existence and when they were actually discovered.

Similarly Einstein predicted gravitational lensing in 1936 but it was first observed only in 1979, 43 years later.
The existence of Boson as predicted in 1925 but it was finally discovered only in 2012, 87 years later. There is a process to science.

Nothing is wrong about being optimistic about the future, but we cannot ignore the facts of today based on future speculations/hopes that may never materialize.

RNA to DNA also is a jump and I am sure, science will be able to fix that in time.

The alleged first non-living strand of RNA is not possible to emerge in nature from non-living matter, not possible to keep its structure intact (especially without a protecting membrane), not possible to self-replicate without any access to required nucleotides, not possible to acquire metabolic functions. It’s multiple layers of impossibilities; only one of them would render the assumption false but the combination of all of them render the assumption ridiculous.

See # 2482

Darwin's Illusion | Page 125 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is the necessary absolute causal influence. The effects are the evidence for the cause.

No. That is just the claim of those that have no evidence. There does not appear to be a good reason to believe in a god.

The observed behavior of galaxies (effect) is the reason behind the inference that “dark energy did it" (cause). Other than the given name (dark energy) for a necessary causal influence, we cannot observe it, experiment on it or have any clue how it exerts its controlling power over galaxies. All what you know is a given name that you assigned to an unknown, which gives you a false illusion of knowing what you don't. You cannot make any step further, yet you deceive yourself that you know. You know nothing.

If this is always the case with fundamental causes, then what do you expect for the ultimate cause of all causes, what kind of evidence you would logically seek for God other than the observations (effects) of design/purpose/intention in all caused entities even in the specific behavior of the natural forces itself?

Actually the way that galaxies rotate appears to be due to Dark Matter. There are three strong lines of evidence for that. You do not know or understand the evidence so it appears that once again you assume that others are guilty of your sins.

As to the existence of a god it is your claim, you are the one that needs to find evidence for it. The problem is that in such a situation you do not appear to even understand the concept of evidence.

Very true.

The model is that God is the absolute causal influence that purposefully caused all contingent entities of all kinds. The predictions are purpose/design/intention in every entity from the entire universe to subatomic particles.

All observations support that model.

That is not the model. That is the claim. The model explains why we observe what we observe. All you have are claims. You have no evidence for your claims. Without a proper refutable model you do not have any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing is wrong about being optimistic about the future, but we cannot ignore the facts of today based on future speculations/hopes that may never materialize.



The alleged first non-living strand of RNA is not possible to emerge in nature from non-living matter, not possible to keep its structure intact (especially without a protecting membrane), not possible to self-replicate without any access to required nucleotides, not possible to acquire metabolic functions. It’s multiple layers of impossibilities; only one of them would render the assumption false but the combination of all of them render the assumption ridiculous.

See # 2482

Darwin's Illusion | Page 125 | Religious Forums

No, there is no need to refer back to your old lost arguments. Do you have any reliable sources that such such a thing is impossible? I am not saying that they do not exist. But I am saying that no believer has ever been able to support your claim.

EDIT: I was bored. I looked back. I shouldn't have. All he did was to repeat his unevidenced claims.


Repeating claims that require evidence without providing any is the same as admitting that you are wrong.

 

[LIIA]

I didn't assert it was 2 billion. I said LUCA could have been 2 billion. I was just making the point that LUCA need not be the first living thing.

Even so it’s irrelevant speculations but you cannot simply ignore 2 billion years of the alleged age to make a point.

It's explained in the very quote you are replying to.
The "L" in LUCA stands for LAST.

In my hypothetical example, A3 would be the LAST common ancestor.

Here is the definition of LUCA:

The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth.

Note it says "..of all CURRENT life on earth".
This does not include all species that went extinct.
In my hypothetical, the branches A1 and A2 have gone extinct. They are dead-ends.

I disagree but not interested in arguing about some irrelevant “Geisteswissenschaften”

See #331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

You are just stating the obvious.
Yes, we've established already that the origins of life hasn't been solved.

Agreed, many blind followers don’t understand this simple fact and if they understand it, they don’t admit it.

We all know that the origins of life remains largely an open question.

Very true, thank you for your ethical debate. You’re the first one to admit that “The origins of life remain largely an open question”. Others wouldn’t simply admit the facts.

You keep asserting this. The evidence says otherwise.

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

(474) Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

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)

In any case, I don't see the point about trying to argue against an established scientific theory by pointing at people who are ignorant of what it says.

Their ignorance has nothing to do with my argument against the theory but it's important to inform the blind followers that their notion that evolution explains life is false. Life was never explained.

Adaption = evolution.

False.

Adaptation is possible through purposeful directed mutations. Evolution is an alleged random process that assumes that numerous random mutations would allow an accidental beneficial mutation. It’s a totally different process/concept (purpose vs. randomness).

More bare assertions.

It’s the other way around. In #2770, I referenced my post #1245 & #1864 and provided supporting articles. On the other hand, you’re making bare assertions/meaningless denial.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Every newborn has mutations.
Most are neutral (ie: don't have any effect on fitness)
Some are harmful (ie: have negative effect on fitness)
Some are beneficial (ie: have positive effect on fitness)

The totality of these are statistically consistent with being random with respect to fitness.

Unknown benefit ≠ neutral. Will discuss further.

The vast majority is beneficial or at least non-harmful. DNA replication machinery proofreads its own synthesis to minimize replication errors. DNA repair ensures the survival of a species by enabling parental DNA to be inherited as faithfully as possible by offspring. Nothing about the replication process is random.

DNA repair | biology | Britannica

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even so it’s irrelevant speculations but you cannot simply ignore 2 billion years of the alleged age to make a point.

The ages are not "alleged". They are very well supported by evidence. I can provide you with some rather easily, but you would probably deny it. And one cannot just deny evidence. I am just curious, what evidence to the contrary do you have? It is probably nonexistent. Just admit that you made another unevidenced claim and I will gladly supply you with some supporting evidence.

I disagree but not interested in arguing about some irrelevant “Geisteswissenschaften”

See #331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

Oh look!! He admitted that he is wrong again by referring back to an old lost argument.

Agreed, many blind followers don’t understand this simple fact and if they understand it, they don’t admit it.

Really? And yet you cannot seem to find any.

By the way, do you know why the precise path of abiogenesis is likely to never be completely solved? I am betting that you get the answer wrong.

Very true, thank you for your ethical debate. You’re the first one to admit that “The origins of life remain largely an open question”. Others wouldn’t simply admit the facts.

No, you simply do not understand when your nonsense is refuted and then you attack others with a black and white fallacy. You won't be able to quote anyone to support this claim of yours. It is a false personal attack.

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

(474) Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

View attachment 68829

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)



Their ignorance has nothing to do with my argument against the theory but it's important to inform the blind followers that their notion that evolution explains life is false. Life was never explained.



False.

Adaptation is possible through purposeful directed mutations. Evolution is an alleged random process that assumes that numerous random mutations would allow an accidental beneficial mutation. It’s a totally different process/concept (purpose vs. randomness).



It’s the other way around. In #2770, I referenced my post #1245 & #1864 and provided supporting articles. On the other hand, you’re making bare assertions/meaningless denial.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums



Unknown benefit ≠ neutral. Will discuss further.

The vast majority is beneficial or at least non-harmful. DNA replication machinery proofreads its own synthesis to minimize replication errors. DNA repair ensures the survival of a species by enabling parental DNA to be inherited as faithfully as possible by offspring. Nothing about the replication process is random.

DNA repair | biology | Britannica

Oh god, more old failed arguments. Been there, done that bought the t-shirt.

 

[LIIA]

No, they aren't. Your wording is a bit off and ambiguous though....

I already addressed the "gradualism" part when I replied to your quote mining from Gould concerning PE.
There's the pre-PE idea of "gradualism" where it refers to evolutionary change following a relatively constant rate of change through the ages. And then there's "gradualism" in the sense of speciation happening gradually and not overnight. As in: a non-human primate never gave birth to a human. Instead, non-human primates gradually evolved into humans over many generations, with the rate of change through time not being constant as per the explanation in PE.

Stasis would arguably only happen after reaching a local optimum/perfect fit in a niche but how did you get to this point to begin with? There is no evidence for the “pre-stasis phase" that is essentially required before reaching a local optimum/perfect fit in a niche. The entire geological history is only characterized with stasis.

In addition, long periods of stasis are never followed by a gradual change but always by sudden jumps. Gradualism is false due to contradiction with real world evidence. The predictions of the framework contradict the observations.

Secondly, evolution is not just "random change". Evolution has random components, but the overall process isn't random. Specifically, natural selection isn't random. It's not "random" that natural selection favored white fur in bears that live at the pole against a white background of snow, for example.

The claim that “Evolution has random components” is exactly the problem. Where is the evidence for the alleged random components? You claim selection favored white fur in bears that live at the pole against a white background of snow, was there ever evidence for random color bears (black, brown, blue, red, yellow, purple, etc.) that emerged accidentally due to random mutations then got eliminated by natural selection?

Even after reaching a local optimum/perfect fit in a niche, if the process were random, random changes would continue to emerge. Why don’t we see other colors of bears that keep emerging randomly among the population of white bears and then get eliminated by selection? Simply because, the adaptation process is never random, it's always directed. The random change is an unevidenced myth.

The process isn't random and neither is the output. Only the input is.
Random input filtered by a non-random process yields non-random output.

Again, there is no evidence of random input (see above), random input dictates that random changes or errors keep emerging and keep getting eliminated by selection. We don’t see that in nature.

Evolution predicts that IF fossils are found (there's no guarantee of that at all, as explained already), they should make sense for a history of evolutionary change. So we expect to find transitional fossils.
And that's exactly what we find.

A massive jump after long period of stasis is contradictory to the predictions of gradualism. Nothing explains the massive addition of genetic info.

IF we find fossils of a lineage that are far enough removed from one another (millions of years), then we should be able to see evolutionary progression that makes sense. And that's exactly what we find.

Except, that this “far enough” is never true. In most of the cases, you can see a descendant that lives side by side by an alleged ancestor or even before the ancestor.

For example

Didn’t we already discuss this before? See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

Darwin's Illusion | Page 65 | Religious Forums

Again, the info that you got from Khan Academy is inaccurate/misleading. Their inaccurate dates imply a gradualistic direct ancestor-descendant evolutionary sequence, which is false. See the online paleobiology database fossilworks for the age ranges of these fossils.

Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database

Here is a quote from # 1298

The outdated “horse evolution tree” that claims unrelated extinct animals as the true horse ancestor was debunked more than 50 years ago but still presented in the textbooks and commonly by evolutionists as a proof of evolution. Neither a direct line of descent leading to modern horses was ever established nor one species succeeded the other in some neat, gradualistic direct ancestor-descendant evolutionary sequence as implied.

The alleged horse fossils don’t evolve in a straight line, nor do they show a continuous direction of change. They change from three-toed to single-toed and back to single-toed, the number of ribs jumps up and down, the trend toward larger size was not seen in all of the extinct specimens, some of which actually reversed direction and became smaller. These fossils overlapped significantly in time and one species did not “succeed” the other. The implied neat succession of ancestor and descendent species is false.

Alleged ancestral fossils have been uncovered in the same strata side-by-side, similarly wide variety of horses coexist today. Modern horses come in a wide range of sizes with heights from 28 inches fully grown “Fallabella” to 72 inches “English Shire”. Coexisting anatomical diversity can be seen within the horse kind today in the modern world as well as the fossil layers, but it doesn’t mean that these creatures evolved from each other.

I don't even know how to respond to this absurd claim.

You don’t know and you can’t. I provided the supporting evidence in #2772 and you responded with nothing but ignorant denial. Your denial is not an answer.

 

[LIIA]

No.

Again, it’s not a game of semantics. Most English dictionaries define “function” as “the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.”

Nonsense. And incredibly easy to refute. So easy that I wonder if you have actually thought about this for more then 2 seconds.

The purpose of a thing, is what it is intended for. Its goal. Its target. Its aim.

Function is how it is being used.

The rule is “Its goal. Its target. Its aim” is typically the same as “how it is being used”. The rare and illogical exception is that something would be used for another random purpose other than “Its goal. Its target. Its aim”

For example, I have this doorstop at home:

It's purpose is to place it in front of a door to keep it open and prevent wind from slamming it shut.
It's current function however, is to create weight on a broken puzzle piece that I just glued.


Things can have function without purpose.
I could also have grabbed a random purposeless rock from my garden to create the weight. I would have given a purposeless rock a function.

Things can also have purpose without function.
If a thing isn't being used any which way, then it has no function. Even if it has purpose.

No.

So, the doorstop has purpose, and you purposefully changed its purpose to serve another purpose, yet you claim, “it had no purpose”!!!

The doorstop is specifically designed to best fit a specific purpose, it's possible to use it for another purpose where the doorstop would be less fit, but you cannot possibly use it for any random purpose that comes to your mind “can you use it as cooking ingredients?” the specific design of the doorstop is best fit for its intended use as a doorstop.

Purpose is the very definition of function. An entity is always best fit for the function that it was purposefully intended for. That is the rule. Do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

LIIA, you are not using all the capabilities that evolution has provided to you.

Aupmanyav, why would evolution give us much more capabilities more than what we need?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aupmanyav, why would evolution give us much more capabilities more than what we need?

It is not planned. But when a trait evolves there are often other abilities that arise with it. If it was planned then only the traits for a specific environment might exist, but evolution appears to be unplanned. There is a random element to it. So randomly some minor additional abilities will arise. Variation is one of the driving forces of evolution. There needs to be no "plan" since natural selection automatically weeds out the less well adapted individuals. But it does not weed out traits that could possible of use elsewhere. How could it?

 

[LIIA]

It also has done the opposite and given us things that are relics from a distant past which today are actually just a hassle or meaningless curiosities.

Like goosebumps. Goosepumps are actually the result of our skin trying to put our body hair up. Only we are pretty much naked now. Our skin is trying to erect hair that we have lost a long time ago.

Unknown function ≠ no function. And the rule is what matter not a perceived exception that could very well be false.

New studies showed that Goosebumps response to cold trigger new/more hair growth and thicker hair on the long run by activating stem cells. In addition it help conserving heat when you’re exposed to cold by contraction of the muscles in the skin, cause skin pores to close.

What goosebum ps are for | National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Or like so-called wisdom teeth. To make room for our expanding brains, other parts of our head had to shrink. Like our mouth. So now, we have mouths that are actually too small to properly fit all our teeth. Which is why those back molars can ache like hell and why many people need to have them pulled.

The claim that expanding brains necessitates shrinking parts of our head is false/illogical. Why would evolution cause a mouth to be too small to fit the teeth?

Wisdom teeth come in mostly during adulthood in about 53% of the population. Removing wisdom teeth is a preventive effort but may not be necessary.

Wisdom teeth is claimed to be extremely valuable to our ancestor (for more chewing power) but not to us because they are so far back in the mouth which makes it difficult to keep them clean but at least we have better hygiene than our ancestors so it should be less of a problem in that respect. In any case, adaptation/change is never random.

Or our S-shaped spine. We evolved bipedalism but our spine originally evolved to walk on all fours. Through evolutionary tinkering to accommodate for bipedalism, the S-shaped spine was the result of that which as a solution was "good enough" to survive and reach reproductive age. And today, the vast majority of people have to deal with lower back pains at some point in their life, usually when past the age of 50 (which isn't an evolutionary disadvantage because we already reproduced by then). As a design for bipedalism, it is "good enough". But it's far from optimal and thus causes problems later in life.

Maintaining a balanced upright position is extremely difficult/complex. It requires a lot more than your bones. Your ears, eyes, brain, spinal cord, heart and muscles all work together to help keeping a balanced upright position.

Lower back pain due to aging is not disadvantage of the spine S shape. Your claim that a different shape other than the S shape would yield better bipedalism is totally unevidenced and meaningless.

Or the blind spot in our eyes. All the wiring is actually in front of the photosensitive cells, causing the need for those nerves to cross the retina, resulting in a blind spot. Now our brains need to spend extra energy and resources to "fill in the blanks". From a design perspective, our eyes are actually backwards. Imagine if a Sony engineer designed a camera that way. Putting all the wires in front of the lens and then having to load up additional software for the camera to be able to "fill in the blanks" and thus requiring extra battery resources to run that software. He'ld be fired on the spot. And perhaps then be hired by Apple for his wicked software development skills, while at the same time being prohibited of working on any piece of hardware.


And the list goes on and on and on and on and on and..................................................

Our bodies and DNA are FILLED with such nonsense.

Totally false. This is an obsolete understanding that was proven false long time ago.

Before parroting what Richard Dawkins claimed of alleged drawbacks/bad design (which is not true and even if true remains as an exception not a rule), you need to have an understanding and be informed of the latest on the subject matter. It’s illogical to object a part that may not be clearly understood and ignore the overwhelming characteristics of the very complex systems that allow for the perfect functionality of the eye that evidently far exceed most man-made cameras with respect to clarity, resolution and overall capability that is specifically tailored to its intended use.

a) Theoretically, the inverted retina structure was assumed to result in blurry vision given that light must propagate through all the reflecting and scattering cell layers before triggering the photoreceptors, yet a normal eye forms images clearly. The reason is that this specific inverted structure allows Müller cells to function as optical fibers channeling light to the buried photoreceptors while separating between wavelengths hence improving day vision

Guiding Light | The Scientist Magazine® (the-scientist.com)

Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision | Nature Communications

b) “(Phys.org) —Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, IT IS A DESIGN FEATURE.”

“Indeed, in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.”

Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer (phys.org)

Retinal bipolar cells: elementary building blocks of vision | Nature Reviews Neuroscience
c) “The inverted retina has, therefore, long been regarded as inferior. Here, we provide evidence that the inverted retina actually is a superior space-saving solution, especially in small eyes. The inverted retina has most likely facilitated the evolution of image-forming eyes in vertebrates, and it still benefits especially small and highly visual species.”

Space-saving advantage of an inverted retina - ScienceDirect

d) “The human eye can detect a single photon”

People can sense single photons | Nature

The human eye can detect a single photon | Science | AAAS

 

[LIIA]

The majority of mutations are neutral because they happen in noncoding DNA.
Then there's also plenty of mutations that are neutral eventhough they happen in active DNA yet result in synonyms. As in: they don't actually change the workings of the DNA sequences.

The genes coding DNA only account for a very small fraction (up to 2% of DNA in the human genome), while the rest of the genome is made up of “non-coding DNA”.

Non-coding DNA was considered by scientists as junk DNA (with no known purpose). It’s now known to contain many types of regulatory elements involved in controlling gene activity, to determine when/where genes are turned on and off to control the transcription of proteins in addition to other vital functions, hence changes to non-coding DNA would have an impact on the organism.

“The importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected.”

'Junk' DNA reveals vital role : Nature News

“But many of the “junk” sections do have important roles, including regulating how DNA is transcribed and translated from there into proteins. If protein-coding sequences are the notes of a symphony, then some of the non-coding sequences act like the conductor, influencing the pace and repetitions of the masterpiece.”

Our Cells Are Filled With ‘Junk DNA’ — Here’s Why We Need It | Discover Magazine

Scientists discover a role for ‘junk’ DNA | Life Sciences Institute (umich.edu)

Or they introduce things that do impact phenotype but have no effect on overall fitness. Like for example a new eye color. If potential partners don't care about eye color (sexual selection) and if the new color doesn't affect the workings of the eyes, then there are no selection pressures working on it. By any and all accounts such mutations are also neutral.

Unless the process is controlled/non-random, what would prevent random changes from causing harmful effects that negatively impact the overall fitness?

People hear "harmful" and they think "defects". Like being born with 3 arms or missing chromosomes or whatever. This is not the case.

Why it’s not the case? Why random mutations don’t cause 3 arms accidentally? (see above)

Why external morphological features of most multicellular organisms always exhibit perfect reflectional symmetry of duplicate body parts along the axis/plane of symmetry with perfect mirror image of the opposite side in a harmonious beautiful proportion and balance?

Why we don’t see limbs longer or one side, displaced or not following the rigid rule of reflectional symmetry?

Why don’t we see multiple eyes on the legs or tail on the head? what prevents such random changes/deformations from emerging?

If the process is random, then random errors should emerge, then get eliminated by natural selection. We never see such nonsense in nature. Never.

See # 424

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

A polar bear with a mutation that changes the color of his fur, would see his fitness reduced because it would affect his ability to hunt against a snowy background.

Having white fur while being a hunter living in a snowy background is beneficial.
Having white fur while being a hunter living in a brownish background is harmful.

What works in one situation doesn't necessarily work in another.

There is no evidence that wrong changes relative to a niche or habitat emerge randomly and then get eliminated by selection.

Again, even after reaching a local optimum/perfect fit in a niche, if the process were random, random changes would continue to emerge. Why don’t we see other colors of bears that keep emerging randomly among the population of white bears and then get eliminated by selection? Simply because, the adaptation process is never random, it's always directed. The random change is an unevidenced myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim that expanding brains necessitates shrinking parts of our head is false/illogical. Why would evolution cause a mouth to be too small to fit the teeth?

Wisdom teeth come in mostly during adulthood in about 53% of the population. Removing wisdom teeth is a preventive effort but may not be necessary.

Wisdom teeth is claimed to be extremely valuable to our ancestor (for more chewing power) but not to us because they are so far back in the mouth which makes it difficult to keep them clean but at least we have better hygiene than our ancestors so it should be less of a problem in that respect. In any case, adaptation/change is never random.

Evolution works on "good enough". It has no plan. It appears that in our evolution a larger brain was more desirable than the use of wisdom teeth. Our diet had also changed after we left the forests lowering our need for wisdom teeth, but leaving the forests also appeared to increase the need for intelligence. You keep acting as if evolution followed a plan when the evidence shows that it was only a series of reactions to the current environments of species.

 

[LIIA]

Evolution works on "good enough". It has no plan. It appears that in our evolution a larger brain was more desirable than the use of wisdom teeth. Our diet had also changed after we left the forests lowering our need for wisdom teeth, but leaving the forests also appeared to increase the need for intelligence. You keep acting as if evolution followed a plan when the evidence shows that it was only a series of reactions to the current environments of species.

Evolution is your unevidenced axiom/ blanket statement to allegedly explain what you perceive as “over capability", “under-capability" and the “perfect fit" in-between. But evidence is never about the perceived exceptions, it's about the overwhelming rule, which is evidently “the perfect fit".

 

[LIIA]

The 'design' is neither intentional nor purposive. It's the predicted order and function you'd expect given the applicable natural laws.

It’s an oxymoron. “Design” is always intentional/purposive.

If the process/natural laws give rise to design, then the process itself is design.

An automated process that yields a functional design is never evidence against a designer. In fact, both the design (end product) and the automated process itself are evidence for the designer.

The defining characteristics of “design” are not dependent on our knowledge of the designer or the process. Regardless of such knowledge, if the defining characteristics of design are seen, then the entity is “design”.

We don’t know how the natural forces exert its calibrated controlling power over matter. Meaning, we neither know/understand the nature of the process/mechanisms nor the designer but again, such lack of knowledge is not evidence that the observed “design” is not designed.

How evidenced? We see order; you can call it design if you want, but there's no reason to believe it's intentional, nor is there any evidence of intentional purpose. There is just natural function.

Not true. What we see is design. Purpose is an intrinsic characteristic of design. You cannot see design and claim there is no evidence of intentional purpose. It’s an oxymoron. The design itself is the evidence of purpose. If the outcome/end product of the natural functions exhibit design, then the “natural functions” itself is design.

The examples are endless. It’s simply everything we see. Here is an example:

The epiglottis is a special flap at the back of the throat that acts as the valve/doorway between the air tube (larynx and trachea) and the food tube (esophagus), without the epiglottis to divert the passage of air or food to either the trachea or the esophagus from day one, the animal would eat or drink, then the airway immediately gets blocked and the animal choke to death. The animal will not have a chance to live. If it doesn’t live, it doesn’t evolve. Let alone all other required complex systems that must work together in harmony form day one.

What we see is clearly intentional design for a purpose not merely order.

No! Your claim doesn't follow, and it's a black or white fallacy. The complexity and function are just mindless physics and chemistry

This is what you claim merely because you neither know or imagine the existence of the designer, but the complexity and function of observed entities clearly show purposeful design.

Consider an organ like the liver that performs over 500 vital functions. Including blood filtration to remove toxins, foreign/harmful substances and creating essential nutrients. If the liver doesn’t perform its intended purpose from day one, the creature will not have any chance to survive or evolve.

What we see in nature is never a process of random trial and error but always a design that successfully achieves an intended purpose.

The external design of the creatures can be seen in the morphological features that are always arranged in a reflective symmetry that exhibit beauty and balance while keeping all vital body parts (nose, mouth, the head itself, reproductive organs) on the axis of symmetry and other less essential duplicate body parts perfectly mirrored on the sides (identical but reversed) while keeping the appropriate proportions relative to the overall body plan.

We don’t see displaced or longer limbs on one side, eyes on the legs or tail on the head, all external body parts are always organized logically and proportionally sized with duplicate parts following the rigid rule of reflectional symmetry. (“Random mutations" entails that such errors to randomly appear, then get eliminated by selection. We never see that in nature). We’re so used to that perfection to the point that we cannot recognize it or appreciate it. It’s just the norm.

And the internal design as manifested in the internal organs with coordinated vital functions that collectively work towards an overall intended goal to allow the survival of the creature within its specific niche. Every organ is purposeful and must function successfully from day one. no organ can be excluded.

I claim the 'design' results from largely known laws of physics, and there's no evidence of purpose, just function.

It's an empty claim. There are no means through which nonliving matter can transform into a living system. In addition, observed complexity of the living systems are absolutely irreducible. The liver cannot purify the bloodstream without a functioning heart that circulates the blood and the circulation of the blood around the body would be totally useless without the numerous functions of other organs such as lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. Without the vital organs collectively performing its intended functions in harmony form day one, the creature wouldn’t have a chance of survival. It would neither survive nor evolve.

What we see is definitely design/purpose. It cannot be denied. Other than wishful thinking, there is no mechanism through which the vital integrated functions of even the simplest single-celled living system may emerge on its own in nature, let alone the extremely complex multicellular organisms with billions of cells and numerous vital systems working in a meticulously coordinated manner to achieve a purposeful body plan.

I know of no such evidence.
The universe happened. There is no reason to presume a conscious creator, not would such a creator explain the mechanisms involved.
We know of only one kind of life. It's carbon based. How do you come to the conclusion that no other life is possible, from a sample size of one?

Evidence.

All physical living systems are carbon based. There is absolutely no evidence of another model. How do you come to the conclusion that other model is possible?

The reasons to infer the existence of a conscious creator are the observations of intention, purpose and design in every caused entity, in addition to the observations of consciousness itself as a non-physical aspect of life; “relative self-awareness" must be rooted in the “absolute self-awareness". Arrangements/interactions of non-self-aware matter cannot give rise to self-awareness.

The constants are what they are. Why do you say they're 'tuned' to anything?

Because of the consensus that all constants are tuned to the carbon-based model of live.

What unevidenced variables have I introduced? It's you making extraordinary and unevidenced claims.

the variables are specific values of the constants. You assumed other values, or any random values would always give rise to other universe that always support other model of live other than our carbon-based model. It’s an empty unevidenced claim.

I said an alternate set of laws and constants could produce a different universe, or no universe. I made no claims about the probability of different life forms. We don't really understand the 'life' we know.

yes, we don’t really understand what life is (specifically self-awareness) but the consensus is that the constants are extremely fine-tuned to allow the carbon-based model of life.

????. Not following.

Chances are a specific set of possibilities that is dependent on the interactions of existing entities as a necessary prerequisite to give rise to possibilities. I.e., existing conditions/interactions of existing entities give rise to a specific set of possibilities. Without the interactions of what already exists, there are no possibilities.

A player throws a 6-faced die with the faces numbered from 1 to 6 against a flat surface while being influenced by a gravitational field and frictional resistance would give rise to a range of possibilities to settle with any number from 1 to 6 facing upwards. The interactions of existing entities are what give a chance to a specific set of possibilities. If existing entities/conditions are different, then the possibilities are different but if there are no existing entities (no player, no die, no horizontal surface, no gravity/friction, nothing), then there are no possibilities of any kind.

If the universe started from no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no space and no time, then there was no chance for any random possibilities of any kind to emerge out of nothing. Whatever emerged was not a matter of random chance.

??? How so? How do you come to such a conclusion?

If endless number of universes somehow exist (the unevidenced/ unfalsifiable assumption of Multiverse). Then the existence of our universe with its specific fine-tuned constants is merely a matter of random chance among other endless universes with other different random constants.