Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Identify it.



If a necessary prerequisite is not possible, the process is not possible. The premise is wrong, and the explanation is false. There is no randomness in nature. All evidence points to order/control.



You need "someone" to begin with, if "someone" doesn’t exist, then no one would be traveling.



The premise is either randomness or purpose. If God created the first life, then God created all life.



Really?

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

And #1864
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

I have identified them multiple times.

Admit that you were not paying attention and I might do it again.

Besides, it is your turn to answer questions.

Why are you so afraid of reality?

 

[LIIA]

You mean a problem for yiu.

And yes, you got just about every topic as wrong as could be.

Why are you so opposed to the fact that life is a product of evolution?

because it's not a fact but rather a false speculation that contradicts observed facts.

See #1864
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

I have identified them multiple times.

you didn't it.

prove me wrong and provide the post number. or stop the nonsense.

 

[LIIA]

Nope. They knew that evolution was a fact too. All you have are quote mines when you.use those people.

evolution is a false speculation, the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record is a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

because it's not a fact but rather a false speculation that contradicts observed facts.

See #1864
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

Sorry, it is a fact. Referring to old arguments that you lost.only confirms it.

Why are you afraid of the fact of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

you didn't it.

prove me wrong and provide the post number. or stop the nonsense.

Nope. I don't play that game.

If you weren't paying attention that is your problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

evolution is a false speculation, the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record is a fact.

More false claims. The fossil record is far more complete than you realize. And of course it is not even the strongest evidence for evolution. So sad.

 

[Aupmanyav]

evolution is a false speculation, the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record is a fact.

Yeah, there are jumps. 12345 789. Now there is a jump. But we can easily surmise that it must have been 6. When the fossil at 6 will be discovered, the sequence will be complete. That does not make the progression false.
"evolution is a false speculation": say that a thousand times, it will still remains a denial of reality.

See #1864
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

I am not taking up your long post, because things are confused in a long post. One does not know what a person wrote and what a line is the answer for. I detest long posts. I skip those.

 

[LIIA]

Nope. I don't play that game.

If you weren't paying attention that is your problem.

you play many pathetic games? I'm not surprised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Amateurs often focus on the fossil record because it is the most obvious evidence for evolution to the ignorant. It is not the strongest. It takes a bit of education to see the stronger evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you play many pathetic games? I'm not surprised.

No you are merely describing yourself again.

If you can enter into an honest discussion then I can go into more detail.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, there are jumps. 12345 789. Now there i a jump. But we can easily surmise that it must have been 6. When the fossil at 6 will be discovered, the sequence will be complete. That does not make the progression false.

not really, it's a false oversimplification, with respect to the massive addition of genetic information, the jumps are more like 1 to 1000000000. the gap is massive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not really, it's a false oversimplification, with respect to the massive addition of genetic information, the jumps are more like 1 to 1000000000. the gap is massive.

Once again, the fossil record is far more complete than you think it is. The work of Gould is about forty years old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, LUCA’s age is assumed to be around 4 billion years ago, but it’s really irrelevant to my point

Actually it's estimated between 3 and 3.8 billion.
But that's not relevant. I was just making the point that LUCA isn't necessarily FIRST life - and most likely isn't.

Everything you mentioned is merely unevidenced meaningless speculation.

It's not.
LUCA needs not be first life. And again, likely isn't.

Say first life is population A.
That speciates in A1, A2 and A3.
Say that A1 and A2 go extinct and A3 goes on to outcompete 1 and 2 and then all life comes from that one.

Population A was first life. A1 would be a subspecies of that original first A.
Remember what the L in LUCA stands for.
It's the LAST common ancestor.
So the YOUNGEST. Not the OLDEST.

That's the only point I was making.

I’m not interested in arguing about irrelevant details of a fairytale

You can call genetic facts of common ancestry what you want of course, but it won't change the fact that they are facts.

Again, the ToE is not concerned about explaining the first life, only the diversity of life

Correct.

but without life, there is no evolution;

Obviously.
Hence why the process of evolution applies to living things only. Hence the scope of the theory.

Duh.

Abiogenesis is supposed to explain the emergence of first life

Correct.

(first self-sustaining complex living system allegedly capable of Darwinian evolution)

Why "complex"?
There's no requirement for it to be complex.
Off course, how "complex" something is, is rather subjective off course.
Amino acids can be said to be "complex" molecules. It can also be said to be rather simple molecules when contrasted against more complex ones.

So it's kind of a matter of perspective.

which is absolutely necessary before any evolutionary process through mutation/selection would be possible.

Obviously. Yes. Life needs to exist before process that apply to living things can manifest.
You have succesfully stated the obvious.

The name that is given to the alleged first life is neither my concern nor I am interested in arguing about irrelevant details. The point is, Abiogenesis must explain the first life, which is a necessary prerequisite before evolution. If the first life is not explained or not possible, no evolution is possible.

This is completely false.
Life exists and we can study it.
It matters not how it originated.

Whether it is true a process like proposed in abiogenesis theories, by alien engineering, by gods created it, by panspermia, by magical unicorns farting.... it matters not.

It exists. It is there. It is evolving.

Evolution is only not possible if:
- life does not exist (but it does)
- existing life does not exhibit the necessary properties for evolution to occur (but it does)

The point is that many are under the false impression that the ToE explains life

The only people that seem to be under that impression, are creationists.
People who understand evolution, understand that it explains the diversity of life, not life itself.

and they fail to understand that without life to begin with, there is no possible evolution.

Yes, if life doesn't exist then it won't be evolving.

But life DOES exist.

The ToE merely shifts the problem of life to the first life and leaves it to Abiogenesis to provide an explanation, but it never did.

No shifting is taking place. Evolution addresses the origins of species. Not the origins of life itself.
Why is this so hard to understand for you?

Probably because you are one of those people who is under that false impression you just mentioned.
Which is weird, because earlier in your post you acknowledged that the origins of life are out of scope of evolution theory.

The fact remains that the problem of life was never explained. neither by the ToE nor by Abiogenesis.

Which is why abiogenesis research is ongoing.
Everything that is explained today was unexplained in the past. So what?

If we don't know then we don't know. We can then only work to try and find out.
What is it that you are actually complaining about?

Not really. The concern as explained in # 2575 is the oversimplification/wishful thinking of many as they view the problem of Abiogenesis while failing to understand its multiple levels of escalated complexity. None of the numerous attempts led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution. See # 1850 & #2484.

Yes, it's a hard problem. So?
Are you complaining that science isn't easy?

Not true,

Yes true.
Finding out how life originated isn't going to change anything about how life reproduces and adapts to its environment through the processes detailed in evolution theory.

it's always an adaptation process through directed mutation, it's never a random evolutionary process.

BS

Mutation is random with respect to fitness.
Natural selection acts like a filter (not random).
These are observable, demonstrable phenomenon.
Regardless of your ostrich defenses of denial.

 

[LIIA]

No you are merely describing yourself again.

If you can enter into an honest discussion then I can go into more detail.

In # 2723 you claimed, “There could be several possible sources of first life". I asked you to identify it and you responded in # 2741 that you identified them multiple times. Again, you didn’t.

If you can enter an honest discussion, then, prove me wrong and provide the post number or provide your proposed "several possible sources of first life". what are you afraid of? provide it and let's discuss it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You acknowledged that we see design in nature. Design is essentially a functional arrangement of entities for a purpose.

Regardless of any explanation of why the observed design exist, it’s irrelevant to the fact that we do see design in nature. Design/purpose is an evidenced fact. Attempts of explanations are merely assumptions/claims.

The complexity of structure that successfully achieves a function always equals intentional design even If the cause is not known or understood. The lack of knowledge of the cause is never a justification to deny the evidenced characteristics of design/purpose in nature.

IOW, you can always recognize a design when you see it. Your knowledge of the designer or the lack thereof is irrelevant. It doesn’t change this fact. Its illogical to claim that a design is not designed simply because we don’t have knowledge of the design process or who is the designer. The design itself is the evidence for the designer.



It’s an empty claim, the evidence is that neither the formation of the universe would be possible nor there is any other physical life system possible other than the carbon-based life.



Not true, the evidence is that the constants are extremely fine-tuned.



This is exactly what you are doing!! You insert unevidenced variables and assume it would produce unevidenced universe and unevidenced life form. It’s an empty claim.



It’s a flawed logic in many ways.

First, you make an empty claim that any set of constants/variables would give rise the formation of a universe and some life form without any evidence.

Second, “statistical chances” is necessarily the function of the interaction of existing entities that create the required perquisites of chance. If nothing exists (no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no space, no time) then there is no statistical chance of any kind.

Statistical chance of our world being as is would be only possible if we accept the unevidenced/ unfalsifiable assumption of Multiverse.



Mutations are a known and common phenomenon but there is absolutely no evidence that advantageous mutations emerge accidentally among endless other non- advantageous random mutations. Advantageous mutations emerge as a result of directed mutations.



Not true, there is no evidence for the alleged endless non- advantageous random mutations that is constantly getting eliminated by selection.



The criteria that identify design/intention are not dependent on our knowledge of the causes. It’s simply the successful/efficient arrangement of entities to achieve a purpose. The design is the evidence of the designer.



A virus is not considered alive, you may say it’s not as complex as a single-celled organism but yet a virion is still a very complex structure.



Low entropy as previously explained.



It’s a flawed logic; purpose/intension can be seen and recognized independent from our knowledge of the designer. The design itself is the evidence of the designer. You cannot see a design and claim that you don’t have evidence of the designer. You cannot claim that the design is not designed simply because you don’t have the knowledge/understanding of the designer or the design process.



Again, totally false, in your post #2593, you said,” If intentional, the operator is a very incompetent engineer, judging by how poorly designed and haphazard his creations are.”, you made a claim, demonstrate it and I’ll respond.

As I said before, perfection of a system is the level of adequacy/success of a system in achieving a goal. The extremely fine-tuned universe is perfection. The fact that every living organism is equipped with all vital systems that ensure its success in its environment is perfection.



You’re making a fallacious argumentum ad populum.

It is so tiring when people insist on arguing all the classic PRATTs.

Literally every BS claim in your post has been addressed countless times before.

An Index to Creationist Claims (talkorigins.org)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not magic, simply it's an unknown cause that cannot be understood, it's exactly the same case for life. The cause cannot be seen or understood.

Then the only correct answer is "we don't know", followed by "let's roll up our sleeves and get to work to try and find out".

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

The effect itself is always the evidence for the cause.

You don't seem to understand what "evidence" is.
Not all data is evidence.
Data becomes evidence when an explanatory model exists that makes testable predictions, and when that data then supports or contradicts that model.

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

 

[LIIA]

there are instances of a "lack of design" quite frequently.

Identify it

Sorry, just more hand waving. Do you have anything of substance at all? You are merely repeating the incredibly innocuous "Look at the trees!" argument.

The context is consciousness.

It was a response to Cladking’s comment in # 2669 about ignoring consciousness as a component of life.

Nothing fits "perfectly" into its environment

Demonstrate it.

No, no one has ever been able to show a "purpose"

false, can you identify a single organ of a living organism that doesn’t have a purpose? Just remember unknown function ≠ no function. Also, the context is the rule not a perceived exception.

"purpose" is a fact that cannot be disputed; the issue is the explanation of how purposeful beings/entities came to existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In my post #2645, I said, “without causality as a fundamental principle, the entire scientific method collapses”. The scientific method always seeks explanations/causes for observed phenomena. In principle, if causes were not necessary, science itself would be unnecessary. The reasoning logic itself would collapse. Do you disagree? If you do, then I would have no further comments. We cannot argue about the basics.

The Big Bang is a contingent being with a beginning (didn’t always exist). As a contingent being, its instantiation in reality is dependent on a cause. Beyond the BB, there is no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no space, no time, IOW, nothing physical of any kind. Hence the necessary cause is not physical and necessarily of a nature that cannot be understood. i.e., supernatural.

But again, this is not a foreign concept to naturalism. In general, we never test the causes. We only test the effects. The effects itself is the evidence of the causes. We test the effects in the observable realm and infer the causes that may not be seen/understood. You may observe the behavior of galaxies and infer the dark energy as a cause, but you may never observe dark energy or experiment on it. Its effects are the only evidence; the intrinsic nature of causes is a threshold that science cannot cross.

The first cause is the only necessary being, without the necessary being, no contingent being is possible. All contingent entities of all kinds must be rooted in the absolute/ necessary being.

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

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

It's a very unsophisticated way of trying to sound smart.
The fact is that there is good reason to assume that causality as we understand and observe it, might not apply if the universe doesn't exist.

 

[LIIA]

More false claims. The fossil record is far more complete than you realize. And of course it is not even the strongest evidence for evolution. So sad.

wishful thinking. I'm not concerned whether you think it's the strongest or weakest evidence. I'm only stating the fact about the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record. your denial wouldn't change it.