Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely, science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God.

The core argument is about whether life and the entire universe are manifestations of purpose/design or mere products of randomness. It’s really amazing that you concluded your long post # 2174 with this truthful statement that refutes your entire preceding argument to conclude at the end in favor of purpose/design!!!

Religions are neither against science nor an attack on science. Religions are never against the truth; Religions are against everything that is false, deceiving and immoral.

I am always impressed with the scientifically unskilled creationists that claim the morally superior position while failing miserably to maintain that position in practice. Not surprised, but impressed that you see that sort of temerity in the face of the tactics and evidence to the contrary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The religion of Islam acknowledged this very principle that “science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God” and it was the driving force that gave rise to the Islamic golden age and the emergence of modern science.

Below is a copy of my post # 1452

Islam was the driving force that established the basis of the new scientific method. Are you even aware that the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers? Can you Imagine how would our world today look like without it?

Fibonacci’s work made the Arabic numerals known in Europe. European trade, books, and colonialism helped popularize the adoption of Arabic numerals around the world. See the link

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia

(Below is a copy from #332)

The Islamic Civilization was the first Civilization where its citizens were religiously obligated to learn to read, write and disseminate knowledge which led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” that established the basis of the modern scientific method.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science wrote "Perhaps the main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages, was the creation of the experimental spirit ... This was primarily due to Muslims down to the end of the twelfth century”

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)

Who cares. What you have to say is unimportant in the disposition of science and in a few moments, not only will I not see your words in theory, but in fact as well. You have wonderful, wonderful day. Enjoy the chess.

 

[LIIA]

LIIA. My example was that of "Natural Selection", not that of "Mutations". You are talking about Mutations, which is a different evolutionary mechanism.

The changes in environment, result in selective pressures for changes and adaption. That’s Natural Selection mechanism.

There are a number of different types of mechanisms in evolutionary biology, actually the number of mechanisms are currently five. Each one describes a different process as to how “evolution” might work, and Natural Selection related to the changes in environments, and how that changes might impact on organisms. So the environments are selective pressures that drive changes to organisms, where they must adapt to the new conditions in the changed environments.

In Natural Selection. The adaption isn't random, nor accidental.

You seriously don't understand the word random or accidental, do you?

And seriously, you should understand the distinctions between "Natural Selection" and "Mutations".

Honestly, you’re very very confused. Here is an example. I hope it would clarify.

If you run a mixture through a filter medium, it would either permit or stop some substance from passing through it. If you don’t run a mixture through the filter medium, absolutely nothing will happen. The filter medium cannot create the mixture. It can only purify it if the mixture happens to pass through the medium.

Natural selection has no innovative capacity, meaning, natural selection doesn’t create the change/mutations. Per the ToE (MS), mutations happen randomly without any intention/purpose. Being random, means that some are non-beneficial, some are harmful, and some may happen to be generally beneficial or specifically beneficial to address a survival need within an environment.

In the presence of random mutations/changes, natural selection would play a role as a purification process to keep beneficial mutations and eliminate harmful mutations. Without random mutations, natural selection wouldn’t play this role.

No selection is possible if there is nothing to select from. Selection chooses from random changes. “Random changes" is step one. Natural selection is step two. If step one is not possible/false, you don’t get to step two. Do you understand?

If you understand the concept of evolution, then you should understand the fundamental evolutionary idea that random mutations+ natural selection are inseparable. First Mutations give rise to random changes, then Selection either keeps or eliminates these changes, without random mutations, there is no selection or evolution, and as explained in # 2238, the mutations/changes (step one) are not and cannot be random.

 

[LIIA]

So all you have to support your claim that the central assumptions of the MS have been disproved is a paper by Denis Noble.

So, you finally acknowledged that it’s not my mere say but rather the assertions of scientists in a scientific paper! It really took some time to get to this point but it’s progress. Let's move on. I'll elaborate further.

Does the fact that evolutionary biologists have rejected his arguments mean anything to you?

I told you before that I didn’t see any credible scientific source rejecting his argument. I asked you to provide your credible scientific source, but you didn’t. Provide it, and then we’ll talk.

Have his arguments about non-random mutations had any impact at all on the fields of genetics or evolutionary biology?

This is actually an important point against evolution. You previously claimed the predictions/mechanisms of evolution helped with the advancement of science, but in fact these false evolutionary predictions/mechanisms neither gave rise to the scientific advancement nor had any impact on it after being disproved, to the contrary, latest scientific advancement did impact the theory and disproved all of its central assumptions.

Because as it stands, your argument can be summed up as "because Denis Noble said so".

So “my mere say” evolved to be “Denis Noble mere say” and very soon it will be “Scientists mere say”. You’re making some ridiculous progress. I thought you were more rational than that.

Denis Noble was giving a lecture in his capacity as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), he summarized latest changes/advancement in the field. He referenced numerous scientists within the lecture itself in addition to the references provided at the end of the lecture. It’s the collective work of numerous scientists not merely because “Denis Noble said so”.

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

No, it's the assertion of Denis Noble, and an assertion that has had no impact on evolutionary biology. You can repeat his assertions all you like, but it won't change anything.

What do you mean "had no impact on evolutionary biology"? Do you mean the “evolutionary axiom”? Maybe the unevidenced axiom didn’t change but disproving all the fundamental assumptions of the modern synthesis (the mainstream evolutionary theory today), logically means the theory itself had failed. If a theory contradicts empirical evidence, such as the case with the MS, then the theory is necessarily false.

Ah yes, what would an exchange with a creationist be without a threat of "you'll get yours when you die"?

That makes me wonder....do you think a person who believes that evolution occurs, humans share a common ancestry with other primates, and all life shares a common ancestry will be punished for that in the afterlife?

No, humans as conscious rational beings are here for a reason. Our test is the "freedom of choice". Within our given domain, whatever is aligned with who we are, we can freely choose it, but this freedom will come to an end and your choice will have consequences.

It's not a threat. It’s merely a message and mainly to fulfill my own obligation to convey. I do my part/my choice and you do yours. I don’t bear the burden of your choice/action and you don’t bear the burden of mine. We’re free but every single choice/action counts and God is the only judge.

See # 1851
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See # 1450
Darwin's Illusion | Page 73 | Religious Forums

See # 1908
Darwin's Illusion | Page 96 | Religious Forums

See # 1960
Darwin's Illusion | Page 98 | Religious Forums

 

[gnostic]

If you run a mixture through a filter medium, it would either permit or stop some substance from passing through it. If you don’t run a mixture through the filter medium, absolutely nothing will happen. The filter medium cannot create the mixture. It can only purify it if the mixture happens to pass through the medium.

Nope, you still don't understand the differences between Natural Selection and Mutations. I would suggest that you a little reading and some little researches to understand these two mechanisms.

Plus. I do understand the filter analogy, but you are over-complicating Evolution with irrelevant, non-biological scenarios. The problem with using analogy is that people (authors of the analogies) will often use scenarios that is completely different to what they should trying to explain.

Intelligent Designer do this all the times, including Michael Behe. Instead of trying to explain how the Designer is involve with the design of life (or origin of life), they are make up stupid, irrelevant analogies, eg the Watchmaker analogy, the car design & making analogy, the computer analogy, the mouse-trap analogy, and so on, and on, and on.

While analogies work great for writing poems, writing song lyrics, writing fictions, writing religious texts (eg scriptures), but none of those analogies have anything to do with understanding biology, with understanding the origin of life (eg Abiogenesis, or with understanding how life diversified (eg Evolution).

The main problems with using analogies is the tendency to false equivalence, because when you are using any analogy, you are comparing one thing with something else that's entirely different.

So. If you seriously want to illustrate your points, then use either real examples that actually related to evolutionary biology. Use real evidence and real data, and not some more irrelevant analogies.

Now. Having said all that.

Let see what you got wrong.

Natural selection has no innovative capacity, meaning, natural selection doesn’t create the change/mutations. Per the ToE (MS), mutations happen randomly without any intention/purpose. Being random, means that some are non-beneficial, some are harmful, and some may happen to be generally beneficial or specifically beneficial to address a survival need within an environment.

In the presence of random mutations/changes, natural selection would play a role as a purification process to keep beneficial mutations and eliminate harmful mutations. Without random mutations, natural selection wouldn’t play this role.

You are still mixing the 2 mechanisms.

This time, you are over-simplifying Natural Selection with this latest analogy.

Natural Selection don't do any of this purifying process you are talking about, of separating beneficial mutations and harmful mutations.

The cause and needs for changes, only when some environmental changes in a given location, cause selective pressures to life inhabiting in that location.

In the past, I had often use either the brown bear and polar bear scenario during the glaciation periods (Ice Ages) and the post-glaciation aftermath, or the scenario of different species of tortoises living in different islands at Galápagos.

The bears and tortoises examples, are not analogies. The bears are related, as are the tortoises are related, but over times, they developed different physical traits that help them living in the different locations or regions they were living in.

Lately, I have been using the polar bear example, so today, I will use the tortoises of Galápagos.

The tortoises arrived from South America, some times ago, so I cannot tell you when, but these tortoises populated the number of different islands at Galápagos.

In some islands, are highland, with humid weather and plentiful low lying plants, where leaves from plants are within easy reach. While the lowland islands are dryer, and there are not as many branches with lowlying plants.

The highland islands, the tortoises remained almost virtually unchanged since their arrivals from South America. These tortoises have large dome-shaped shells, and short necks and legs. There were no selective pressures on these large tortoises, so there were no needs for adaption for these tortoises that lived in these selected islands where the environment already suited them.

However, the lowland tortoises were living in environments there food sources are not as easy to come by, because they need to reach for leaves to feed themselves.

Instead of growing larger, which won't help them. They have to adapt to the environment they were given. Tortoises choose mates to have offspring, with smaller shells, but at the same time, choose mates with longer neck and longer necks.

The shape of their shells differed from their highland cousins. The shell is shaped like saddleback, hence the name saddleback shells.

The shape of the shell, not only allow their legs to extend, so they have the advantage of height, these saddleback shell tortoises can allow them to stand on their hind legs, something that no other tortoises can do.

Plus the opening of the shell for their head, allow their necks to crank itself upright, again giving more reach.

The shape of their shells, the lengths of their necks and their legs, didn't just magically appear over night. They occur over some period of time.

The current species on all these islands are actually subspecies (including the tortoises with dome shells and saddleback shells) of the original species, the Chelonoidis nigra.

That Natural Selection at work. The different environments in different islands have impacts on how diverse these tortoises become. A couple of islands are only less than 2 kilometres apart, and yet the comparisons of different subspecies are remarkable. This occur because of geographical isolation from one another, allowing some of subspecies to evolve.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, you finally acknowledged that it’s not my mere say but rather the assertions of scientists in a scientific paper! It really took some time to get to this point but it’s progress. Let's move on. I'll elaborate further.

Um...I pointed that out a while ago.

I told you before that I didn’t see any credible scientific source rejecting his argument. I asked you to provide your credible scientific source, but you didn’t. Provide it, and then we’ll talk.

Given your responses to the other info I've posted to you, I'm not inclined to post more.

You previously claimed the predictions/mechanisms of evolution helped with the advancement of science

I didn't merely claim that, I showed it to be so by posting a paper that describes how evolutionary relatedness is the framework for discerning genetic function. Heck, evolutionary relatedness is the basis for the entire field of comparative genomics!

Comparative genomics - Wikipedia

"One character of biology is evolution, evolutionary theory is also the theoretical foundation of comparative genomics, and at the same time the results of comparative genomics unprecedentedly enriched and developed the theory of evolution. When two or more of the genome sequence are compared, one can deduce the evolutionary relationships of the sequences in a phylogenetic tree. Based on a variety of biological genome data and the study of vertical and horizontal evolution processes, one can understand vital parts of the gene structure and its regulatory function.

Similarity of related genomes is the basis of comparative genomics. If two creatures have a recent common ancestor, the differences between the two species genomes are evolved from the ancestors’ genome. The closer the relationship between two organisms, the higher the similarities between their genomes. If there is close relationship between them, then their genome will display a linear behaviour (synteny), namely some or all of the genetic sequences are conserved. Thus, the genome sequences can be used to identify gene function, by analyzing their homology (sequence similarity) to genes of known function."​

So just as I said, evolutionary relatedness is the framework under which geneticists discern genetic function. It tells them what to compare, what to look for, and how to interpret the results.

but in fact these false evolutionary predictions/mechanisms neither gave rise to the scientific advancement nor had any impact on it after being disproved, to the contrary, latest scientific advancement did impact the theory and disproved all of its central assumptions.

Sorry, but your empty say-so doesn't trump the actual work of professionals.

Denis Noble was giving a lecture in his capacity as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), he summarized latest changes/advancement in the field. He referenced numerous scientists within the lecture itself in addition to the references provided at the end of the lecture. It’s the collective work of numerous scientists not merely because “Denis Noble said so”.

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

LOL....you say "it's not just Denis Noble" and then you link to.....a paper by Denis Noble and no one else. Hilarious.

What do you mean "had no impact on evolutionary biology"?

I mean Noble's claims about non-random mutations and the central tenets of evolution being wrong have not been adopted by anyone. No biotech firm, university, government agency, etc. operates under the framework advocated by Noble. None.

 

[gnostic]

The religion of Islam acknowledged this very principle that “science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God” and it was the driving force that gave rise to the Islamic golden age and the emergence of modern science.

Below is a copy of my post # 1452

Islam was the driving force that established the basis of the new scientific method.

No. It wasn’t God or Muhammad or the Qur’an or Islam (religion) that were responsible for science in the Islamic Golden Age, LIIA.

It was individual Muslim philosophers, mathematicians and inventors who were the driving force of sciences and mathematics.

Yes, these people were responsible for the Golden Age of science, and yes they were Muslims, but the credits to these exceptional Muslims, not to Allah, Muhammad, Quran & Islam. Islam itself have zero contribution to science & mathematics.

And only some of the science and mathematics were original discoveries and original works of these great Muslims. But others belong to the original works of the ancient Greeks and the pre-Islamic Persians in which Muslims “rediscovered”, and they expanded, by adding, improving it.

 

[LIIA]

Nope, you still don't understand the differences between Natural Selection and Mutations. I would suggest that you a little reading and some little researches to understand these two mechanisms.

Plus. I do understand the filter analogy, but you are over-complicating Evolution with irrelevant, non-biological scenarios. The problem with using analogy is that people (authors of the analogies) will often use scenarios that is completely different to what they should trying to explain.

Intelligent Designer do this all the times, including Michael Behe. Instead of trying to explain how the Designer is involve with the design of life (or origin of life), they are make up stupid, irrelevant analogies, eg the Watchmaker analogy, the car design & making analogy, the computer analogy, the mouse-trap analogy, and so on, and on, and on.

While analogies work great for writing poems, writing song lyrics, writing fictions, writing religious texts (eg scriptures), but none of those analogies have anything to do with understanding biology, with understanding the origin of life (eg Abiogenesis, or with understanding how life diversified (eg Evolution).

The main problems with using analogies is the tendency to false equivalence, because when you are using any analogy, you are comparing one thing with something else that's entirely different.

So. If you seriously want to illustrate your points, then use either real examples that actually related to evolutionary biology. Use real evidence and real data, and not some more irrelevant analogies.

Now. Having said all that.

Let see what you got wrong.



You are still mixing the 2 mechanisms.

This time, you are over-simplifying Natural Selection with this latest analogy.

Natural Selection don't do any of this purifying process you are talking about, of separating beneficial mutations and harmful mutations.

The cause and needs for changes, only when some environmental changes in a given location, cause selective pressures to life inhabiting in that location.

In the past, I had often use either the brown bear and polar bear scenario during the glaciation periods (Ice Ages) and the post-glaciation aftermath, or the scenario of different species of tortoises living in different islands at Galápagos.

The bears and tortoises examples, are not analogies. The bears are related, as are the tortoises are related, but over times, they developed different physical traits that help them living in the different locations or regions they were living in.

Lately, I have been using the polar bear example, so today, I will use the tortoises of Galápagos.

The tortoises arrived from South America, some times ago, so I cannot tell you when, but these tortoises populated the number of different islands at Galápagos.

In some islands, are highland, with humid weather and plentiful low lying plants, where leaves from plants are within easy reach. While the lowland islands are dryer, and there are not as many branches with lowlying plants.

The highland islands, the tortoises remained almost virtually unchanged since their arrivals from South America. These tortoises have large dome-shaped shells, and short necks and legs. There were no selective pressures on these large tortoises, so there were no needs for adaption for these tortoises that lived in these selected islands where the environment already suited them.

However, the lowland tortoises were living in environments there food sources are not as easy to come by, because they need to reach for leaves to feed themselves.

Instead of growing larger, which won't help them. They have to adapt to the environment they were given. Tortoises choose mates to have offspring, with smaller shells, but at the same time, choose mates with longer neck and longer necks.

The shape of their shells differed from their highland cousins. The shell is shaped like saddleback, hence the name saddleback shells.

The shape of the shell, not only allow their legs to extend, so they have the advantage of height, these saddleback shell tortoises can allow them to stand on their hind legs, something that no other tortoises can do.

Plus the opening of the shell for their head, allow their necks to crank itself upright, again giving more reach.

The shape of their shells, the lengths of their necks and their legs, didn't just magically appear over night. They occur over some period of time.

The current species on all these islands are actually subspecies (including the tortoises with dome shells and saddleback shells) of the original species, the Chelonoidis nigra.

That Natural Selection at work. The different environments in different islands have impacts on how diverse these tortoises become. A couple of islands are only less than 2 kilometres apart, and yet the comparisons of different subspecies are remarkable. This occur because of geographical isolation from one another, allowing some of subspecies to evolve.

The analogy was intended as a tool to help you understand. Unfortunately, you understood nothing, but it was expected from you.

Per the ToE, Natural selection sorts out spontaneously arising (random) mutations and causes favorable mutations to combine and accumulate, yielding a diversity of organisms over eons of time.

Without these mutations spontaneously arising, there is nothing for natural selection to sort and it will not cause any changes to accumulate/combine, simply because the changes do not exist.

Change is mutation (genetic change), without mutation there is no change. Natural selection only sort the (random) changes, it doesn’t create it.

The most fundamental assumption of evolution is that following genetic change/random mutation, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population. Your claim that natural selection works as a separate mechanism independently without a need for any mutations, clearly demonstrate that you understand nothing about the evolutionary concept that you’re advocating for.

You read but don’t understand, I suggest you ask one of your evolutionists friends that you trust to have understanding of the alleged evolutionary process, if he is worthy of your trust, he should be able to explain to you. I suggest that you please don’t continue arguing till you get that explanation. Is that fair enough?

Adaptation happens. Species are capable of adapting to environmental change. This ability is intrinsic in their genes. Adaptation is never a transformation of one species into another. It’s never because of a lucky change among millions of random changes. It happens because of directed mutations, never random mutations. See #2238

what you are talking about “the adaptation of the tortoises" is not "Natural Selection” at work, its “Directed Mutation” at work. To select, first you must have options to select from, per the ToE, the options are the unintentional, purposeless, spontaneously arising, random mutations. There is no evidence of numerous irrelevant mutations that emerged randomly among the tortoises, which supposedly got filtered down by selection to keep only favorable mutations. In addition, empirical evidence already proved that mutations are not random. See #781 and #1245.

 

[LIIA]

Um...I pointed that out a while ago.

Great, then it’s not my “mere say”. Let's move on.

Given your responses to the other info I've posted to you, I'm not inclined to post more.

Really, then why are you providing the info below about comparative genomics?

Every time I ask you to provide your credible scientific source rejecting Noble’s assertions, you come up with a new excuse. Provide your source if you have one.

I didn't merely claim that, I showed it to be so by posting a paper that describes how evolutionary relatedness is the framework for discerning genetic function. Heck, evolutionary relatedness is the basis for the entire field of comparative genomics!

Comparative genomics - Wikipedia

"One character of biology is evolution, evolutionary theory is also the theoretical foundation of comparative genomics, and at the same time the results of comparative genomics unprecedentedly enriched and developed the theory of evolution. When two or more of the genome sequence are compared, one can deduce the evolutionary relationships of the sequences in a phylogenetic tree. Based on a variety of biological genome data and the study of vertical and horizontal evolution processes, one can understand vital parts of the gene structure and its regulatory function.

Similarity of related genomes is the basis of comparative genomics. If two creatures have a recent common ancestor, the differences between the two species genomes are evolved from the ancestors’ genome. The closer the relationship between two organisms, the higher the similarities between their genomes. If there is close relationship between them, then their genome will display a linear behaviour (synteny), namely some or all of the genetic sequences are conserved. Thus, the genome sequences can be used to identify gene function, by analyzing their homology (sequence similarity) to genes of known function."
So just as I said, evolutionary relatedness is the framework under which geneticists discern genetic function. It tells them what to compare, what to look for, and how to interpret the results.

This one needs some elaboration; I’ll respond in a separate post. If you provided the info above, you should be able to provide your credible scientific source rejecting Noble’s assertions, obviously you don’t have any, if you do, go ahead and share it.

Sorry, but your empty say-so doesn't trump the actual work of professionals.

Didn’t you just admit (above) it was the assertion of scientists in a scientific paper? Now it’s my empty say again?

LOL....you say "it's not just Denis Noble" and then you link to.....a paper by Denis Noble and no one else. Hilarious.

a) Didn’t you see the numerous scientists referenced in his lecture?
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

Even so Denis Noble was giving a lecture in his capacity as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) but it was not merely his claim, he was presenting/summarizing the latest in the field and did provide the supporting references for every point that he discussed in his lecture. Below are some of the provided references to the work of other scientists as mentioned in the lecture.

Mattick JS (2012). Rocking the foundations of molecular genetics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109, 16400–16401.

Nelson VR, Heaney JD, Tesar PJ, Davidson NO & Nadeau JH (2012). Transgenerational epigenetic effects of Apobec1 deficiency on testicular germ cell tumor susceptibility and embryonic viability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109, E2766–E2773.

Jablonka E & Lamb M (2005). Evolution in Four Dimensions . MIT Press, Boston , MA , USA .

Noble D (2006). The Music of Life . Oxford University Press, Oxford , UK.

Beurton PJ, Falk R & Rheinberger H.-J. (2008). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , UK .

Pigliucci M & Müller GB (2010). Evolution – The Extended Synthesis . MIT Press, Cambridge , MA , USA .

Gissis SB & Jablonka E, eds (2011). Transformations of Lamarckism. From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology . MIT Press, Cambridge , MA , USA .

Shapiro JA (2011). Evolution: a View from the 21st Century . Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River , NJ , USA .

Melham T, Bard J, Werner E, Noble D. (2013). Foreword: conceptual foundations of systems biology. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 111, 55–56.

Müller GB (2007). Evo–devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nat Rev Genet 8, 943–949.

Mesoudi A, Blanchet S, Charmentier A, Danchin E, Fogarty L, Jablonka E, Laland KN, Morgan TJH, Mueller GB, Odling-Smee FJ & Pojol B. (2013). Is non-genetic inheritance just a proximate mechanism? A corroboration of the extended evolutionary synthesis. Biological Theory 7, 189–195.

Shapiro JA (2009). Revisiting the central dogma in the 21st century. Annal N Y Acad Sci 1178, 6–28.

Shapiro JA (2011). Evolution: a View from the 21st Century . Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River , NJ , USA .

b) Didn’t you see the references section?
See the link below under “references”
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

c) Didn’t you see #911, Gerd B. Müller lecture in the royal society conference in 2016?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

d) Didn’t I in #1597 reference Suzan Mazur book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.” The book is presenting evidence by major scientists from a dozen countries for a paradigm shift that is underway replacing neo-Darwinism. Denis Noble is credited as one of several biologists who have overturned Neo-Darwinism, along with many other top scientists such as: James A. Shapiro, Frantisek Baluska, Ricardo Flores, Nigel Goldenfeld, Eugene Koonin, Kalevi Kull, Eviatar Nevo, Peter Saunders, Stuart Newman, Luis P Villarreal, Carl Richard Woese and others.

Darwin's Illusion

I mean Noble's claims about non-random mutations and the central tenets of evolution being wrong have not been adopted by anyone. No biotech firm, university, government agency, etc. operates under the framework advocated by Noble. None.

This is an empty claim that you didn't prove, even if you prove it, still it’s not a rational argument against Noble’s assertions. As I said before, it’s merely a fallacious argument “argumentum ad populum”.

If you want to prove Noble wrong, provide credible scientific source rejecting Noble’s assertions.

 

[LIIA]

No. It wasn’t God or Muhammad or the Qur’an or Islam (religion) that were responsible for science in the Islamic Golden Age, LIIA.

I wonder what made you come to that conclusion? Is it your guess or wish? If not, demonstrate your reasons.

Do you understand what the “driving force” means?

It was individual Muslim philosophers, mathematicians and inventors who were the driving force of sciences and mathematics.

Yes, these people were responsible for the Golden Age of science, and yes they were Muslims, but the credits to these exceptional Muslims, not to Allah, Muhammad, Quran & Islam.

The majority of the scientists of the Middle Ages were Muslims. Yet you cannot see the connection between Islam and the Islamic Golden Age!! I wonder why?

See the link below for the Wiki page titled “Scientist”.
Scientist - Wikipedia

on the page above, under History, the Middle Ages section talked about science in the medieval Islam and the “Islamic Golden Age”. It mentioned that scientists from this era are considered polymaths, and many of these polymaths were also religious theologians.

Science in the medieval Islamic world
Science in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Islamic Golden Age
Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

See the link above for the Wiki page titled “Islamic Golden Age”, under Causes, it explained the religious influence of Islam on the Islamic Golden Age as follows.

Causes:
Religious influence:
The various Quranic injunctions and Hadith (or actions of Muhammad), which place values on education and emphasize the importance of acquiring knowledge, played a vital role in influencing the Muslims of this age in their search for knowledge and the development of the body of science.

Also under Causes, you will see a link to the article “Islamic attitudes towards science” which sheds more light on the connection between the religion of Islam and the discipline of science.
Islamic attitudes towards science - Wikipedia

see the same wiki page for "Islamic Golden Age", under Education, it further elaborated on the influence of Islam on education/seeking knowledge as follows.

“The centrality of scripture and its study in the Islamic tradition helped to make education a central pillar of the religion in virtually all times and places in the history of Islam. The importance of learning in the Islamic tradition is reflected in a number of hadiths attributed to Muhammad, including one that states "Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim".

And only some of the science and mathematics were original discoveries and original works of these great Muslims. But others belong to the original works of the ancient Greeks and the pre-Islamic Persians in which Muslims “rediscovered”, and they expanded, by adding, improving it.

Scientific advances are only possible through acquiring existing available knowledge from others, then build on it and expand it. There is no other way. Scientists never start from scratch but rather from where others ended.

This is exactly what the Muslim scientists did. They gathered and translated all of the known world's classical knowledge, Greek, Indic, Assyrian, Persian, etc. Then expanded, added, improved, discovered and established the basis of modern science with numerous great achievements that expanded across wide range of scientific disciplines, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, chemistry, botany and agronomy, geography and cartography, ophthalmology, pharmacology, physics, and zoology. See #2223.

 

[LIIA]

I didn't merely claim that, I showed it to be so by posting a paper that describes how evolutionary relatedness is the framework for discerning genetic function. Heck, evolutionary relatedness is the basis for the entire field of comparative genomics!

Comparative genomics - Wikipedia

"One character of biology is evolution, evolutionary theory is also the theoretical foundation of comparative genomics, and at the same time the results of comparative genomics unprecedentedly enriched and developed the theory of evolution. When two or more of the genome sequence are compared, one can deduce the evolutionary relationships of the sequences in a phylogenetic tree. Based on a variety of biological genome data and the study of vertical and horizontal evolution processes, one can understand vital parts of the gene structure and its regulatory function.

Similarity of related genomes is the basis of comparative genomics. If two creatures have a recent common ancestor, the differences between the two species genomes are evolved from the ancestors’ genome. The closer the relationship between two organisms, the higher the similarities between their genomes. If there is close relationship between them, then their genome will display a linear behaviour (synteny), namely some or all of the genetic sequences are conserved. Thus, the genome sequences can be used to identify gene function, by analyzing their homology (sequence similarity) to genes of known function."
So just as I said, evolutionary relatedness is the framework under which geneticists discern genetic function. It tells them what to compare, what to look for, and how to interpret the results.

Advancement in the field of comparative genomics became possible mainly because of advances of computer science specially the computational research approaches that provided tools for analyzing sequences and genome comparison.

Yes, evolution is used as the theoretical foundation of comparative genomics to speculate evolutionary relationships between the compared genomic features of different organisms.

The interpretations of analyzed sequences are made on the basis that evolution is true to begin with, yet the very interpretations are taken as evidence for evolution.

The “Gene Comparison process” is extremely complex, and very much a matter of interpretation; the comparisons are often loaded with bias. The comparison software (database searching models) itself is programmed based on the assumptions that evolution is true.

The typical comparison approach to determine genetic similarity is to find the parts of the two genomes that closely line up, hence typically a small fraction of the genome is compared, in addition, areas of this small fraction without apparent alignment (differences such as insertions, deletions or substitution) are mostly ignored, and then a deceiving percentage for the similarity of the entire genome is given accordingly (See #175, page 9). That’s why the vast majority of currently floated gene-similarity percentage claims are way off because of the excluded data, we may possibly get more reliable numbers in the future.

Comparative genomics interpretations are made based on the assumption that if two creatures have a recent common ancestor, then the closer the relationship between two organisms, the higher the similarities between their genomes.

Regardless of the inaccuracies as explained, comparative studies concluded the following genetic similarity percentages between the genes of animals and human gene counterparts.

Humans and Humans 99.9%
Humans and Dogs 94%
Humans and Cats 90%
Humans and Cows 80%
Humans and Fruit Flies 60%
Humans and Bananas 60%

Mice is specifically important in medical testing due to their anatomical, physiological, and genetic similarity to humans. Their biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans. A mouse genome sequencing study published by nature in 2002 reported that 99% of the mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans. The genetic comparison showed extensive similarity between the two organisms, suggesting that further exploration into the non-coding regions of both genomes will be required to explain the differences between human and mouse.

Human biology by proxy | Nature

And of the course the interpretation of similarity is always due to common ancestry even between humans and bananas (60% similarity).

It’s important to note that genetic similarity is different than sharing the same DNA. That’s because 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 (does not provide instructions for making proteins) 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. Nonetheless, many comparative genomic studies focus on genes and protein-coding sequences not the full set of elements in each genome.

The genes itself are nothing more than a storage of coded info at the disposal of the living system which interprets them in a myriad of different purposeful ways to produce thousands of different types of proteins and trillions of cells of various types that work all in harmony to create a body plan with its unique set of morphological features.

The genes don’t create us, our bodies and minds. The genes are the database from which the organism gets the necessary information. The cell machinery does not just read the genome. It imposes extensive purposeful patterns of marking and expression on the genome. Without such purposeful interpretation of DNA towards meaningful functions, the genes is nothing more than storage of coded info like music notes written on the music page, a totally dead code waiting for the performers to play it to bring it to life. Once played, only then, the dead notes become alive. It becomes music, the music of life.

Data is not what creates an organism; it’s the purposeful utilization of data by the living system to build the specific numerous integrated functions that collectively achieve a final body plan.

See# 1247

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

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

The similarity of gene sequences doesn’t mean it would be expressed similarly. Organisms with extensive similarity of genes can have very different body plans. The genes of an organism is only the beginning of the story. The real story unfolds in the gene expression, the complex processes/mechanisms that interpret the genetic codes.

The genes may be the “building blocks” of life but the “building blocks” is meaningless without a process to put it into action, a process to utilize the blocks in a planned manner towards the purpose of building a specific functional structure.

The building blocks are always the same, but it doesn’t mean the buildings evolved from each other. The “building blocks” is never what give the building its shape, form and function. the process of intelligent building construction does.

 

[Jose Fly]

Every time I ask you to provide your credible scientific source rejecting Noble’s assertions, you come up with a new excuse. Provide your source if you have one.

As I pointed out earlier, the evidence that the scientific community has rejected Noble's arguments is in the fact that not one single university, biotech firm, government agency, or any other scientific entity works under the framework he advocated. None.

Didn’t you just admit (above) it was the assertion of scientists in a scientific paper? Now it’s my empty say again?

You're not making sense.

a) Didn’t you see the numerous scientists referenced in his lecture?

LOL....what? Are you actually arguing that because Noble cited other scientists in his paper, those scientists must therefore agree with him? Really?

This is an empty claim that you didn't prove, even if you prove it, still it’s not a rational argument against Noble’s assertions. As I said before, it’s merely a fallacious argument “argumentum ad populum”.

You can stomp your feet and yell all you like, but that doesn't change anything. It's a simple fact that no one is basing their work on Noble's arguments.

If you want to prove Noble wrong, provide credible scientific source rejecting Noble’s assertions.

I don't need to. He's made his arguments and not one single scientific organization or entity has agreed with him or incorporated them into his work. IOW, his arguments are effectively irrelevant.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, evolution is used as the theoretical foundation of comparative genomics to speculate evolutionary relationships between the compared genomic features of different organisms.

Um, as I showed its much more than that. It's utilized to discern genetic function. Funny how you keep missing that part.

The interpretations of analyzed sequences are made on the basis that evolution is true to begin with, yet the very interpretations are taken as evidence for evolution.

The “Gene Comparison process” is extremely complex, and very much a matter of interpretation; the comparisons are often loaded with bias. The comparison software (database searching models) itself is programmed based on the assumptions that evolution is true.

First, this is nothing more than empty hand-waving (basically "Nuh uh").

Second, as I showed you earlier, applying the framework of evolutionary relatedness produces extremely accurate results that are superior to other methods. So if the framework really were wrong, how does it produce such consistently accurate results?

The typical comparison approach to determine genetic similarity is to find the parts of the two genomes that closely line up, hence typically a small fraction of the genome is compared, in addition, areas of this small fraction without apparent alignment (differences such as insertions, deletions or substitution) are mostly ignored, and then a deceiving percentage for the similarity of the entire genome is given accordingly (See #175, page 9). That’s why the vast majority of currently floated gene-similarity percentage claims are way off because of the excluded data, we may possibly get more reliable numbers in the future.

I am absolutely not going to take your baseless say-so over the actual work of professionals. I mean, who do you think you are?

Comparative genomics interpretations are made based on the assumption that if two creatures have a recent common ancestor, then the closer the relationship between two organisms, the higher the similarities between their genomes.

Regardless of the inaccuracies as explained, comparative studies concluded the following genetic similarity percentages between the genes of animals and human gene counterparts.

Humans and Humans 99.9%
Humans and Dogs 94%
Humans and Cats 90%
Humans and Cows 80%
Humans and Fruit Flies 60%
Humans and Bananas 60%

Mice is specifically important in medical testing due to their anatomical, physiological, and genetic similarity to humans. Their biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans. A mouse genome sequencing study published by nature in 2002 reported that 99% of the mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans. The genetic comparison showed extensive similarity between the two organisms, suggesting that further exploration into the non-coding regions of both genomes will be required to explain the differences between human and mouse.

Human biology by proxy | Nature

And of the course the interpretation of similarity is always due to common ancestry even between humans and bananas (60% similarity).

It’s important to note that genetic similarity is different than sharing the same DNA. That’s because 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 (does not provide instructions for making proteins) 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. Nonetheless, many comparative genomic studies focus on genes and protein-coding sequences not the full set of elements in each genome.

The genes itself are nothing more than a storage of coded info at the disposal of the living system which interprets them in a myriad of different purposeful ways to produce thousands of different types of proteins and trillions of cells of various types that work all in harmony to create a body plan with its unique set of morphological features.

The genes don’t create us, our bodies and minds. The genes are the database from which the organism gets the necessary information. The cell machinery does not just read the genome. It imposes extensive purposeful patterns of marking and expression on the genome. Without such purposeful interpretation of DNA towards meaningful functions, the genes is nothing more than storage of coded info like music notes written on the music page, a totally dead code waiting for the performers to play it to bring it to life. Once played, only then, the dead notes become alive. It becomes music, the music of life.

Data is not what creates an organism; it’s the purposeful utilization of data by the living system to build the specific numerous integrated functions that collectively achieve a final body plan.

See# 1247

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

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

The similarity of gene sequences doesn’t mean it would be expressed similarly. Organisms with extensive similarity of genes can have very different body plans. The genes of an organism is only the beginning of the story. The real story unfolds in the gene expression, the complex processes/mechanisms that interpret the genetic codes.

The genes may be the “building blocks” of life but the “building blocks” is meaningless without a process to put it into action, a process to utilize the blocks in a planned manner towards the purpose of building a specific functional structure.

The building blocks are always the same, but it doesn’t mean the buildings evolved from each other. The “building blocks” is never what give the building its shape, form and function. the process of intelligent building construction does.

I don't know what your point was in posting all that, but it's irrelevant to what you were allegedly replying to. The fact remains, evolutionary relatedness is the very foundation of comparative genomics, and it provides the framework that allows us to discern genetic function. IOW, evolutionary relatedness is extremely useful, productive, and valuable in the everyday work of scientists across the world, and produces very important results.

Meanwhile, ID creationism and Noble's ideas aren't used by anyone and have produced nothing.

That speaks for itself.

 

[gnostic]

The analogy was intended as a tool to help you understand. Unfortunately, you understood nothing, but it was expected from you.

No, I understand analogy, but comparing one thing to something else that are completely different, would add more confusion, because they are nor related and they are not relevant to each other.

Analogy only work best in literature, poetry, song lyrics and religious texts.

In sciences, they tends to be idiotic, because people who use analogies think that what they say can cause confusion, and creationists are the worse ones to use analogies, because they bloody believe analogies are facts.

That’s the danger of using analogies, and clearly you don’t understand this problem.

If you really want to illustrate your points that refute Evolution, then give actual examples of BIOLOGY (eg evidence in biology that support your claims), and not analogies about watchmaking, car design or manufacturing, computers, building mouse trap, etc.

Did you even bother to read my example about the different species of tortoises that thrive in different islands of Galapagos?

It is example of Natural Selection, where the geographical isolation of the islands and the selective pressures are dependent on each islands’ environments (eg humid vs dryness of the climate, the availability of food sources, etc).

Now if you could show similar examples supported by actual physical evidence, then you have shot of persuading me to agree with your points.

But using analogies, only demonstrate to me, that you have zero evidence to support any of your claims.

 

[LIIA]

As I pointed out earlier, the evidence that the scientific community has rejected Noble's arguments is in the fact that not one single university, biotech firm, government agency, or any other scientific entity works under the framework he advocated. None.

False, the only evidence would be credible scientific sources rejecting Noble’s assertions. You claimed multiple times that you have it but don’t want to provide it, why don’t you just admit the fact that it doesn’t exist?

The challenges/ criticism against the modern synthesis as explained by Noble, Müller and other scientists is based on empirical evidence that emerged through the latest scientific advances across multiple disciplines such as epigenetics, physiology, genomics, ecology, population genetics, behavioural biology, microbiology, systems biology, etc. these advances are established and agreed upon within these disciplines. Noble’s lecture was collectively addressing/acknowledging these specific scientific advances, what it means and how it impacts the Neo-Darwinism /MS. Yes, there is no agreed upon framework to replace Neo-Darwinism /MS yet, but that has nothing to do with the fact that these advances/new empirical evidence disproving the assumptions of the MS are established and accepted among the scientific institutions. That is why there are no credible scientific sources rejecting Noble’s assertions. It doesn’t exist simply because all of his assertions are scientifically true.

You’re making an empty claim, even if we assume that your claim is true, it’s still a fallacious “argumentum ad populum”. IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC REFUTATION. Do you understand the difference?

Many theories were previously mainstream supported by a scientific consensus for a long time before it got disproved/replaced. Assuming your claim of widespread acceptance is true, it’s still not a proof of validity. All obsolete theories had widespread acceptance at some point in time. Widespread acceptance is never a proof that a theory is not false. If it is, then no scientific progress /change would ever emerge. Your reasoning is flawed.

LOL....what? Are you actually arguing that because Noble cited other scientists in his paper, those scientists must therefore agree with him? Really?

No, it is the other way around. It’s their assertions that Noble agrees with. Noble cited these other scientists (Shapiro JA, Mattick JS , etc.) because he agrees with their assertions as explained above.

Noble is not the only scientist advocating a paradigm shift to replace Neo-Darwinism. You ignored Gerd B. Müller (#911) and all other leading specialists from a dozen countries interviewed in Suzan Mazur’s book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.”

James A. Shapiro, Frantisek Baluska, Ricardo Flores, Nigel Goldenfeld, Eugene Koonin, Kalevi Kull, Eviatar Nevo, Peter Saunders, Stuart Newman, Luis P Villarreal, Carl Richard Woese and others.

All these scientists are against the Neo-Darwinizam /Modern Synthesis that advanced Darwin’s obsolete ideas into a dogma. They are all against the dogmatic constrictions suppressing the progress of science. See #911 and #1597

no one is basing their work on Noble's arguments.

Really, why was his lecture cited numerous times by other scientists/publications and without any contrasting statements? None.

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

If your reasoning were true, then it would only demonstrate dogmatic resistance, not a scientific refutation. Do you understand?

Again, if you want to prove his assertions wrong, you have to provide a credible scientific refutation, there is no other way but how can you provide it? It doesn’t exist.

I don't need to

sure, you do but you simply can’t.

 

[LIIA]

Um, as I showed its much more than that. It's utilized to discern genetic function. Funny how you keep missing that part.

It’s a speculation of function through the comparison of genetic counterparts in different organisms. It’s a matter of interpretations through the utilization of different available software tools/ algorithms to process the sequences with varying levels of accuracy (SIFTER is only one model among many other inference algorithms).

In fact, genome sequence studies confirm distinct biases in location of different mobile genetic elements and the non-random nature of mutations. Meaning, to the contrary to the fundamental Neo-Darwinism/MS assumption of random mutation, genome sequence studies proved that mutations are not chance events from the viewpoint of function; the evidence is that both the speed and the location of genome change are directed functionally. It’s not random.

Shapiro JA (2011). Evolution: a View from the 21st Century . Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River , NJ , USA .

Regardless, the similarities of building blocks and its functions don’t mean these organisms evolved from each other. Again, it’s not about the building blocks/genes. The building blocks cannot do anything on its own without the intelligent processes/mechanisms that utilize the building blocks to build a specific functional structure. Organisms with extensive genetic similarity can have very different body plans. Genetic functions are manifested through expression not merely similarity of sequences/molecules.

Similar to the example of genetic similarity between a human and a mouse as discussed in #2251. 99% of the mouse genes have direct counterparts in humans. The genetic comparison showed extensive similarity between the two organisms yet the body plans of the two organisms are very different.

Human biology by proxy - Nature

Unless the right building block is placed at the right location at the right time, an intelligent functional structure will never emerge. The building blocks don’t build, the intelligent process/mechanism does.

First, this is nothing more than empty hand-waving (basically "Nuh uh").

Second, as I showed you earlier, applying the framework of evolutionary relatedness produces extremely accurate results that are superior to other methods. So if the framework really were wrong, how does it produce such consistently accurate results?

False, what other methods? The 2005 article by PLOS is specifically talking about the prediction accuracy of the statistical graphical model “SIFTER” in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. All inference algorithms/database searching models are based on evolutionary principles and they all have varying degrees of prediction accuracy compared to each other with Orthostrapper being the lowest at only 11% accuracy per the same article.

In fact, another article published in 2009 by PLOS ONE asserted that BLAST was proven to outperform existing algorithms/methods with respect to function prediction.

Rapid Annotation of Anonymous Sequences from Genome Projects Using Semantic Similarities and a Weighting Scheme in Gene Ontology | PLOS ONE

The “phylogenomics techniques” attempts to address the inability of “classical phylogenetic analysis methods of predicting gene functions” to explain the discrepancy of function between highly similar genes from other species. The phylogenomics approach assumes the theoretical possibility that resolved phylogenetic trees could be created through this method. However, in practice this is not the case due to insufficient data. Multiple assumed trees can be supported by the same data when analyzed using different methods. The comparative analysis is extremely complex, and very much a matter of interpretation

your article is addressing the computational annotations of a hypothetical protein for molecular function through the utilization of various programming algorithms/models with varying degree of accuracy. The programming algorithms allow phylogenomic analyses to be carried out automatically in lieu of time-consuming manual process requiring expert knowledge.

The article claims SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) to be the most accurate. Other articles claim otherwise. SIFTER is only one of many other currently available models used for the same purpose with varying degree of accuracy. The entire comparative analysis process is a matter of interpretations based on known functions of genetic counterparts in different organisms. And again, genome sequence studies provided empirical evidence that disproved the assumptions of the ToE/MS.

I am absolutely not going to take your baseless say-so over the actual work of professionals.

What actual work? You can search/verify what I said. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons. Your mere denial doesn’t cut it.

I mean, who do you think you are?

Who I am, is not your concern, your concern is my argument, if you don’t agree with any part of my argument, demonstrate your reasons. Who I am is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with proving you right or proving me wrong.

I don't know what your point was in posting all that, but it's irrelevant to what you were allegedly replying to. The fact remains, evolutionary relatedness is the very foundation of comparative genomics, and it provides the framework that allows us to discern genetic function. IOW, evolutionary relatedness is extremely useful, productive, and valuable in the everyday work of scientists across the world, and produces very important results.

My point boils down to the accuracy of the process and the significance of the outcome of comparative genomics being a matter of interpretations (even if the process eventually gets more accurate).

With respect to the accuracy of the process, many comparative genomic studies focus on genes and protein-coding sequences not the full set of elements in each genome and ignore the fact that non-coding DNA (about 99%) plays a vital role that cannot be ignored.

Typically, a small fraction of the genome is compared and most differences (insertions, deletions or substitution) of the compared parts are ignored from the calculation of the similarity percentages.

Gene-similarity percentage claims are way off mainly because of the excluded data.

In addition to the fact that similarly percentages are off, it's also deceiving with respect to its significance and interpretation since the similarity of gene sequences doesn’t mean it would be expressed similarly or give rise to the same functions. Organisms with extensive similarity of genes can have very different body plans. It’s not about the genes; it’s about the expression process/mechanisms.

Meanwhile, ID creationism and Noble's ideas aren't used by anyone and have produced nothing.

Again, scientific advances of multiple disciplines such as epigenetics, physiology, genomics, ecology, plasticity research, population genetics, network approaches, novelty research, behavioural biology, microbiology and systems biology didn’t emerge/progress due to the ToE but to the contrary, the advances of these disciplines gave rise to a growing number of challenges to Neo-Darwinizam /Modern Synthesis. These challenges are scientific and backed by substantial empirical evidence and the support of top scientists.

Noble's assertions are summarizing the latest and necessary changes emerging in the felid based on new scientific advances that have been already established across multiple disciplines through the efforts of prominent scientists, yet the dogmatic resistance is insisting to maintain the ToE static despite empirical evidence against it.

Noble's assertions declare the truth in an attempt to move science forward; all scientific theories are subject to change in light of new advances/empirical evidence. The ToE is not and cannot be an exception; change as science advances is a normal process that must continue. The dogmatic resistance against the emerging change attempting to suppress the progress is not justifiable (especially that there is no scientific refutation for the assertions/evidence against the MS assumptions).

Similarly, the new scientific advances being advocated will not put science at the finish line, the process must continue, advances are only steps forward along an endless route in an effort towards better understanding of reality.

 

[LIIA]

No, I understand analogy, but comparing one thing to something else that are completely different, would add more confusion, because they are nor related and they are not relevant to each other.

Analogy only work best in literature, poetry, song lyrics and religious texts.

In sciences, they tends to be idiotic, because people who use analogies think that what they say can cause confusion, and creationists are the worse ones to use analogies, because they bloody believe analogies are facts.

That’s the danger of using analogies, and clearly you don’t understand this problem.

If you really want to illustrate your points that refute Evolution, then give actual examples of BIOLOGY (eg evidence in biology that support your claims), and not analogies about watchmaking, car design or manufacturing, computers, building mouse trap, etc.

Did you even bother to read my example about the different species of tortoises that thrive in different islands of Galapagos?

It is example of Natural Selection, where the geographical isolation of the islands and the selective pressures are dependent on each islands’ environments (eg humid vs dryness of the climate, the availability of food sources, etc).

You ignored the main core of the discussion as if you didn’t see it and came back with a long irrelevant talk about analogy!! You run in circles and argue for the sake of argument without understanding the subject matter.

Did you bother asking a trusted evolutionist to explain to you what you got wrong? If you cannot get the alleged evolutionary concept on your own; then get help/explanation from someone whom you can trust. It’s really ironic that you don’t understand the very basics of the theory that you are advocating. We shouldn’t burn time arguing about the basics. Please ask a friend.

Again, without random mutations spontaneously arising, there is nothing for natural selection to work on. Per the ToE, random genetic changes must occur first, and then natural selection would increase the frequency of favorable gene variants within a population. Your claim that natural selection works independently as a separate evolutionary mechanism without any mutations involved in the process, clearly demonstrate that you don’t understand the evolutionary concept that you’re advocating.

There are many evolutionists on this forum; hopefully one of them would be able to explain to you that natural selection is not a separate mechanism that works independently, selection cannot play the alleged evolutionary role without random mutations. Selection doesn’t create, per the ToE/MS, it only sorts what already exists. The emergence of random mutations is a necessary prerequisite prior to any selection. Do you understand?

Get a proper understanding of the alleged evolutionary process, and then you will see on your own that we have nothing to argue about.

Now if you could show similar examples supported by actual physical evidence, then you have shot of persuading me to agree with your points.

Examples of what? Do you mean examples of numerous random mutations spontaneously arising among living organisms before natural selection filters it down?

This is exactly my point. Such examples DO NOT EXIST. If it does, then it would be a proof of evolution. Yet you are asking me to come up with such examples to support my argument against evolution/random mutations!!! Do you even understand what are you talking about?

If you want examples, then consider your own example about the adaptation of the tortoises, the polar bear or the classic example of the evolution of the peppered moth (see #1968), and every example that you may be aware of, you’ll be able to see that organisms do adapt without any evidence of numerous random irrelevant changes spontaneously arising before it gets eliminated through natural selection with the exception of these favorable changes that supposedly emerged randomly among numerous other purposeless changes.

Considering possible number of random interactions, the favorable change may never emerge (See #2238) but to the contrary, the evidence proved that not only the very specific beneficial changes always emerge quickly but also the change is predictable. We know the change will occur; it’s not a chance event.

All studies of mutagenesis proved that mutations are not chance events from the viewpoint of function; the evidence is that both the speed and the location of genome change are directed functionally. It’s never random. See # 1245.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

All evidence is pointing to the fact that the change process is never a random evolutionary process; it’s always a directed adaptation process.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You ignored the main core of the discussion as if you didn’t see it and came back with a long irrelevant talk about analogy!! You run in circles and argue for the sake of argument without understanding the subject matter.

Did you bother asking a trusted evolutionist to explain to you what you got wrong? If you cannot get the alleged evolutionary concept on your own; then get help/explanation from someone whom you can trust. It’s really ironic that you don’t understand the very basics of the theory that you are advocating. We shouldn’t burn time arguing about the basics. Please ask a friend.

Again, without random mutations spontaneously arising, there is nothing for natural selection to work on. Per the ToE, random genetic changes must occur first, and then natural selection would increase the frequency of favorable gene variants within a population. Your claim that natural selection works independently as a separate evolutionary mechanism without any mutations involved in the process, clearly demonstrate that you don’t understand the evolutionary concept that you’re advocating.

There are many evolutionists on this forum; hopefully one of them would be able to explain to you that natural selection is not a separate mechanism that works independently, selection cannot play the alleged evolutionary role without random mutations. Selection doesn’t create, per the ToE/MS, it only sorts what already exists. The emergence of random mutations is a necessary prerequisite prior to any selection. Do you understand?

Get a proper understanding of the alleged evolutionary process, and then you will see on your own that we have nothing to argue about.



Examples of what? Do you mean examples of numerous random mutations spontaneously arising among living organisms before natural selection filters it down?

This is exactly my point. Such examples DO NOT EXIST. If it does, then it would be a proof of evolution. Yet you are asking me to come up with such examples to support my argument against evolution/random mutations!!! Do you even understand what are you talking about?

If you want examples, then consider your own example about the adaptation of the tortoises, the polar bear or the classic example of the evolution of the peppered moth (see #1968), and every example that you may be aware of, you’ll be able to see that organisms do adapt without any evidence of numerous random irrelevant changes spontaneously arising before it gets eliminated through natural selection with the exception of these favorable changes that supposedly emerged randomly among numerous other purposeless changes.

Considering possible number of random interactions, the favorable change may never emerge (See #2238) but to the contrary, the evidence proved that not only the very specific beneficial changes always emerge quickly but also the change is predictable. We know the change will occur; it’s not a chance event.

All studies of mutagenesis proved that mutations are not chance events from the viewpoint of function; the evidence is that both the speed and the location of genome change are directed functionally. It’s never random. See # 1245.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

All evidence is pointing to the fact that the change process is never a random evolutionary process; it’s always a directed adaptation process.

Apologies, I haven't read through the thread, and I don't have the patience but...
Are you suggesting mutations are evidence of intelligent direction, as random/useless mutations are unevidenced?

I'm assuming I've missed context, so happy to be corrected.

 

[LIIA]

Apologies, I haven't read through the thread, and I don't have the patience but...
Are you suggesting mutations are evidence of intelligent direction, as random/useless mutations are unevidenced?

I'm assuming I've missed context, so happy to be corrected.

No problem, I understand you wouldn’t have the patience to read through the long thread, happy to explain the context.

“Random/purposeless mutations” is one of the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. The context here is that latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all assumptions/mechanisms of the Neo-Darwinism /Modern Synthesis. No exception. I.e., the Neo-Darwinism evolutionary theory is false.

See # 753, & # 781

Darwin's Illusion | Page 38 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 40 | Religious Forums

And yes, the core concept of the ToE is that the change process is a product of numerous random interactions without any intention/purpose, IOW, not an intelligently planned event towards a goal, but the proven fact that the genome change speed/location is always directed functionally (not a chance event) is evidence that the genome structure/gene expression mechanisms are specifically coded to allow the organism to survive environmental changes through directed mutations/purposeful adaptations.

Mutations are always intelligently directed to achieve a survival need or to address specific environmental changes. There is not any evidence that beneficial mutations are chance events that emerge accidentally among other endless, useless or harmful mutations.

The change process is never a random evolutionary process; it’s always a directed adaptation process. See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No problem, I understand you wouldn’t have the patience to read through the long thread, happy to explain the context.

“Random/purposeless mutations” is one of the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. The context here is that latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all assumptions/mechanisms of the Neo-Darwinism /Modern Synthesis. No exception. I.e., the Neo-Darwinism evolutionary theory is false.

See # 753, & # 781

Darwin's Illusion | Page 38 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 40 | Religious Forums

And yes, the core concept of the ToE is that the change process is a product of numerous random interactions without any intention/purpose, IOW, not an intelligently planned event towards a goal, but the proven fact that the genome change speed/location is always directed functionally (not a chance event) is evidence that the genome structure/gene expression mechanisms are specifically coded to allow the organism to survive environmental changes through directed mutations/purposeful adaptations.

Mutations are always intelligently directed to achieve a survival need or to address specific environmental changes. There is not any evidence that beneficial mutations are chance events that emerge accidentally among other endless, useless or harmful mutations.

The change process is never a random evolutionary process; it’s always a directed adaptation process. See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Did a little side reading in the interim (what else are train rides for?).
But when you say '...not any evidence that beneficial mutations are chance events that emerge accidentally among other endless, useless or harmful mutations', it raised a question for me.

You do agree that there are useless or harmful mutations, correct? Are these also directed in your opinion?