Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

He was talking about a new strain. Your article only describes the addition of a single trait.

The experiment showed that the change was neither slow nor random. the change (directed mutation) was quick and predictable.

 

[LIIA]

No, there is no need to refer back to your old lost arguments. Do you have any reliable sources that such such a thing is impossible? I am not saying that they do not exist. But I am saying that no believer has ever been able to support your claim.

EDIT: I was bored. I looked back. I shouldn't have. All he did was to repeat his unevidenced claims.


Repeating claims that require evidence without providing any is the same as admitting that you are wrong.

This is ridiculous. I always provide evidence and credible sources; on the other hand, you never do. We shouldn’t argue about basic established facts.

-The virus is the closest example in nature of a nonliving relatively simple genetic material. Even so it has a protecting membrane, but the genetic material of a virus cannot stay intact for long outside a living cell. It is a fact. Obviously without a protecting membrane, the structure of some free-floating genetic material in nature wouldn’t have much chance to stay intact.

-The genetic material of a virus can never self-replicate outside a living cell. It never happens. It’s not possible (no access to required nucleotides). Outside the living cell, the virus can neither keep its structure intact nor replicate. It will quickly disintegrate. It’s a fact. If it doesn’t persist/survive, it definitely doesn’t evolve.

-The genetic material of a virus does not have any metabolic functions neither there is any evidence that it can evolve to acquire it, especially considering the fact that there was nothing to metabolize under abiotic conditions.

These impossibilities render the assumption of abiogenesis false, let alone that abiogenesis was never established as a scientific theory to begin with. abiogenesis is merely a given name to some meaningless wishful thinking. We don’t really need to argue about a theory that doesn’t exist.

I reference older posts simply because the sources were previously provided.

See # 2482
Darwin's Illusion | Page 125 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

The experiment showed that the change was neither slow nor random. the change (directed mutation) was quick and predictable.

Like I said, you do not understand "random". What makes you think that the changes were not random? Here is a hint, when there is one main source of natural selection the observed reactions will be in regards to that one element.

The only element being tested was a reaction to antibiotics so of course the observed changes would be in regards to that. Those changes would have still occurred randomly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is ridiculous. I always provide evidence and credible sources; on the other hand, you never do. We shouldn’t argue about basic established facts.

-The virus is the closest example in nature of a nonliving relatively simple genetic material. Even so it has a protecting membrane, but the genetic material of a virus cannot stay intact for long outside a living cell. It is a fact. Obviously without a protecting membrane, the structure of some free-floating genetic material in nature wouldn’t have much chance to stay intact.

-The genetic material of a virus can never self-replicate outside a living cell. It never happens. It’s not possible (no access to required nucleotides). Outside the living cell, the virus can neither keep its structure intact nor replicate. It will quickly disintegrate. It’s a fact. If it doesn’t persist/survive, it definitely doesn’t evolve.

-The genetic material of a virus does not have any metabolic functions neither there is any evidence that it can evolve to acquire it, especially considering the fact that there was nothing to metabolize under abiotic conditions.

These impossibilities render the assumption of abiogenesis false, let alone that abiogenesis was never established as a scientific theory to begin with. abiogenesis is merely a given name to some meaningless wishful thinking. We don’t really need to argue about a theory that doesn’t exist.

I reference older posts simply because the sources were previously provided.

See # 2482
Darwin's Illusion | Page 125 | Religious Forums

And you should not do that. The reason is that you load most of your posts with so much nonsense that even if you have one thing right the whole thing is still wrong. That is why linking to old lost arguments is just admitting that you are wrong again.

 

[gnostic]

It’s a flawed logic. An engine is made of atoms, same as the transmission, frame, axle, wheels, etc. all the components of a car came through physical and chemical processes. Is that in any way evidence that the car is not purposefully designed?

I am afraid that your own claim is flawed.

Yes, someone need to design the components of the car, and then have build every component of the car.

None of the components build itself, and no cars assemble the themselves.

You are talking about people, real people that have the cars designed, and then have the cars construct in some factories. These people are not invisible, nor imaginary, as they have outside of the car industry.

Car components, eg the engine for example, do not produce by itself, nor can engine produce a new engine, like offspring.

Cars are not living organisms, nor are any car components living cells or have organic compounds that are needed to reproduce offspring (eg no engine is capable of fertilization, follow by engine going through division of itself and replication of itself) meaning car engine don’t go through fertilization of cell (in the case of human reproduction and other animal reproduction, the fertilization of the egg (which is a gamete cell ovum) and sperm (another type of gamete cell), which are followed by cell division and replication that formed into daughter cells. These new cells divide and form in accordance with what DNA or RNA that have genetic information of traits inherited from either parents.

Mounts are these. Every tissues (eg bone tissues, muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels, nerve tissues, organs, glands, are all made from cells, that originally started off with just two single cells from two parents - the egg (or ovum) and the sperm.

Neither car, nor of the car components, are capable of growing itself. And engine cannot reproduce itself, and form new (offspring) engine. Each engine must be built separately.

It is you, who have problem with logic. @Aupmanyav was describing living organisms having living biological cells, capable of reproduction, converting food into energy source that help sustain these living cells (hence metabolism), capable of healing when ill or injured, all through chemistry working with the biological cells.

Car and car components are not living matters, they are not made of living cells, and they are capable of growing new components.

You are comparing living organisms with cars. Cars are not living entities, nor are any of the components, such as the engine, transmission, the axle, the chassis, etc.

So you provided an analogy that are not relevant to life or living organiSm. You are the one who is not being logical.

 

[LIIA]

The ages are not "alleged". They are very well supported by evidence. I can provide you with some rather easily, but you would probably deny it. And one cannot just deny evidence. I am just curious, what evidence to the contrary do you have? It is probably nonexistent. Just admit that you made another unevidenced claim and I will gladly supply you with some supporting evidence.

Are you supporting TagliatelliMonster claim that the alleged LUCA is 2 billion years old? I guess you too are not aware of the alleged details of your fairytale.

Your fairytale/Geisteswissenschaften assumes that LUCA lived around 4 billion years ago.

Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

By the way, do you know why the precise path of abiogenesis is likely to never be completely solved?

So you finally admit it!! Didn’t you insist before that scientists are very close to solve it?

Anyways, I agree abiogenesis would never be solved.

 

[LIIA]

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?

gnostic, you don’t play games like some others, and I appreciate that, but you are so confused, regardless of how many times I pointed that out, but you keep imagining that you understand what you really don’t, which is the reason why you rush to writing some irrelevant nonsense without making an effort to understand the subject matter.

Even so I intentionally use the language of scientific articles that I reference in my posts to avoid wasting time in nonsensical arguments such as yours but you neither read nor understand.

Did I come up with the word “machinery”? Didn’t you notice that this was the exact word used in the article that I referenced? See the quote below from Britannica’s article.
DNA repair | biology | Britannica

The word “MACHINERY” is typically used in scientific articles/research concerning the intricate and highly organized cell machinery that synthesize, assemble, and transport components around, in, and out of the cell through highly regulated mechanisms.

The chemical machinery of the cell (CMC) was the subject of Scialog Annual Conference in 2018, 2019 and 2021. See the links to CMC conference booklets below.

Scialog® – Chemical Machinery of the Cell

https://rescorp.org/gdresources/docs/CMC-Scialog-2018.pdf

https://rescorp.org/gdresources/docs/CMC-Scialog-2019.pdf

https://rescorp.org/gdresources/docs/2021_Scialog_CMC_Conference_Booklet.pdf

These conferences were concerned with bringing together chemists and biologists to collaborate in interdisciplinary projects to develop deeper understanding of chemical machinery and reactions in the intact cell and the myriad processes that are happening simultaneously in close proximity in the extremely dense and complex cellular environment.

Again, “machinery” is the best word that accurately describes the processes that takes place in the living cell. It’s extremely complex machinery that utilizes the coded info stored in the DNA to synthesize, assemble, and transport components. That is what it exactly is “an extremely complex machinery”.

(525) Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube

(525) DNA animation (2002-2014) by Drew Berry and Etsuko Uno wehi.tv #ScienceArt - YouTube

 

[LIIA]

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.

The point is the process is not random. The DNA replication machinery “proofreads” its own synthesis. “Control” is the rule; “errors” is the exception. Even when errors happen, the DNA repair mechanisms work to repair the damage. The cell machinery controls the process. Mutations are not random, it’s controlled/directed for the benefit of the organism.

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

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.

Nonsense, life in any shape or form is extremely complex. The ability of self-replication and metabolic functions dictates the complexity. Such complexity of the simplest living organism cannot be reduced. There is no evidence to support such empty claims.

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?

We discussed that before, scientists used essential components that do not exist in nature especially under prebiotic conditions and they did it in controlled lab conditions, which call the relevance of the results into question.

See #1850

Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #2484

Darwin's Illusion | Page 125 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

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

No, it cannot. That is the point. “Design” is always intentional/purposive. There is no non-purposive substitute. It doesn’t exist.

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.

If the familiar processes “the automated process” create order and complexity, then the automated process itself is design. Design is a manifestation of purpose.

All of nature manifests design. Design is everywhere. Being the norm is never evidence for the absence of purpose. It’s quite the contrary.

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

Design and purpose are inseparable. If we see design, then we have seen purpose.

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.

The design itself is the evidence of intention. The finger of God is observed in every single designed entity. The fundamental question is “why there is design/order vs. chaos/randomness”. Why would the familiar processes dictate design/order? What dictates/causes the specific behavior of the familiar processes that give rise to design/order as the outcome?

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

There is no route through which an organism can survive and evolve without the essential systems that must be functional from day one. Such as the simple example of the epiglottis. It’s an illogical oversimplification.

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

Natural selection is not a creative mechanism. It works on what already exists. Selection would never cause the non-functional to be functional. It only causes what is already functional to be better. the non-functional will neither survive nor evolve.

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

Alleged mechanisms are characterized by illogical oversimplification.

Nonetheless, if the outcome of a process is design,then the process itself is design. You explain the outcome by the process and fail to understand that process itself needs an explanation. If A causes B causes C, you cannot stop at B as the cause for C. if B is not explained, you don’t have an explanation. You can only stop at the root/absolute cause. See #490

Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums

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

Illogical oversimplification, it must be functional from day one, the organism must survive to evolve. If evolution were what gives the organism the essential functions to survive, how would the organism survive to evolve?

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

Again, selection doesn’t create. The creative mechanism is mutation, which is allegedly random trial and error (no intention involved). In any case, the assumption of random mutations was disproved. See #1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

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?

Its illogical, per the evolutionary idea, a functional pattern can be reached after a long route of non-functional patterns that got eliminated. There is no evidence for such nonsense.

Reflective symmetry is a design characteristic of the body plan that can be seen in almost all complex creatures alive or in the fossil record.

We see this in nature all the time. Reproduction produces variation. Dysfunctional variations -- misplaced arms or eyes, for example -- are eliminated.

Seriously, do we see randomly misplaced arms or eyes in nature all the time? The rule is perfection. In fact, exceptions/errors help use to recognize and appreciate the rule.

As for symmetry, how is symmetry evidence of anything natural selection of a functional pattern?

Balanced and proportional reflective symmetry as a rigid design characteristic of the body plan in almost all complex creatures is evidence of design.

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.

Alleged dysfunctional variations cannot survive to evolve and acquire necessary systems. Slow accumulation of change is not possible if the organism doesn’t have vital systems required for survival from day one. The organism will neither survive nor evolve.

Per the ToE, dysfunctional random variations should be the overwhelming rule; accidental functional variations should be the exception. There is no evidence of such overwhelming dysfunctional variations continuously emerging randomly before it gets eliminated by selection. We don’t see such nonsense in nature.

If you think unknown/ ununderstood cause is magic, then magic is the only explanation that science provides to observations, from the behavior of entire galaxies (influenced by dark energy) to the behavior of subatomic particles (influenced by strong nuclear force). The intrinsic nature of these forces is neither known nor understood but when the observations are seen, the causes are inferred even if the causes itself are beyond observation or understanding. It’s not magic but rather logical inference of necessary causes. Such inference of causality can only end at an absolute first cause.

 

[LIIA]

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?

Yes, the universe did appear, and life did appear. Both are contingent entities that exist within a contingent realm. Both are caused. I never claimed that they are causeless.

In both cases order/purpose is manifested. The specific nature/characteristics of the effects drives our inference of the causes. My claim is that the nature of the causal influence (God) cannot be observed or understood yet his existence, as the absolute/non-contingent cause is necessary to explain all contingent entities.

We are limited. God is limitless. We are confined within the realm of spacetime. God is not. We can neither observe nor understand the non-contingent nature of God, but your real issue is not the unknown/unobservable nature of the cause; we accept that all the time in science (as explained above in #3109). Your real issue is the notion that the causal influence (God) is conscious and exerts purposeful influence over contingent entities. If you understand the fact that the nature of fundamental causes are never known, then on what basis you would assert the absence of consciousness/purpose especially if all observations point to it?

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.

Yes, we're marvelously complex but you simply deny that the observed design is designed merely because you cannot wrap your mind around the nature of the designer. Your limited ability of understanding doesn’t impose any limits on the absolute reality. See #490

Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums

Goddidit is not obvious, nor does it address whatever mechanism God used.

You claim that the interactions of matter explain life/consciousness but what explain the behavior of matter as it interacts? You are under the impression that science provides mechanisms and fail to understand that on a fundamental level, it never does. Science only assigns names to unknowns such as dark energy and strong nuclear force but never provides mechanisms.

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.

What is your understanding of magic? Is it an effect without a cause? There is no such thing in our contingent realm. If the effect is observed, the cause must exist.

The universe appeared out of nothing, yet it’s a contingent entity dependent on a cause, “The specific behavior of entire galaxies” is a contingent entity dependent on a cause, etc. but again, a cause of an unknown nature has nothing to do with magic.

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.

Your notion is based on an empty claim about what you don’t know. It’s illogical to ignore what you do know in favor of what you speculate.

But I agree with you when you said, “Who knows?” yes, there are possibilities beyond our knowledge/understanding including the supernatural realm. If you acknowledge our limitation/lack of knowledge, then you open the door to all possibilities whether comprehensible to you or not.

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.

If the system is the best fit for a very specific function, then its evidently design whether you know the designer or not. Consider the example of the epiglottis.

The very specific role in addition to the precise integration/coordination with other complex functions towards a final goal cannot be anything but purposeful design. Other than wishful thinking, there is no route to give rise to design other than purpose/intention.

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.

You are essentially claiming that any values of the constants/laws would always give rise to some other kind of live/universe. It’s simply 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?

No other arrangement might have emerged from the Big Bang simply because physical nothingness doesn’t give rise to possibilities. The emergence of the Big Bang was not a matter of possibilities. It was a dictated outcome governed by dictated laws.

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

True, it wouldn’t necessarily generate life or support a universe. claims of otherwise are totally inevident.

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.

It’s illogical to draw a conclusion based on mere speculation of the unknown while deliberately ignoring the known.

Yes, other realm may exist but if our own realm exhibits design/purpose, what is the reason to think that other realms don’t?

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

Only if you know for a fact that different parameters would always give rise to life/universe, which you agreed that you don’t.

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

Interactions/arrangements of the already existing entities is what gives rise to (subsequent) possibilities. Without existing entities that could be arranged or interact in different ways, there are no possibilities. If no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no time, no space exist beyond the Big Bang, then there was nothing to give rise to possibilities. The emergence of the Big Bang was not a matter of chance.

 

[LIIA]

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,

Yes, let's not forget our agreement on this point.

but what does that have to do with God?

If you understand that we observe design/purpose and that the emergence of the universe is not a matter of random chance (the prerequisites of chance didn’t exist), then you will understand that the existence of God is a necessary explanation.

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

You contradict yourself. If you agree that the universe may have arisen from nothing, then the element of chance did not exist, do you understand?

The entities before create the element of chance for what comes after. The “Nothingness” doesn’t give rise to any chance.

Again, a player throwing a die (existing entities interacting) gives rise to a chance or a specific range of possibilities (any number from 1 to 6), if there is no player or die (no entities/interaction), there is no chance of getting any number, simply because the prerequisites of chance didn’t exist. Whatever emerges out of “Nothingness” is not a matter of random chance. Do you understand?

You may claim it arose by magic, so there must be a magician; so where did the magician come from?

We exist, we are contingent entities, the causality chain must end at a non-contingent, otherwise it cannot exist because regardless of how far back it continues, the entire chain remains a contingent entity that doesn’t account for its own existence.

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.

The “fine-tuned constants” is not my claim; it’s the scientific consensus. We agreed (above) “not all manifestations of laws and constants would support life or a universe”.

You’re making an empty claim. Your argument may be logical if you know for a fact that different parameters would always give rise to different kind of life/universe.

Again, the BB and emerged parameters controlling matter were not a matter of random chance. The prerequisites of chance did not exist. Nothingness doesn’t give rise to possibilities.

 

[LIIA]

Hi, just to mention, when I was in high school I took chemistry and I enjoyed it. Then I could have taken physics after that but decided this was way beyond me. Anyway, I was not geared towards science but took chemistry. I was, however, a scholarship winner based on my grades. Just a little background.
It wasn't until I got interested in the Bible that I began researching the theory of evolution, what people say and why they are so convinced of it. This is by way of introduction.
I'll skip a few points about my experiences here and mention that you made me think of something that happened in high school before I understood any of this, and also before I really believed in God.

Hi YoursTrue, knowledge is necessary, but knowledge is not about lots of details in a specific field but more importantly a collective/holistic view that allows logical placement of the puzzle pieces of reality. Our vision may get clouded by false knowledge/details.

I wondeed why atoms had so much space between the nucleus and electrons yet could stick together forming other substances like wood. That's about all I'll say now. And yes/no, I'm not that knowledgeable with the terms.

Yes, I wondered about the same especially that the system that we see on the smallest scale that is observable/comprehensible to us (atoms/particles of matter) is very similar to the system that we see on the largest scale that is observable/comprehensible to us (systems of stars/planets).

Since I was in middle school, I wondered, if size/scale is only relative, why can’t the electrons orbiting a nucleus be planets orbiting a star and similarly why can’t planets orbiting a star be an atom in an arrangement of matter of a relatively larger scale? The understanding of the smallest or largest entities is only relative to our capacity to observe but it has nothing to do with the absolute reality. Size is only relative.

We don’t know how something could emerge out of nothing but conceptually; zero, which is “nothing”, can be broken into positives and negatives, which is “something” or entities. If the appropriate force is applied to break "nothingness" to positive and negative entities and make a meaningful relationship/arrangement of these entities without allowing it to cancel each other out, then something can emerge from nothing, the key factor is the calibrated force that makes such system/arrangement possible.

In fact, the zero-energy universe proposes that the amount of positive energy in the universe is exactly canceled out by the negative energy, which yields a total amount of energy in the universe exactly equaling zero. For every positive in the universe there is a negative to cancel it out.

That said, it’s only a thought, we don’t know.

 

[LIIA]

so you are demanding a major change occur and that will not occur randomly at once. I would probably take several mutations to return hair color.

Nonsense, I’m neither demanding a major change nor demanding a specific timeframe for the change to emerge. Evolution has all the time in the world. Time is irrelevant. Random nonbeneficial colors in the wrong environment never happen. Neither darker colors randomly emerge among polar bears nor lighter/white color emerge among grizzly bears. Polar bears where only an example, there is no randomness in nature.

Polar bears do not have white fur. There is no white coloring in it.

We all know white is not a color, it’s a reflection of all wavelengths, how is that relevant to anything. The mechanism through which specific color appears is irrelevant. If a mutation of polar bears allows any wavelength to be absorbed, then it will yield different color.

The sudden jumps that you are talking about occur when the environment changes rapidly. And fossilization is a very vey rare event. There are countless examples of small changes even during stasis. What ends a stasis period is usually some sort of catastrophic change the causes mass extinction events. Guess what happens to populations when mass extinction events occur? Just in case you did not know populations drop precipitously too. Low numbers mean that fossilization would be even rarer. Jumps are what is expected. They are explained by the theory of evolution. To refute it you need to find something that is not explained.

You keep talking about stasis because its all what we see, the point is how to reach stasis, how to reach a local optimum? It’s not possible to reach a local optimum without a preceding phase of gradual change, which simply doesn’t exist in the geological history.

Wrong. Arcaheoceti are a group. They are not one single species and not all of them were "fully aquatic":

Archaeoceti - Wikipedia

You just keep linking a site without quoting from it or citing specific pages. For example I linked a specific article that refutes your claim. And here is a quote from it:

"Archaeoceti ("ancient whales"), or Zeuglodontes in older literature, is a paraphyletic group of primitive cetaceans that lived from the Early Eocene to the late Oligocene (50 to 23 million years ago).[1] Representing the earliest cetacean radiation, they include the initial amphibious stages in cetacean evolution, thus are the ancestors of both modern cetacean suborders, Mysticeti and Odontoceti.[2] This initial diversification occurred in the shallow waters that separated India and Asia 53 to 45 mya, resulting in some 30 species adapted to a fully oceanic life. Echolocation and filter-feeding evolved during a second radiation 36 to 35 mya.[3]"

Please note, the article says that the group includes the initial amphibious stages (not fully aquatic). It also gives when echolocation started and other traits. The whole article is a good read if you want to learn about whales. But as usual, your claims are incorrect.

I linked the online paleobiology database “fossilworks” as a credible reference for the age ranges of known fossils in general that is why I didn’t quote specific pages.

Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database

The concern is not Arcaheoceti as a group but as I previously clarified in #1217 & #1298 the fossil from the specific ancient whale that was discovered in Antarctica and dates back 49 MILLION YEARS, is considered to be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered. See the links below.

Scientists discover oldest whale fossil in Antarctica | The World from PRX

Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica (nbcnews.com)

 

[LIIA]

You need to prove that such entities are even "contingent". You do not get to declare that they exist. The "contingent entities" claims of Muslim apologists have never been supported. All that they have are circular arguments when it comes to them. It is a weak attempt to avoid the burden of proof for God. They merely clam that his existence is "contingent" without ever supporting the claims associated with that concept.

The sciences are based upon what we can see observe and test. And bad philosophy never refutes anything.

“Contingent" simply means caused, nothing in the observable realm is an entity that account for its own existence or always exist without a beginning, i.e., all observable entities including the universe in its entirety are “contingent beings”.

 

[LIIA]

Like I said, you do not understand "random". What makes you think that the changes were not random? Here is a hint, when there is one main source of natural selection the observed reactions will be in regards to that one element.

The only element being tested was a reaction to antibiotics so of course the observed changes would be in regards to that. Those changes would have still occurred randomly.

Why should the specific required change happen at all? Per the ToE, mutation is not an intended reaction to address an environmental change but rather something accidental that may or may not happen? Meaning, in all likelihood antibiotics should kill the bacteria but what actually happens every time is that the bacteria always survived by developing defense mechanisms against antibiotics. We don’t only know what will happen but also the required timeframe for the change to emerge. If the behavior is random, how can you predict the outcome with that level of certainty/accuracy?

 

[LIIA]

And you should not do that. The reason is that you load most of your posts with so much nonsense that even if you have one thing right the whole thing is still wrong. That is why linking to old lost arguments is just admitting that you are wrong again.

Seriously?

Go back to #3102 and demonstrate the reasons for your disagreement

 

[LIIA]

I am afraid that your own claim is flawed.

Yes, someone need to design the components of the car, and then have build every component of the car.

None of the components build itself, and no cars assemble the themselves.

You are talking about people, real people that have the cars designed, and then have the cars construct in some factories. These people are not invisible, nor imaginary, as they have outside of the car industry.

Car components, eg the engine for example, do not produce by itself, nor can engine produce a new engine, like offspring.

Cars are not living organisms, nor are any car components living cells or have organic compounds that are needed to reproduce offspring (eg no engine is capable of fertilization, follow by engine going through division of itself and replication of itself) meaning car engine don’t go through fertilization of cell (in the case of human reproduction and other animal reproduction, the fertilization of the egg (which is a gamete cell ovum) and sperm (another type of gamete cell), which are followed by cell division and replication that formed into daughter cells. These new cells divide and form in accordance with what DNA or RNA that have genetic information of traits inherited from either parents.

Mounts are these. Every tissues (eg bone tissues, muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels, nerve tissues, organs, glands, are all made from cells, that originally started off with just two single cells from two parents - the egg (or ovum) and the sperm.

Neither car, nor of the car components, are capable of growing itself. And engine cannot reproduce itself, and form new (offspring) engine. Each engine must be built separately.

It is you, who have problem with logic. @Aupmanyav was describing living organisms having living biological cells, capable of reproduction, converting food into energy source that help sustain these living cells (hence metabolism), capable of healing when ill or injured, all through chemistry working with the biological cells.

Car and car components are not living matters, they are not made of living cells, and they are capable of growing new components.

You are comparing living organisms with cars. Cars are not living entities, nor are any of the components, such as the engine, transmission, the axle, the chassis, etc.

So you provided an analogy that are not relevant to life or living organiSm. You are the one who is not being logical.

I very much expected this response specifically from you. You didn’t get it. You never did.

The point is that the emergence of entities through the same processes (chemical/physical) has nothing to do with the conclusion whether the specific arrangement of these entities is a manifestation of purpose or not. Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you supporting TagliatelliMonster claim that the alleged LUCA is 2 billion years old? I guess you too are not aware of the alleged details of your fairytale.

Your fairytale/Geisteswissenschaften assumes that LUCA lived around 4 billion years ago.

Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

No, I am supporting his general argument. And I have doubts that he claimed that date. He may have claimed that date, if he did he is probably wrong in that one aspect. And you are the one that believes in a fairy tale. You believe in magic. Plus that is not the date given in the article. There is a range of dates with one study, just one, putting it even earlier:

"Studies from 2000 to 2018 have suggested an increasingly ancient time for the LUCA. In 2000, estimates of the LUCA's age ranged from 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago in the Paleoarchean,[26] a few hundred million years before the earliest fossil evidence of life, for which candidates range in age from 3.48 to 4.28 billion years ago.[27][28][29][30][31] This placed the LUCA shortly after the Late Heavy Asteroid Bombardment which was thought to have repeatedly sterilized Earth's surface. However, a 2018 study from the University of Bristol, applying a molecular clock model, found that the data (102 species, 29 common protein-coding genes, mostly ribosomal) is compatible only with LUCA as early as within 0.05 billion years of the maximum possible age given by the Earth-sterilizing Moon-forming event about 4.5 billion years ago.[32"[

So you finally admit it!! Didn’t you insist before that scientists are very close to solve it?


Anyways, I agree abiogenesis would never be solved.

What? How did you misinterpret that? You shouldn't take quotes out of context. No, just because they may not have the exact route that life took would not mean that it was not a solved problem. There is more than one possible routs that could have been taken.

Let's compare beliefs and compare it to a car trip. We have evidence about quite a few parts of the routes. But in one place the trip could have been completed with US 2 and another with I-90. Meanwhile you are off on the sidelines claiming that the car was magically transported across the country.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously?

Go back to #3102 and demonstrate the reasons for your disagreement

Sorry, I do not revisit your lost arguments.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi YoursTrue, knowledge is necessary, but knowledge is not about lots of details in a specific field but more importantly a collective/holistic view that allows logical placement of the puzzle pieces of reality. Our vision may get clouded by false knowledge/details.



Yes, I wondered about the same especially that the system that we see on the smallest scale that is observable/comprehensible to us (atoms/particles of matter) is very similar to the system that we see on the largest scale that is observable/comprehensible to us (systems of stars/planets).

Since I was in middle school, I wondered, if size/scale is only relative, why can’t the electrons orbiting a nucleus be planets orbiting a star and similarly why can’t planets orbiting a star be an atom in an arrangement of matter of a relatively larger scale? The understanding of the smallest or largest entities is only relative to our capacity to observe but it has nothing to do with the absolute reality. Size is only relative.

We don’t know how something could emerge out of nothing but conceptually; zero, which is “nothing”, can be broken into positives and negatives, which is “something” or entities. If the appropriate force is applied to break "nothingness" to positive and negative entities and make a meaningful relationship/arrangement of these entities without allowing it to cancel each other out, then something can emerge from nothing, the key factor is the calibrated force that makes such system/arrangement possible.

In fact, the zero-energy universe proposes that the amount of positive energy in the universe is exactly canceled out by the negative energy, which yields a total amount of energy in the universe exactly equaling zero. For every positive in the universe there is a negative to cancel it out.

That said, it’s only a thought, we don’t know.

OK, I don't like to get too much into philosophy but I will say that (the Bible says) when God created Adam, He blew the "breath of life" into Adam's nostrils and then Adam came to be alive. Genesis 2:7 says "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."