Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

No! Because that we can disagree means that there are in effect no one absolute.

You are still talking about relative references as they interact; a relative perception is not a defining reference. I’m talking about the independent self-evident absolute that defines all relatives

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are still talking about relative references as they interact; a relative perception is not a defining reference. I’m talking about the independent self-evident absolute that defines all relatives

Yes, you are talking but that is not evidence. If talking was evidence, then you are nothing, just because I wrote it.

 

[LIIA]

Therefore Satan is true and our Master. Replace it with your version as you like.
And then tell me, how in both cases it is an invalid deduction.

No, therefore evolution is false.
You’re making an illogical leap from one subject to another. It’s a false dichotomy. it doesn’t work this way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, therefore evolution is false.
You’re making an illogical leap from one subject to another. It’s a false dichotomy. it doesn’t work this way.

But evolution is not about true or false. It is a different axiomatic system than true and false.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, you are talking but that is not evidence. If talking was evidence, then you are nothing, just because I wrote it.

No, without a self-evident reference, nothing can be defined. Evidence itself has no meaning without getting defined through the reference of logic (principles of inference). But what defines any principle/logic? What defines "common sense"? without an absolute, nothing can have any meaning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, without a self-evident reference, nothing can be defined. Evidence itself has no meaning without getting defined through the reference of logic (principles of inference). But what defines any principle/logic? What defines "common sense"? without an absolute, nothing can have any meaning.

But you and I have different meanings including what an absolute is. Unless you can show me an actual absolute, all you are doing is talink words about an absolute and this not the same.
Show me the actual system.
Lay it out, write down the actual system and stop talking about it. Do it.

 

[LIIA]

But evolution is not about true or false. It is a different axiomatic system than true and false.

Axiomatic system means accepted as true without evidence but if the evidence are lacking or prove otherwise, what justifies the axiom?

 

[LIIA]

But you and I have different meanings including what an absolute is. Unless you can show me an actual absolute, all you are doing is talink words about an absolute and this not the same.
Show me the actual system.
Lay it out, write down the actual system and stop talking about it. Do it.

I already did but you don’t want to accept it.

Contingents (relative) entities of all kinds are not explainable without a non-contingent entity (absolute entity) at the end of the chain. Here is a quote from a previous post.

“Since all items in the entire chain of causally dependent entities of known existence (within our realm) are contingent beings (i.e., “things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature”), then the entire chain itself remains a contingent being, and there must be a reason that explains its instantiation in reality. The ultimate reason for the instantiation of such a chain of contingent beings must be a being whose existence is not contingent (for otherwise, the chain will remain contingent and its instantiation in reality would not be explained). The existence of the chain of causes and effects is only possible as long as the entire chain is grounded in a being, which exists by virtue of its mere essence, i.e., a necessary being.”

 

[LIIA]

And, at what point in that series of photos of matriarchs stretching back in time is it a picture of a non-human? Much as taking a single series of daily photos of the same person from birth to death.

It’s not the same. “Born/gradual growth” ≠ “started from non-living matter/evolved".

Birth is as an execution of a very complex plan that give the creature all required system for survival from day one. If any of the essential organs (heart, brain, lungs, liver, kidney, etc.) doesn’t exist or non-functional from day one, the creature will not survive till day two. If it doesn’t survive, it definitely doesn’t evolve.

The organism must first have the vital functions from day one to survive and evolve; yet allegedly evolution is what developed the vital functions necessary for survival. It’s a fallacious circular reasoning.

Even a simple organ like the Epiglottis in mammals, if not functional from day one, the creature will not survive till day two. The animal would eat or drink, then the airway immediately gets blocked and animal choke to death. If it doesn’t survive, it doesn’t evolve. See # 2137.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 107 | Religious Forums

Growth of an organism is also an execution of a complex plan that functionally controls the morphological features of the body plan as it changes; the change/growth is never random useless or harmful.

The execution of the precise plan of birth that creates all vital system followed by the calculated growth process that precisely controls the developmental characteristics of the creature is not analogous to the alleged random evolutionary process.

If the perfect organism (i.e., with all vital systems essential for survival) somehow emerged in nature, how/why it should change? The typical claim is random mutations that get purified by selection. But empirical evidence proved that random mutation is false. In fact, a random mutation that escapes the proofreading mechanisms of DNA repair (which controls DNA replication/synthesis to maintain the integrity of its genetic code) is an exception that would in most cases cause genetic diseases or cancer. How would a beneficial change emerge?

For argument's sake, I’ll ignore the proven fact of directed mutations and assume that random mutations are the non- purposeful change mechanism as assumed by the ToE. Even if the lucky change (one in a billion) somehow emerged accidentally among random mutations. Where are the evidence for the billions of harmful or useless random changes. We don’t see such nonsense in nature. What we see is perfect adaptation as a result of directed mutation never a random advantageous change that accidentally pops up among an endless mess of random nonsense that gets cleaned up continuously through natural selection. It’s a ridiculous story that is never seen in the real world.

See #1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

See #2238
Darwin's Illusion | Page 112 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

I need to know how you understand evolution.

Evolution is a false interpretation of the observed adaptation.

The evidenced directed adaptation phenomenon was incorrectly understood as random microevolution, which in turn led to the speculation of the unevidenced macroevolution.

Mechanisms of the assumed macroevolution were initially proposed by Darwin, then by the Modern Synthesis but later all assumptions were disproved (see #781) because as a theory, the proposed explanatory framework of the Modern Synthesis and all the central assumptions/mechanisms were found to contradict empirical evidence per latest scientific finds. Regardless of the challenges/new evidence, the MS is still considered as the mainstream evolutionary theory today that is being taught in biology textbooks.

The real world observed adaptation process is never about better survival chance because of accidental advantageous random mutations among endless useless/harmful mutations. It’s always about directed mutation of the organism to better fit an environment.

Survival is not a function of natural selection, natural selection is not a creative process, i.e., it will never give the organism a change that the organism doesn’t already have. Survival per all observed examples depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit an environment. It’s a totally different process that has nothing to do with randomness.

See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[Yerda]

Evolution is a false interpretation of the observed adaptation.

The evidenced directed adaptation phenomenon was incorrectly understood as random microevolution, which in turn led to the speculation of the unevidenced macroevolution.

Mechanisms of the assumed macroevolution were initially proposed by Darwin, then by the Modern Synthesis but later all assumptions were disproved (see #781) because as a theory, the proposed explanatory framework of the Modern Synthesis and all the central assumptions/mechanisms were found to contradict empirical evidence per latest scientific finds. Regardless of the challenges/new evidence, the MS is still considered as the mainstream evolutionary theory today that is being taught in biology textbooks.

The real world observed adaptation process is never about better survival chance because of accidental advantageous random mutations among endless useless/harmful mutations. It’s always about directed mutation of the organism to better fit an environment.

Survival is not a function of natural selection, natural selection is not a creative process, i.e., it will never give the organism a change that the organism doesn’t already have. Survival per all observed examples depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit an environment. It’s a totally different process that has nothing to do with randomness.

See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Don't you wonder how it is that,

• changes in bodies are mediated by changes in genes
• the genes change
  
• the bodies change
  
• the changes are passed on to offspring

without evolution happening?

 

[LIIA]

Don't you wonder how it is that,

• changes in bodies are mediated by changes in genes
• the genes change
  
• the bodies change
  
• the changes are passed on to offspring

without evolution happening?

As you said, “mediated by changes in genes”, that is exactly true.

In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro, a biologist and expert in bacterial genetics said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA.

This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs).

This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”

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

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

If a beneficial change (adaptation) emerges, it's always the result of cell-mediated processes. To the contrary, if a change/mutation escapes the cell-mediated/controlled DNA repair, the result in most cases is a harmful genetic disease.

 

[Yerda]

As you said, “mediated by changes in genes”, that is exactly true.

In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro, a biologist and expert in bacterial genetics said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA.

This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs).

This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”

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

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

If a beneficial change (adaptation) emerges, it's always the result of cell-mediated processes. To the contrary, if a change/mutation escapes the cell-mediated/controlled DNA repair, the result in most cases is a harmful genetic disease.

I'll have a read at that, thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you go further back in time, the common ancestor of tetrapods (including humans) is allegedly Tiktaalik.

Let alone that there is no established lineage (coherent evolutionary developmental line of gradual transitional variants) from the alleged common ancestor to modern humans, but there is definitely no lineage from Tiktaalik to Homo sapiens (or any tetrapod for that matter).

From what I now understand, what you say is true. Now do I think or believe that God created defects, as, for instance, a baby born without limbs or brain damaged? No. He did not make such things, He allows the imperfect genes now that we inherit to influence what happens. This is not evolution, although some might like to argue it is (for some odd reason).

 

[YoursTrue]

I need to know how you understand evolution.

First of all, when I was in school I was taught evolution. And until I studied the Bible in my 30's, I had no question about the ToE. I believed it, I did well in the exams, but after a while after looking at different religions, I thought God does not exist because I saw pandemonium and confusion and different ideas, radically different, in the various religions. So I began to believe there is no God. Also, He wasn't helping me understand "life" and coping with it.
But later on I learned what the Bible said. And I began to believe that instead of the ToE to explain life. So you would like to know how I understand evolution? I think that the basic idea of things growing (evolving) from one or two cells at the "beginning," is no longer a viable or verifiable explanation of how we got here as a human race. It is unsubstantiated except by vague presumptions, maybe even based on the melding of cells sometimes. I hope that helps insofar as my view of evolution is now concerned. There is one more thing I would like to add -- while there is conjecture about emergence of new species, there is no proof. And no real evidence, even if there are fossils of extinct animals, etc. I do believe certainly genetics plays a part, for instance I hear that snow crab harvesting is being banned in Alaska because the numbers of snow crabs are so very low this year. The investigators do not know why, maybe they think it could be the climate getting warmer. Or disease. Snow crabs live only in very cold water. How they got there, do you think anyone really knows? I think God allowed whatever was close to them to morph. Possibly. But can I say for sure? (You guessed it...no.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Axiomatic system means accepted as true without evidence but if the evidence are lacking or prove otherwise, what justifies the axiom?

Nothing justifies the axiom.

 

[gnostic]

First of all, when I was in school I was taught evolution. And until I studied the Bible in my 30's, I had no question about the ToE. I believed it, I did well in the exams, but after a while after looking at different religions, I thought God does not exist because I saw pandemonium and confusion and different ideas, radically different, in the various religions.

Excuse me, it is your life, but I seriously doubt you were good in science, because over the years at RF, your posts revealed your serious lack of education in biology and other sciences in general.

High school biology don't count much, as they would only teach students only very basic biology, in which you cannot get a job in any field with.

And earlier in another post, you spoke of fossils not being evidence, have only demonstrated that you don't know anything about paleontology, since paleontology isn't even taught in high school.

In fact, most universities that have biology-related courses and subjects, they don't include paleontology in their curriculum, because not very universities are equipped to teach specialized subjects such as paleontology.

Your "good" in high school exams, don't make you expert to judge "what is" or "what isn't" "evidence".

Your posts revealed that you have never bother to go beyond high school sciences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I already did but you don’t want to accept it.

Contingents (relative) entities of all kinds are not explainable without a non-contingent entity (absolute entity) at the end of the chain. Here is a quote from a previous post.

“Since all items in the entire chain of causally dependent entities of known existence (within our realm) are contingent beings (i.e., “things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature”), then the entire chain itself remains a contingent being, and there must be a reason that explains its instantiation in reality. The ultimate reason for the instantiation of such a chain of contingent beings must be a being whose existence is not contingent (for otherwise, the chain will remain contingent and its instantiation in reality would not be explained). The existence of the chain of causes and effects is only possible as long as the entire chain is grounded in a being, which exists by virtue of its mere essence, i.e., a necessary being.”

Yeah, philosophy. How do you know that there is a need for an explanation and that is not a need in you. How do you connect your thinking to the absolute one? How do you know that your thinking is correct and not just in you mind?

Now connect that I love my wife but no other human in that sense to the absolute one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evolution is a false interpretation of the observed adaptation.

The evidenced directed adaptation phenomenon was incorrectly understood as random microevolution, which in turn led to the speculation of the unevidenced macroevolution.

Mechanisms of the assumed macroevolution were initially proposed by Darwin, then by the Modern Synthesis but later all assumptions were disproved (see #781) because as a theory, the proposed explanatory framework of the Modern Synthesis and all the central assumptions/mechanisms were found to contradict empirical evidence per latest scientific finds. Regardless of the challenges/new evidence, the MS is still considered as the mainstream evolutionary theory today that is being taught in biology textbooks.

The real world observed adaptation process is never about better survival chance because of accidental advantageous random mutations among endless useless/harmful mutations. It’s always about directed mutation of the organism to better fit an environment.

Survival is not a function of natural selection, natural selection is not a creative process, i.e., it will never give the organism a change that the organism doesn’t already have. Survival per all observed examples depends on the organism’s ability of adaptation to better fit an environment. It’s a totally different process that has nothing to do with randomness.

See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... But can I say for sure? (You guessed it...no.)

So you are not sure, yet you are sure about evolution.