Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

meaningless denial. did you read the article? it was in English?

Not all of it since it was not that well written from a scientific perspective. And it is your job to quote the parts of it that supposedly support you.. It does not look like it would pass serious peer review which is why it is in a very obscure medical journal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone for # 2654. ??

Sorry, I was interrupted on that one and did not get it finished properly. It should be fixed now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does "just a belief" mean? Is there something more reliable than a belief?

Yes. Knowledge. Which is a subset of belief.

Belief that the Earth's round, that germs cause disease and that grass is green are just beliefs, as well.

Those aren't "just" beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Self arose/natural arose is the process. It happened with both the universe and life.
However without the universe self/natural arising, life wouldn't have arose.

That's ludicrous.

I'll demonstrate.

Diamonds are "self-arising".
So is ice.

Would you say diamonds forming is just as likely as ice forming?




If you think about it for two seconds, then you will realize that the likelihood of something forming naturally has to do with the nature of that process and the conditions required for it to occur.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, LUCA is the only overlap between the ToE and Abiogenesis.

No.
LUCA is just the common ancestor of all living things today.
That doesn't mean that that population/species was "first life".

LUCA could be a species that lived 2 billion years ago among many other species of which the branches died out while life itself is at least 3.8 billion years old.

It's like mitochondrial eve. All women alive today are descendants of that individual. But mitochondrial eve was NOT the "first woman", nor was she the only woman alive at that time.


I'm so sorry if you can't comprehend this simple thing.

Without life, there is no evolution;

So?

Without mass / matter there is no gravity.
But we don't need to know the origin of mass or matter to study gravity.

here comes the proposed role of Abiogenesis.

The scope of abiogenesis is the origin of life.
The scope of evolution is the origin of diversity / species.

Abiogenesis is intended to explain the first life.

The origins thereof, to be exact.

The ToE is only concerned with explanation of the diversity of life.

Indeed.

Abiogenesis ends with LUCA

It does not. See above.

, The ToE starts with LUCA.

It does not. See above.

First life is at least 3.8 billion years old.
Meanwhile, LUCA could be only 2 billion years old.

LUCA isn't necessarily "first life".
Just like mitochondrial eve is not "the first woman"

As explained in #2575, The Abiogenesis problem has multiple levels of escalated complexity to the final level which is the complex functionalities/live processes with the ability of self-sustenance/survival, lipids for cell membranes, metabolic functions and mechanisms of heredity reproduction.

I feel an argument from complexity (aka argument from ignorance / awe) coming up.
Is that where this is going?

Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions leading through these multiple levels and ending with the LUCA.

No. See above. LUCA is just the common ancestor of all extant life.
It needs not be "first life" and more then likely, it isn't. It needs not even be the "only" species that existed at the time it existed. And more then likely, it wasn't.

Just like mitochondrial eve was not "the first woman" nor "the only woman".

If LUCA is not possible, Abiogenesis fails, and evolution is not possible.

Evolution happened, happens and will continue to happen regardless of current hypothesis of abiogenesis being correct or not.

The theory of evolution doesn't fall or stand with abiogenesis hypothesis being accurate or false.

 

[Valjean]

Yes. Knowledge. Which is a subset of belief.

Those aren't "just" beliefs.

They are the well-evidenced subset: Knowledge.

 

[Valjean]

False, all evidence points to intention/purpose. Randomness is your claim. Design/purpose is an evidenced fact.

It is not. The "designs" you see in Nature are the results of the interplay of normal, unintentional laws of physics. Complexity and function does not equal intentional design.

a) The values of fundamental physical constants are extremely fine-tuned. If the values of these parameters in the physical theories had differed only very slightly from those observed, the emergence of the universe and life wouldn’t have been possible.

True, either nothing would emerge, or a different universe would emerge, perhaps with lifeforms marveling at how fine tuned their universe is.
The values and constants may be fine, but there's no evidence they're tuned. This simply puts the cart before the horse.
The laws and constants are what they are, and they produce the universe they produce. There is no need to insert unevidenced and unneeded variables.

Yes, the statistical chances of our world being as it is is very small, but the chance of any other configurations are equally small.
The chance of drawing a royal flush are very small, but exactly the same as any, same suit five card configuration

The conclusion that observed values cannot be a product of chance gave rise to the speculation of Multiverse, the unevidenced/unfalsifiable hypothesis of endless random universes which makes our fine-tuned universe merely a possibility among endless other random universes. (It’s exactly the same unevidenced concept that advantageous mutations emerge among endless of random mutations).

But, in the case of advantageous mutations, mutations are a known and common phenomenon. The rest is just natural selection.

b) Living systems with functional structures of extreme complexity that absolutely dwarfs the most sophisticated structures ever designed/built by man, even at a microbial level. Organisms such as Protozoa, Algae, Bacteria and Viruses are extremely complex structures that are capable of decision-making, problem-solving, quorum sensing, associative learning, adaptive behavior, cooperative behavior in populations. Live in its simplest form is always extremely complex.

True, and it took a long time and many iterations to get there.
Chance functionality gets locked in. Non-functional changes gets shuffled back into the deck for the next draw. Function accumulates. Complexity ≠ God or intentional design.
And viruses? -- Not organisms, and not so complex.

c) Design/purpose is also found in nonliving matter in the intelligent non-random behavior at the atomic and molecular level. Atomic intelligence is measured/defined as inversely proportional to the entropy of a system. The lower the entropy, the less is the random behavior and the higher the ability to form molecules or compounds which constitutes internal intelligence at the fundamental level of atoms.

Define "intelligence." Are you claiming intention?

It’s an oxymoron. Automatically would mean independently but it never means the absence of purpose/intention. It’s the other way around.

An automated process that yields a highly functional/complex end product is never evidence for the absence of purpose.

Nor is it evidence for intention or purpose. Without actual evidence of purpose, we logically withhold belief, pending further evidence. If there is intention, it's thus far unevidenced

This is a totally false claim. All evidence points to perfection in the universe, life and even in nonliving matter. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

You're the one making positive -- and unevidenced -- claims. The burden's on you.
Perfection and design? How are you measuring perfection in the universe? It doesn't seem so stable, plus, it's winding down; entropy increases. As for biological perfection.... you must be joking.

Both the evidence and need exist logically and scientifically, it has been demonstrated, you fail to see it. see above.

Almost all scientists fail to see it as well. The closer you look, the more insubstantial this special pleading becomes.

 

[Valjean]

I don’t see how can an ordinary language “Russian" give rise to “War and Peace" on its own without Leo Tolstoy.

Apples and oranges. Watchmaker fallacy. Personal incredulity.

Abiogenesis is merely a name to an assumed mechanism that is not known.

Not currently completely understood, but becoming increasingly understood every day. Are you suggesting that the appearance of life was without mechanism; magic?

The problem is the inability to differentiate between what is knowable vs. what is not. If the quality or state of being “unknowable” is an intrinsic characteristic of an entity, then it’s not subject to future change.

??? -- How so?

 

[cladking]

True.

The NDE studies points to the fact that our conscious/self-aware beings are independent from the physical body.

Consciousness is not a physical characteristic of matter. It’s a non-physical characteristic of life.



Yes, logically, this is the only way. Whatever is contingent must have its roots in the absolute.

With respect to consciousness, if there was no consciousness before, there is no consciousness now.

Ultimately, if there was nothing before, there is nothing now.

How easily believers in Evolution just ignore consciousness and its effects on survival, precreation, and luck. How easily they accept everything at face value and explain things in terms of what is "obvious" to everybody. Never does the complexity of nature factor into their conclusions. Never do they consider the individual and differences between individuals. Most can not even imagine other causes for change in species or other possibilities for how and why reality exists at all despite the fact the science hasn't really experimented on anything of this nature yet. Believers have all the answers without even knowing any of the questions yet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How easily believers in Evolution just ignore consciousness and its effects on survival, precreation, and luck. How easily they accept everything at face value and explain things in terms of what is "obvious" to everybody. Never does the complexity of nature factor into their conclusions. Never do they consider the individual and differences between individuals. Most can not even imagine other causes for change in species or other possibilities for how and why reality exists at all despite the fact the science hasn't really experimented on anything of this nature yet.

I can imagine plenty of things.
But I will only accept those things as real that are in evidence instead of just imagination

Believers have all the answers without even knowing any of the questions yet.

The fact that you say this with pride as if there isn't anything wrong with such a stance, speaks volumes.

 

[cladking]

The fact that you say this with pride as if there isn't anything wrong with such a stance, speaks volumes.

And the fact you don't know I was referring to believers in science shows you don't even read other peoples' posts.

But I will only accept those things as real that are in evidence instead of just imagination

The problem isn't what you don't believe is real. The problem is what you do believe is real. You believe in Evolution because this is how Peers interpret data. You believe in science because you don't understand metaphysics or the meaning of any experiment. Real scientists don't "accept" anything, they invent experiment and interpret it in terms of what they understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the fact you don't know I was referring to believers in science shows you don't even read other peoples' posts.

Science is the opposite of that.
I assumed you were talking about theists because you used the word "believers".

Science doesn't require mere belief. In fact, it does the opposite. It requires skepticism, questioning and verifiability.

"belief" is for religions.

The problem isn't what you don't believe is real. The problem is what you do believe is real. You believe in Evolution because this is how Peers interpret data.

No.

You believe in science because you don't understand metaphysics or the meaning of any experiment. Real scientists don't "accept" anything, they invent experiment and interpret it in terms of what they understand.

I don't think you are in a position to tell people how scientists do science.
You obviously have no clue about that.

 

[cladking]

I don't think you are in a position to tell people how scientists do science.

I never have told anybody how to do anything.

But as a metaphysician I do know how science works and you obviously do not.

The ability to repeat back what is in science texts is not the same as understanding science or theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never have told anybody how to do anything.

But as a metaphysician I do know how science works and you obviously do not.

The ability to repeat back what is in science texts is not the same as understanding science or theory.

No, we have been over this. You do not even have a middle school level understanding of how science works and you refuse to even discuss the topic. You appear to be self deluded and I do not know how to get you to participate in a reasonable conversation. Perhaps you have a suggestion on how you can learn.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, we have been over this. You do not even have a middle school level understanding of how science works and you refuse to even discuss the topic. You appear to be self deluded and I do not know how to get you to participate in a reasonable conversation. Perhaps you have a suggestion on how you can learn.

This is the type of answer I have come to expect from believers like you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not all of it since it was not that well written from a scientific perspective. And it is your job to quote the parts of it that supposedly support you.. It does not look like it would pass serious peer review which is why it is in a very obscure medical journal.

Always the same type of answer. No substance. Just put-downs of anyone, including scientists, who do not agree with the believers of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the type of answer I have come to expect from believers like you.

Don't get offended at the truth. Your posts tell us this every day. The fact that you are ignorant does not mean that you are stupid. It is not too late to learn.

Meanwhile I do not see you apologizing for your false claims about others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Always the same type of answer. No substance. Just put-downs of anyone, including scientists, who do not agree with the believers of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

How is that a "put down"? This is where you just demonstrated your ignorance again.

Would you like to learn how science is done?

 

[cladking]

No, we have been over this. You do not even have a middle school level understanding of how science works and you refuse to even discuss the topic. You appear to be self deluded and I do not know how to get you to participate in a reasonable conversation. Perhaps you have a suggestion on how you can learn.

And you never address the substance of a post or argument. You use only tactics, semantics, and insults. This is why I try to ignore most of your posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you never address the substance of a post or argument. You use only tactics, semantics, and insults. This is why I try to ignore most of your posts.

That is because there never is any "substance" to your posts. Properly support your claims and people will respond with more detail. As it is a simple handwave refutes your arguments.

And you ignore most of my posts because you cannot refute any of them. Unlike almost anyone that debates with you here.

Please do not make such foolish claims.