Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

There's plenty of evidence.
Mutations happen all the time, by chance. Some are advantageous -- in a particular environment. Eg: Lactase persistence into adulthood, plague/AIDS resistance, tolerance for high-altitude, low oxygen environments, sickle cell trait, &al. In other environments the same mutation might be harmful. Most of the many mutations in each of us seems to have no effect on survival.

Mutations don’t happen by chance simply because the DNA replication machinery proofreads/controls its own synthesis to ensure successful DNA replication and even if mismatched base pairs escape proofreading, the cell machinery utilizes several DNA repair mechanisms to maintain the integrity of its genetic code and ensure the survival of a species by enabling parental DNA to be inherited as faithfully as possible by offspring. The replication process is entirely controlled by the cell machinery, it's never random.

DNA repair | biology

Even bacteria have DNA repair mechanisms to maintain genome integrity and ensure cell survival. The replication process is always controlled by the cell machinery.

Bacterial DNA excision repair pathways | Nature Reviews Microbiology

Yet most of the world has seen this evidence. You're willfully ignoring it.

latest 21st century science proved that the assumption of random mutations is false. Directed mutations were confirmed. See #1245.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

There is no evidence of purpose. There is evidence of chemistry and adaptation. "Design" emerges naturally, by known and demonstrable mechanisms.You're presupposing an unnecessary god.

No, evidence of purpose is everywhere but you claim that the observed purpose (such as the example of the epiglottis) is neither intentional nor needs a designer. You are making an unevidenced empty claim that the observed design is not designed but rather emerged randomly. Demonstrate how an observed purposeful design (such as the epiglottis) is not designed.

I don't see your point. Components of life are created all the time, by ordinary chemistry

Not true, Components of life are never created by ordinary chemistry from non-living matter.

Some self-replicate. They interact. They combine. They increase. Their interactions begin to exhibit more and more of the features we associate with life.

it's an empty claim. No-self replication ever happens in nature outside a living cell.

Viruses? They can't proliferate without living cells already existing.
Alternative generative mechanisms? Magic! Theists believe magic more rational than chemistry.

there is no such thing as magic. If the cause is not known/understood by the observer, it doesn’t mean there is no cause.

“The natural forces did it” is not different than your perception of magic with respect to the fact that no mechanisms are known to explain how the controlling powers of the natural forces are exerted over matter.

You’re under the impression that your oversimplification of life (that you admittedly don’t understand) and some unevidenced assumptions are more rational in the sense that it assumes a mechanism and eliminate the involvement of intention but actually it neither provides a mechanism to explain life nor there is any observation that supports the claimed absence of purpose. It's a claim that contradicts all observations, how is that more rational?

How is low entropy intelligence?

"Intelligence in Matter"

Resultados da pesquisa por “Intelligence in Matter” – USP – Universidade de São Paulo

Intelligence-in-Matter.pdf (usp.br)

No. The 'design' is explainable by simple, known, observable mechanisms.

No, again explain the epiglottis or any organ/system of your choice for that matter.

I claim quite the opposite. Our knowledge of the natural, unguided mechanisms involved makes an intentional magician extraneous and unnecessary. It renders God a special pleading.

other than wishful thinking, there are absolutely no evidence that a random process can create such extremely high level of purpose/sophistication. It's an excessive unjustified oversimplification.

Any first year engineering student could improve on anatomical design, and any physician or biochemist could improve most organisms; physiology. I can't believe you haven't heard this before.
Nature works with what it has; with preëxisting designs. It cannot design de novo. It Jerry-rigs. "Good enough" is what usually results.

an empty claim. Demonstrate it.

Not exactly populum. I'm saying the experts in this field can point to empirical evidence supporting their positions.

empirical evidence of 21st century science pointed to the fact that all central assumptions of the modern synthesis are false (#781) and that the problem of abiogenesis will continue to have more questions than answers (#1850). The premise was never evidenced.

The notion that life was explained is false. Neither life nor the emergence of the entire universe is explained. The only fact is the observed effects that clearly manifest intention, purpose and design. Effects and causes are inseparable. The effects are the evidence of the causes. All causes must be rooted in an ultimate first cause (the necessary being).

 

[gnostic]

Mutations don’t happen by chance simply because the DNA replication machinery proofreads/controls its own synthesis to ensure successful DNA replication and even if mismatched base pairs escape proofreading, the cell machinery utilizes several DNA repair mechanisms to maintain the integrity of its genetic code and ensure the survival of a species by enabling parental DNA to be inherited as faithfully as possible by offspring. The replication process is entirely controlled by the cell machinery, it's never random.

DNA repair | biology

Even bacteria have DNA repair mechanisms to maintain genome integrity and ensure cell survival. The replication process is always controlled by the cell machinery.

Bacterial DNA excision repair pathways | Nature Reviews Microbiology

You keep talking about "cell machinery".

The word "machinery" is another one that gives false impression as what occur what cells and genes do.

The DNA replication and DNA repair that you have brought up, occurred at molecular level, and involved chemical reactions, not some silly imagery of machines.

DNA have 4 nucleobases, each ones are nitrogen containing biological molecules:

• adenine
• cytosine
  
• guanine
• thymine

RNA have 3 of the same molecules as that of DNA:

• adenine
• cytosine
• guanine
• uracil

These molecules are what DNA and RNA called "genetic codes" or "genetic information".

And again, these codes are not machines. It is all molecules, not machines - whether the DNA be processes be replication or repair.

Why do creationists use words that have nothing to do with actual mechanisms of cells?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mutations don’t happen by chance simply because the DNA replication machinery proofreads/controls its own synthesis to ensure successful DNA replication and even if mismatched base pairs escape proofreading, the cell machinery utilizes several DNA repair mechanisms to maintain the integrity of its genetic code and ensure the survival of a species by enabling parental DNA to be inherited as faithfully as possible by offspring. The replication process is entirely controlled by the cell machinery, it's never random.

DNA repair | biology

Even bacteria have DNA repair mechanisms to maintain genome integrity and ensure cell survival. The replication process is always controlled by the cell machinery.

Bacterial DNA excision repair pathways | Nature Reviews Microbiology

You need to find better sources than that. They do not support you. In fact your first source refutes you:

"Spontaneous mutations occur when DNA bases react with their environment, such as when water hydrolyzes a base and changes its structure, causing it to pair with an incorrect base. Replication errors are minimized when the DNA replication machinery “proofreads” its own synthesis, but sometimes mismatched base pairs escape proofreading."

There are two points there, first it refutes your claim of "no random mutations".. Second it shows that you do not understand DNA repair. Errors are minimized. They are mot eliminated. That is why you will have 100 to 300 mutations in the DNA handed down to you from you from your parents. We can observe DNA mutations in every birth, if we care to invest the funds necessary to find them.

latest 21st century science proved that the assumption of random mutations is false. Directed mutations were confirmed. See #1245.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Sorry, no need. Referring back to old lost arguments of yours is simply you admitting that you are wrong again.

No, evidence of purpose is everywhere but you claim that the observed purpose (such as the example of the epiglottis) is neither intentional nor needs a designer. You are making an unevidenced empty claim that the observed design is not designed but rather emerged randomly. Demonstrate how an observed purposeful design (such as the epiglottis) is not designed.

Define purpose. Provide the evidence. Until you do you are simply making more unevidenced claims and a handwave refutes them.

Not true, Components of life are never created by ordinary chemistry from non-living matter.

Really? How would you prove that? What evidence do you have for that claim? But then you do not seem to understand the concept of scientific evidence.

it's an empty claim. No-self replication ever happens in nature outside a living cell.

Now, that appears to be the case. Why do you assume that it was always that way? Do you know why it is not observed today?

there is no such thing as magic. If the cause is not known/understood by the observer, it doesn’t mean there is no cause.

So you don't believe in God? The book of Genesis is one example of magic after another.

“The natural forces did it” is not different than your perception of magic with respect to the fact that no mechanisms are known to explain how the controlling powers of the natural forces are exerted over matter.

You’re under the impression that your oversimplification of life (that you admittedly don’t understand) and some unevidenced assumptions are more rational in the sense that it assumes a mechanism and eliminate the involvement of intention but actually it neither provides a mechanism to explain life nor there is any observation that supports the claimed absence of purpose. It's a claim that contradicts all observations, how is that more rational?

That is a strawman argument. You can shorten it to that but that is far from accurate. There is evidence for abiogenesis. There is no evidence that I know of for God magic. And no one is "oversimplifying life". Early life would have to have been very very simple. It did not have almost 4 billion years of evolution behind it. All it needed to do was to consume some resources and reproduce. And since scientists have made RNA that self reproduces do you think that they are that far off from learning how RNA that can reproduce formed itself?

"Intelligence in Matter"

Resultados da pesquisa por “Intelligence in Matter” – USP – Universidade de São Paulo

Intelligence-in-Matter.pdf (usp.br)

Your first link is just to a list of articles. That does not help you. The second link is just a long argument from ignorance. That does not help you. There was no evidence presented there. And no wonder that you did not quote from them. I would have been embarrassed to do so as well.


Okay, that is enough. Too much nonsense to deal with in one stiting.

 

[Valjean]

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

It can be used in either sense, but, if you'd prefer, suggest a non-purposive substitute.

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

True, it's not evidence against a designer, but neither is a designer the most likely explanation. The familiar processes of physics or chemistry are observed to create order and complexity, all on their own.

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

Not sure what you mean, here. A geode or icicle are entities and designs?

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

The natural forces are observed and utilized every day. There is no evidence of intention. Water runs downhill, fire burns; the finger of God has not been observed. An intentional designer is a special pleading.

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

We see function, purpose implies intention, which there's no evidence of.

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

No, it's simple natural selection that's created a functional mechanism through a series of small changes, like any other anatomical feature.

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

What we see natural selection, a well understood, observable, non-purposive mechanism.

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

This is clear mostly to those unfamiliar with the natural mechanisms involved.

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

Natural selection again; an accumulation of small, selected variations.

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

Not random trial and error -- selection of functional traits. You're arguing from personal incredulity.

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

So what? Nature works with what it has. Once a functional pattern is established in some primitive organism, it's built on. As long as the underlying "design" remains functional, why would it change?

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

We see this in nature all the time. Reproduction produces variation. Dysfunctional variations -- misplaced arms or eyes, for example -- are eliminated.
As for symmetry, how is symmetry evidence of anything natural selection of a functional pattern?

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

Again, natural selection, and it didn't happen overnight. Dysfunctional variations were eliminated; functional ones accumulated and were built on. Accumulated small changes can produce great complexity, given time. No magic is required.

It's an empty claim. There are no means through which nonliving matter can transform into a living system. In addition, observed complexity of the living systems are absolutely irreducible.

Yet life did appear, belying your claim, and we've observed many of the likely steps. Why should we posit a magical, invisible personage just because something's complex? Do you really think magic is a more reasonable "explanation" than familiar processes we observe every day?

Your The liver cannot purify the bloodstream without a functioning heart that circulates the blood and the circulation of the blood around the body would be totally useless without the numerous functions of other organs such as lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. Without the vital organs collectively performing its intended functions in harmony form day one, the creature wouldn’t have a chance of survival. It would neither survive nor evolve.

You're arguing from personal incredulity again. Yes, we're marvelously complex, but that complexity began with simple organisms, and the intricate, coödination we see in ourselves is an accumulation of small changes over many generations.

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

I deny it, as do most scientists familiar with the process. Irreducible complexity is bunk. Goddidit is not obvious, nor does it address whatever mechanism God used. It's a special pleading born of incredulity and enculturation.

There is observable evidence in biology. The mechanisms are familiar and comprehensible. There is nothing familiar or comprehensible about magic. It's a fantastic claim, supported only by your incredulity over complexity.

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

Why not? Are the familiar laws of nature the only possible way the universe could have shaken out? Who knows? The universe we have is the only example we have.

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

Your claim is a false dilemma. We observe function. You infer design, purpose and intention. Your apparent inability to see an alternative explanation is not evidence.

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

You've got it backwards. Life is fine-tuned to the extant constants, it developed in accordance with the laws of the universe it found itself in, so to speak.

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

We don't fully understand the universe we're in. Is there some reason to assume another arrangement might not have emerged from the Big Bang? We have a sample size of one. I'm not claiming that another set of laws and constants would necessarily generate life, they might not even support a universe. I'm saying that any life, matter or energy that does exist, exists within some physical parameters, that might or might not be those we, ourselves are immersed in.

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

Cart before horse, again. Is a depression fine tuned to the exact shape of the puddle that occupies it, or the other way round?

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

A player throws a 6-faced die with the faces numbered from 1 to 6 against a flat surface while being influenced by a gravitational field and frictional resistance would give rise to a range of possibilities to settle with any number from 1 to 6 facing upwards. The interactions of existing entities are what give a chance to a specific set of possibilities.

I'm not sure I'm following. Don't the possibilities predate any interactions or entities that they give rise to?

 

[Valjean]

LIIA said: ↑

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

I deny it, as do most scientists familiar with the process. Irreducible complexity is bunk. Goddidit is not obvious, nor does it address whatever mechanism God used. It's a special pleading born of incredulity and enculturation.

There is observable evidence in biology. The mechanisms are familiar and comprehensible. There is nothing familiar or comprehensible about magic. It's a fantastic claim, supported only by your incredulity over complexity.

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

Why not? Are the familiar laws of nature the only possible way the universe could have shaken out? Who knows? The universe we have is the only example we have.

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

Your claim is a false dilemma. We observe function. You infer design, purpose and intention. Your apparent inability to see an alternative explanation is not evidence.

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

You've got it backwards. Life is fine-tuned to the extant constants, it developed in accordance with the laws of the universe it found itself in, so to speak.

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

We don't fully understand the universe we're in. Is there some reason to assume another arrangement might not have emerged?

If existing entities/conditions are different, then the possibilities are different but if there are no existing entities (no player, no die, no horizontal surface, no gravity/friction, nothing), then there are no possibilities of any kind.

So you're saying that not all manifestations of laws and constants would support life or a universe? OK, I've no problem with that, but what does that have to do with God?

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

Repeating the same claim doesn't increase its likelihood. You still haven't provided any evidence except personal incredulity.
The universe may have arisen from no thing, but it remains a mystery. Quantum reality posits many apparent impossibilities.
You may claim it arose by magic, so there must be a magician; so where did the magician come from?

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

Why do you say the constants are fine tuned? Perhaps they're just random, and gave rise to the only universe compatible with said laws and constants.

 

[Aupmanyav]

but we cannot ignore the facts of today based on future speculations/hopes that may never materialize.

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

Belief in God, sons, messengers and after-life is also that.
What is membrane? That also is chemistry, made of atoms. Same with nucleotides. What are metabolic functions? Chemistry, again.
A God creating a human from soil and a woman from his ribs is even more ludicrous.

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

To safe-guard what it has created. Perhaps there were organisms with less safe-guards, which did not survive. That is why nature pumps in 75 million sperms when just 1 is required. Evolution does not have to spend money for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Belief in God, sons, messengers and after-life is also that.
What is membrane? That also is chemistry, made of atoms. Same with nucleotides. What are metabolic functions? Chemistry, again.
A God creating a human from soil and a woman from his ribs is even more ludicrous.

How a primitive membrane could have formed is one of the solved problems of abiogenesis.

"The first protocell membranes may have assembled from fatty acids and related single-chain lipids available in the prebiotic environment. At different concentrations, fatty acids can partition between several different phases, including soluble monomers, micelles, and lamellar vesicles, with higher concentrations favoring larger vesicle aggregates. We have exploited this property to show experimentally that evaporation can cause vesicles to grow by increasing the total fatty acid concentration. Rainfall could then cause turbulence and dilution, leading to the division of some vesicles and the dissolution of others. Thus, alternation of evaporation and rain could potentially lead to an environmentally controlled cycle of growth and division."

Szostak Lab: Research

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

T
God is the necessary absolute causal influence.

No.

The observed behavior of galaxies (effect) is the reason behind the inference that “dark energy did it" (cause). Other than the given name (dark energy) for a necessary causal influence, we cannot observe it, experiment on it or have any clue how it exerts its controlling power over galaxies. All what you know is a given name that you assigned to an unknown, which gives you a false illusion of knowing what you don't.

Scientists don't pretend to know what dark energy / matter is.
They are, at best, placeholder names for demonstrable phenomenon of unknown origins.
The names "energy" and "matter" are chosen only because of the similarity of the observed unknown phenomenon with those phenomenon we DO know about.

In case of dark matter for example, we observe gravitational forces but we don't see the matter we would expect to see to exert that force.
Thus *something* is sourcing those gravitational forces. Hence the name "dark matter". It's just a label for something that is currently unknown. Just to make it easier to talk about it.

It is dishonest of you to say that science pretends to know what it is.

You cannot make any step further, yet you deceive yourself that you know. You know nothing.

No. We don't know "nothing". We know that there is SOMETHING that has to account for those gravitational forces. We just don't know what.

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

Are you saying that "god" is just a placeholder name for an unknown thing, like "dark matter".
That's cool. But I would advice using a label that carries less baggage.

The model is that God is the absolute causal influence that purposefully caused all contingent entities of all kinds.

That's not a model. That's a bare unfalsifiable claim.

The predictions are purpose/design/intention in every entity from the entire universe to subatomic particles.

How do you test that?

All observations support that model.

Assertions aren't observations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Causality is a necessity for every contingent entity (an entity that doesn’t exist by virtue of its mere essence). Every single entity in the universe is a contingent entity.

Key words: IN the universe.

The sum of contingent entities doesn’t add up to a non-contingent. The entire universe is a contingent entity (the universe had a beginning /didn’t always exist).

Causality is a phenomenon IN the universe which depends ON the universe, as it is necessarily temporal.

The instantiation of contingent entities into reality is not possible without a cause.

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

And temporal.

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

A cause for the universe would imply something happened "before" the universe.
But relativity informs us that "before" the universe is a nonsensical idea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

//facepalm

Typical ostrich defense.
It's pretty straightforward and it is seen in literally every application and observed everywhere. Both in extant species as well as in the fossil record.

But you can keep your head firmly locked in the ground if you want.

First, the state of “local optimum” of a species/becoming perfectly specialized in the niche in which it lives

I didn't use the word "perfectly". That's just you and it is misplaced.

, must be preceded by gradual changes slowly spreading in the population before any fixation may be achieved. it should be a long gradual process.

And it is.
The cambrian explosion was "sudden" in geological time. But the entire process took millions of years.
"fast" in a world where life's history spans 3.8 billion years.
But "slow" when considering it takes months or a few years to generate a new generation.

Meaning the geological history should first show a long “pre-stasis phase” of gradual changes that finally reach a “local optimum” then it would be possible to see long stasis. But we don’t see that in the fossil record, the “pre-stasis phase" is totally missing in the geological history. All what we see is only the long stasis.

It is simply not true. In fact, it's so not true that it is exactly such observations that gave rise to the whole idea of PE.

Second, with respect to gradualism, the rate of change is irrelevant. Regardless, the process must be gradual, i.e., how long it takes before a change emerges is irrelevant, if gradualism is true, then when the change emerges, it must be gradual.

And you are responding to a post where it is explained who evolutionary change IS gradual, regardless of the speed.



I have rarely seen people be so in denial as you are.

The stasis after a “local optimum” can be very long but it’s irrelevant to the fact that the following change must be gradual. this is not what we observe in the fossil record, long stasis are not followed by a gradual change but rather always by “sudden jumps”.

"sudden jumps" that account for millions of years.

The massive addition of the genetic information after the stasis is not explainable through any possible mechanism.

It's explained through PE.

Derp di derp derp.

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

The summarize:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I can, if it's not relevant to the point being made.
A point that seems to be flying so high over your head that you aren't even seeing it.

I disagree

With what? With what the L stands for in LUCA???

The denial is strong in this one......................

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

Nobody here has said otherwise.
Your strawmanning and dishonest semantics notwhitstanding.............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stasis would arguably only happen after reaching a local optimum/perfect fit in a niche but how did you get to this point to begin with?

Through evolution.

All this was explained already. Either you didn't read it or you didn't comprehend it.
Or it's just willful ignorance. I'm betting on the latter.

There is no evidence for the “pre-stasis phase" that is essentially required before reaching a local optimum/perfect fit in a niche.

We see exactly that in every application, the fossil record and you know... basic common sense (when one understand the rather simple process of selection pressures being dictated by overall environment parameters).

As a software engineer, I've done my share of development using genetic algorithms.
The phenomenon of PE is inevitable in an ever changing environment.

You do know and understand that GA's are literally practical applications of evolution theory, right?

The entire geological history is only characterized with stasis.

It's not. But I understand you might not notice it with your head lodged firmly in the ground.

In addition, long periods of stasis are never followed by a gradual change but always by sudden jumps.

"sudden" as in hundreds of thousands of years or even millions.

Gradualism is false due to contradiction with real world evidence. The predictions of the framework contradict the observations.

No, they don't.
Every newborn is of the same species as its parents and differs only 0.00001%. These differences accumulate over generations. That's what gradual change is.

The claim that “Evolution has random components” is exactly the problem. Where is the evidence for the alleged random components?

Every observation of every mutation ever.

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

Have some common sense.
When DNA mutation occurs during conception, the molecule has no knowledge of against what kind of background that individual will be hunting.

So, if mutation happens that affects fur color, it is not going to be a specific color to match that background.
It's instead going to be whatever it's going to be. And once the individual is born and starts hunting, it will either be succesful at hunting or it won't. Having fur of any other color then white, is going to make it harder for that individual to remain undetected. Perhaps it can compensate with another trait, perhaps not.
But likely it won't. This will not play in its advantage.

Mutation is random with respect to fitness.
Fur color for a hunter at the north pole is going to impact that hunter's fitness.

Even after reaching a local optimum/perfect fit in a niche,

Once more: I didn't use the word "perfect". There is no "perfect".
The use of that word is misplaced.

if the process were random

The process is NOT random. You are replying to a post which says exactly that.
Do you even read what you reply to?

Why don’t we see other colors of bears that keep emerging randomly among the population of white bears and then get eliminated by selection? Simply because, the adaptation process is never random, it's always directed. The random change is an unevidenced myth.

Let's turn your nonsense around.
Please provide evidence that a DNA molecule at conception knows against what background the to-be-born individual is going to have to hunt.

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

You should read up a bit on genetics and how genotype affects phenotype.
Clearly you have no clue.

You seem to think that a mutation could give make a polar bear be born with blue fur or something.
This is beyond idiotic.

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

There are never "massive jumps".
PE doesn't say there are "massive jumps".
What you call "massive jumps" are in fact processes the unfold over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

Except, that this “far enough” is never true.

Yes it is.

In most of the cases, you can see a descendant that lives side by side by an alleged ancestor or even before the ancestor.

Nonsense.

Didn’t we already discuss this before?

That could very well be. Creationists tend to forget when they are schooled resulting in them doubling down on their already corrected mistakes.

They are infamous for arguing PRATTs.

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

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

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

You think you are making an argument, but really you are just arguing a strawman.
Nobody is claiming that those fossils are direct descendants of one another or the direct ancestors of horses.

I could explain it, but likely you won't understand it. Or rather, be willing to understand it. You prefer to stay with your head firmly lodged into the ground.

I'll just give you a sneak peak instead.

A lineage of transitionals refers to the "state" of related species of those times.
Take today's big felines for example. Tigers, cheetah's, lions,... they are today's "state" of big cats.
Suppose cheetah's and lions go extinct and tigers produce sub-species. Suppose only lions leave fossils behind. Millions of years from now, suppose a lion fossil is uncovered.
That lion fossil would get its place in the lineage of fossils concerning the evolutionary history of the descendants of tigers at that time in the future.

And it is such always with transitional fossils.
Take the species of Lucy for example. The Australopithecus of the human lineage. That species is part of the evolutionary history of humans. It doesn't necessarily mean that that species are direct ancestors of homo sapiens. It merely means that they were part of the "state of life" of the ancestor group from which eventually homo sapiens evolved.

You may now return to your strawmanning "rebutals" which only further expose your (willful?) ignorance. :rolleyes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's neither rare nor illogical.
It happens all the time.

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

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

And it's not being used for its intended purpose.

Purpose is the very definition of function.

It's not. And you are responding to a post where it is specifically explained in detail and with an example how it's not.

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

I do. But you don't seem to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unknown function ≠ no function.

That isn't a case of unknown function.
The function IS known.
It just no longer applies.

And the rule is what matter not a perceived exception that could very well be false.

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

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

Do you even read the links you provide?

First 2 paragraphes in that article:

Even though humans have evolved to have relatively little body hair, we still produce goosebumps when cold. Goosebumps occur when tiny muscles in our skin’s hair follicles, called arrector pili muscles, pull hair upright.

For animals with thick fur, this response helps keep them warm. But it doesn’t do so for people. Still, this ability to make goosebumps persists in humans and other animals that don’t have enough hair to retain warmth

 

[Dan From Smithville]

//facepalm

Typical ostrich defense.
It's pretty straightforward and it is seen in literally every application and observed everywhere. Both in extant species as well as in the fossil record.

But you can keep your head firmly locked in the ground if you want.



I didn't use the word "perfectly". That's just you and it is misplaced.



And it is.
The cambrian explosion was "sudden" in geological time. But the entire process took millions of years.
"fast" in a world where life's history spans 3.8 billion years.
But "slow" when considering it takes months or a few years to generate a new generation.



It is simply not true. In fact, it's so not true that it is exactly such observations that gave rise to the whole idea of PE.



And you are responding to a post where it is explained who evolutionary change IS gradual, regardless of the speed.



I have rarely seen people be so in denial as you are.



"sudden jumps" that account for millions of years.





It's explained through PE.

Derp di derp derp.



The summarize:

View attachment 68862

Ostrich chess?

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought this thread was dead, but I see there are creationists bound and determined to show us all that they know absolutely nothing about science, biology, scientific theories or evolution.

I love how the anti-science Peers come up with the most ridiculous claims. The evidence of gradual change and speciation over time isn't real and if we could back in time we would see that. Except that they would have had to go back in time to make the counter claim of speciation being instantaneous or over a couple of generations. Since they offer no other evidence or explanation of how they could know the basis of that claim. There is no evidence that says that. Just wishful thinking and silliness. The things believers come up with.

Good luck with whatever nonsense is forthcoming, but I'm just passing through.

Yes, kind of me, too, passing through that is. But I was watching a roach stuck on a piece of sticky tape and his antennae kept waving even though his body was virtually crushed while his feet were stuck on the tape. I remember reading years ago that roaches will survive a total nuclear war.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, kind of me, too, passing through that is. But I was watching a roach stuck on a piece of sticky tape and his antennae kept waving even though his body was virtually crushed while his feet were stuck on the tape. I remember reading years ago that roaches will survive a total nuclear war.

They are resilient creatures that can survive in some rather extreme conditions or extreme injuries. The body can remain alive for days with the head removed and they can (heads attached) survive fully immersed in water for a half hour or so.

The blast heat from a nuclear detonation would kill them instantly as it would any other living thing in range. They can survive doses of radiation that would kill a human, but I'm not sure for how long or how it would effect the populations. A high rate of mutagenesis among the populations would seem likely.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are resilient creatures that can survive in some rather extreme conditions or extreme injuries. The body can remain alive for days with the head removed and they can (heads attached) survive fully immersed in water for a half hour or so.

The blast heat from a nuclear detonation would kill them instantly as it would any other living thing in range. They can survive doses of radiation that would kill a human, but I'm not sure for how long or how it would effect the populations. A high rate of mutagenesis among the populations would seem likely.

I find it interesting that these things (yes, I call them things...) have bodies that can remain alive for days with their head removed. Wow. No wonder when they are stuck on tape I put around the house their antenna are still waving, even when I try to put them out entirely, seems they are still wiggling a bit. Makes me think of what one Bible writer said even though worms eat my body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. Here is a beautiful rendition of that beautiful song by Handel: Lynne Dawson sings "I know that my redeemer liveth" - Bing video
OK, sorry, the lyrics are though worms destroy this body... Not roaches. Beautiful song anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, and by the way, the dna composition of various things makes it clear that there is an initiating intelligence involved --

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and by the way, the dna composition of various things makes it clear that there is an initiating intelligence involved --

How so? You need more than an unevidenced declaration.