Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

You really can’t answer direct questions.

And here's a direct question you won't answer: What direct question do you believe I won't answer?

I was asking you for either the qualifications you have or your experiences in the fields, so I can determine where you are getting these so-called information.

As I have said before and even in the post you're quoting I have no expertise nor experience in any of these fields.

I have studied thinking and the nature of reality since a very young age. I have worked independently and am mostly self taught except in physics in which I took a few courses.

But whenever someone ask you some directions you have habits of dodging or ignoring these questions or making excuses, like you are doing with your replies.

What question would that be?

Do you want me to define "metaphysics" (the basis of science) again?

 

[cladking]

Your so-called paradigm are not backed by any observations, evidence or experiments.

A "paradigm" by definition addresses all experiment and observation.

If that were true, then where are they?

What is complex about the comncept of "all experiment". I am referring to every experiment ever done in every single field. It is my contention that the current paradigm simply doesn't explain every experiment. The experiments that purport to explain Change in Species simply don't include things like experiments that clearly show all humans (homo omnisciencis) can only see what they already believe. Thousands of experiments are not involved or applied to the "theory" of Evolution. All of reality affects all other things in the here and now and forever yet we apply experiment narrowly.

(C) Often you are making things up, and pretending what you say are “facts”.

And I've told you repeatedly I speak in tautologies. If you have a problem with a tautology it is incumbent upon YOU to say so.

Except you have presented any evidence or any facts.

Paradigms are mostly about logic; they are the simplest explanations for related experiments or in this case, all experiment.



I just don't understand what's tripping you up here. The fact you believe science is founded in evidence is a great deal of the problem however. Until you understand metaphysics which shows science is founded is founded in experiment then you probably can't understand the nature of paradigms so recognizing a dead paradigm will be impossible.

 

[gnostic]

A "paradigm" by definition addresses all experiment and observation.


What is complex about the comncept of "all experiment". I am referring to every experiment ever done in every single field. It is my contention that the current paradigm simply doesn't explain every experiment. The experiments that purport to explain Change in Species simply don't include things like experiments that clearly show all humans (homo omnisciencis) can only see what they already believe. Thousands of experiments are not involved or applied to the "theory" of Evolution. All of reality affects all other things in the here and now and forever yet we apply experiment narrowly.



And I've told you repeatedly I speak in tautologies. If you have a problem with a tautology it is incumbent upon YOU to say so.



Paradigms are mostly about logic; they are the simplest explanations for related experiments or in this case, all experiment.



I just don't understand what's tripping you up here. The fact you believe science is founded in evidence is a great deal of the problem however. Until you understand metaphysics which shows science is founded is founded in experiment then you probably can't understand the nature of paradigms so recognizing a dead paradigm will be impossible.

Sorry, but you don’t understand one very important element in paradigm, is that a paradigm is a set of concepts or theories that are “standards for what constitute legitimate contributions to a field”.

This part is quoted in the introduction from Wikipedia on “paradigm” article.

Clearly you don’t understand what “standards” mean.

Standard is accepted level of knowledge/information by the majority...in the case with the subject of Evolution, this majority, meaning scientists, which would include biologists, biochemists and all related fields (eg human biology, zoology, botany, microbiology, etc).

Evolution include every mechanisms (Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking), genetics in population scale rather than individual family members, small changes to large changes, with rates of changes varying depending on organisms (rates are shorter or quicker with unicellular organisms when compared to multicellular, and the more complex, the more generations it will take for speciation), etc.

Your concept of ancient language and ancient science have nothing to do with Evolution, because Evolution is biology. Plus your concept of “Homo omnisciencis” is a word you used for your own personal belief. No one else, especially biologists and archaeologists don’t use “Homo omnisciencis”, because it not species of anything.

You are the only person to use this nonexistent “Homo omnisciencis”, so how could you even call your concept “paradigm”, when no one but YOU uses this word that you fabricated.

Remember that paradigm referred to “standards”, some things that a majority of scientists accepted as legitimate explanations in a theory.

Scientists don’t work with pure fantasy, like you saying humans spoke single language prior to the Tower of Babel, which you have dated to about 2000 BCE, and this species you have invented “Homo omnisciencis” when humans became confused when multiple languages were spoken.

So basically you have used Biblical myth (Tower of Babel) to created your fantasy of the Homo omnisciencis.

And you wonder why Egyptologists rejected your pseudo-archaeology?

You used a religious belief to invented imaginary and nonexistent species, something that you have no evidence for.

You have also postulate that everyone before the Tower of Babel, before 2000 BCE, and going back in time as far back as 40,000 years ago, humans were all scientists. More fantasy that you have no evidence to support your claims.

All these beliefs of yours, are not only unscientific, they are all pure fiction.

And the very notion that your concept are supported by “all experiments” and observations, only demonstrate your ignorance and fantasy. This “all experiments” claim is also a fiction you created for yourself.

No cladking, you don’t have a paradigm. What you really have, is the worse researched fiction.

 

[cladking]

You still fail to answer direct questions and even though I answer every single question a million times ("metaphysis" is the basis of science) you do not see my answers.

You find a definition for "paradigm" but then fail to note I said already that the paradigm is deeply flawed and for PROOF it is deeply flawed there is the simple fact that not one experiment or observation shows a gradual change in species. All of it is in your mind not in reality because consciousness was never considered and Darwin made bad assumptions. You have never addressed this. You just keep shouting your outrage that anyone doesn't accept your belief in "Evolution". You ignore every argument and then say I have no facts or logic.

If you think I'm so dimwitted why do you keep trying to enlighten me? Why won't you address even one question or argument I make?

You used a religious belief to invented imaginary and nonexistent species, something that you have no evidence for.

What religious belief is that exactly?

I know you don't do answers but, hey, might as well try.

So basically you have used Biblical myth (Tower of Babel) to created your fantasy of the Homo omnisciencis.

No. The story of the "tower of babel" is real. It exists so it can be used as evidence in hypothesis formation.

Words carved in stone or painted in caves are real. They are no less real because they are carved in stone or applied by ignorant stinky footed bumpkins. That history doesn't extend all the way to the invention of writing is real. It is a fact. It is "physical" evidence that can be used to formulate hypothesis or support theory.

Now you will ignore every single statement and every single question and go on like I ignored you and your "refutation". Nothing at all you said or pretty much ever say is even applicable to my theory. It's a steady stream of gainsaying and claiming you already won the argument.

I understand you're familiar with the books but that is not how you win an argument. You have to trot out some facts and logic and actually ADDRESS the argument.

I have literally millions of facts and logic to support my theory but we can't seem to get past the meaning of what you believe you already know. We can't get past simple physical evidence like the invention of agriculture a hundred centuries before the "theory" of evolution. Why do you ignore my argument and then say I have no facts, no logic, and no theory? Why can't you answer questions? Where is your evidence for gradual change in anything living?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

This is what Darwin wrote in a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present, But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

So I don't think he believed in spontaneous generation. It sounds like he did not know and was speculating on how life could have started.

 

[LIIA]

Our closest relatives, Homo neanderthalensis, Denisovans, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc.

1 of 2

These are meaningless names that many proponent of the ToE don’t know much about; most people are under the false impression that alleged hominid fossils fit along a coherent evolutionary developmental line as gradual transitional variants (linear progression) from the alleged common ancestor to modern humans. It couldn’t be further from the truth. None of these fossils can be established as a transitional form / ancestor leading to Homo sapiens. That’s why the word “ancestor” is avoided and replaced with “relative” to imply some sort of unknown relationship.

1-Per a paper published on Nature in 2005, early modern humans first appeared in Ethiopia about 195 ± 5 kyr ago.
Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia | Nature

2-Per PHYS.org in 2017, Moroccan fossil (from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco) find rearranges Homo sapiens family tree by extended our species' recorded existence by a third, from 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-moroccan-fossil-rearranges-homo-sapiens.html

Currently, the Natural Museum of Natural History “Smithsonian" site states that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 300,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens

3- in 1995, researchers in Spain discovered human fossils and tools dated back more than 780,000 years.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/

The 800,000 years old Spanish fossils were assumed to be the ancestors of Neanderthals but the face was of a modern man.

Juan Luis Arsuaga said “we must rethink human evolution to fit that face, The Gran Dolina face is 800,000 years old and yet distinctively ours. It is almost that of a modern human. "

“The most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It’s like finding something like--like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don’t expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago--it’s the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.”

The name "Homo antecessor" was given to these unexplained fossils
The Face of an Ancestral Child

An article on Nature on April 2020, confirmed that the modern-like face of H. antecessor is similar to that of modern humans
The dental proteome of Homo antecessor | Nature

Science.org also confirmed that face shape of H. antecessor is remarkably similar to that of modern humans.

Science | AAAS


3- in 1998 and 1999 in Kenya's flat-faced man " Kenyanthropus platyops" dated to 3.5 million years ago was discovered.


Nature wrote “The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago.”

Another face in our family tree - Nature


Science wrote ”The discovery of a 3.5-million-year-old hominid skull “Kenyanthropus" and other fossil remains in northern Kenya is shaking the human family tree at its very roots.”

Science | AAAS


Science wrote ”experts are unanimous in the opinion that “Kenyanthropus" will complicate efforts to trace the convoluted course of human evolution”

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.291.5512.2289


4- 2002, in northern Chad, Michel Brunet found a skull 6-7 million years old. He named it Toumaï.

Nature wrote:

“TOUMAÏ IS THE TIP OF THAT ICEBERG - ONE THAT COULD SINK OUR CURRENT IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION. "


“ANYBODY WHO THINKS THIS ISN'T GOING TO GET MORE COMPLEX ISN'T LEARNING FROM HISTORY,"


“HOW THEY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER AND WHICH, IF ANY OF THEM, ARE HUMAN FOREBEARS IS STILL DEBATED.” says anthropologist Bernard Wood (of George Washington University in Washington DC) about the alleged fossil hominids.

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News

5- 2015, at Olduvai in Tanzania earliest modern human-like hand bone >1.84-million-year-old was found.

Earliest modern human-like hand bone from a new >1.84-million-year-old site at Olduvai in Tanzania | Nature Communications.


6-April 2020, BBC News wrote:

“We once thought of human evolution as a linear progression, with modern humans emerging at the end as the pinnacle of evolutionary development. But everywhere we look, it's increasingly clear the real picture was much messier.” says Paul Rincon, Science editor of BBC News.
Three human-like species lived side-by-side in ancient Africa

7- the understanding that early modern humans first appeared in Ethiopia about 200,000 years ago was proven false by other findings in Kenya, Chad, Tanzania and Morocco. But Africa was still assumed to be the origin of humans, tell recent evidence published in 2017 of hominid settlement in China dated 2.48 million years.
The earliest evidence of hominid settlement in China: Combined electron spin resonance and uranium series (ESR/U-series) dating of mammalian fossil teeth from Longgupo cave - ScienceDirect

July 2018, NewScientist wrote “Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution”
Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity | New Scientist

January 2020, sciencealert wrote, “These breakthroughs suggest that many of our previous ideas about the human origin story – who we are and where we came from – were wrong.”
Recent Discoveries Have Overhauled Our Picture of Where Humans Came From, And When

No relationship can be established between these fossils to fit any possible evolutionary development, that is why it’s now shown on the alleged evolutionary tree as relatives not ancestors.

 

[LIIA]

Our closest relatives, Homo neanderthalensis, Denisovans, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc.

2 of 2

8- Britanica.com shows the human lineage as follows:
human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts
human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts


8.1-Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), the most famous specimen of Australopithecus is “Lucy,” (the specimen included several hundred fragments of bones collected over three weeks that may or may not be from a single individual) from Ethiopia that has been dated to 3.2 mya.

Here is how Britanica currently identify it “GROUP OF EXTINCT PRIMATES CLOSELY RELATED TO, IF NOT ACTUALLY ANCESTORS OF, MODERN HUMAN BEINGS"
Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

- In May 1999, the well-recognized Science et Vie journal used the title "Adieu Lucy" (Goodbye Lucy) on its cover and wrote that the apes of the Australopithecus genus should be removed from human genealogy.


- April 17, 2007, PNAS wrote “This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor."
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0606454104

- Apr 2020, ScienceAdvances wrote” Contrary to previous claims, sulcal imprints reveal an ape-like brain organization and no features derived toward humans.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4729


**LUCY IS AN EXTINCT PRIMATE THAT IS WITH NO CLEAR EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS CONSIDERATION AS AN ANCESTOR, YET IT'S STILL USED IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES AS A HUMAN FOREBEAR.**

8.2- Homo habilis (Handy Man) lived 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa

- Apr 1999, Science wrote:
“We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus.”

“Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of “early Homo”) should be removed from Homo."

“Both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus “ see 8.1 above for Australopithecus
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.284.5411.65?download=true

- January 2000, MBE published an article stating:
“This may seem to be an unexpected statement, because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species. But with a few exceptions, the known habiline specimens are now recognized to be less than 2 Myr old (Feibel, Brown, and McDougall 1989 ) and therefore are too recent to be transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.”
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/2/975516

- Jun 17, 2011, Science wrote:
“Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo?”
“In the past decade, Homo habilis's status as the first member of our genus has been undermined"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.332.6036.1370

**EVEN SO H. HABILIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM LEADING TO H. SAPIENS BUT YET HOMO HABILIS IS STILL USED IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES AS A HUMAN FOREBEAR. **

8.3- Homo erectus (sometimes called Homo ergaster) lived between about 1.89 million and 110,000 years ago in Africa and Asia.

- 1994, Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg published a research with the title

“The Case for Sinking Homo erectus”

The group of researchers from USA, Australia, Czech Republic & China said:
" There is no distinct boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in time or space”

“There is no speciation involved in the emergence of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus. These reasons combine to require that the lineage be regarded as a single evolutionary species.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Milford-Wolpoff/publication/285136980_The_case_for_sinking_Homo_erectus_100_years_of_Pithecanthropus_is_enough/links/5954eda6458515bbaa21e15f/The-case-for-sinking-Homo-erectus-100-years-of-Pithecanthropus-is-enough.pdf

- October 1997, Nature wrote:
“ Even with the discovery of Neanderthal genetic material, we still cannot decide whether the Neanderthals were one of several related species in an extinct radiation, a single species close to our own, or a ‘race’ of H. sapiens (with that species redefined to include 2 myr old H. erectus).”
One skull does not a species make - Nature.

- June 22, 2015, LiveScience wrote:
“The lineage and evolutionary history of H. erectus and other Homo species is unclear, and has been muddied further by recent finds.”

“Confusing matters more, after analyzing a new skull — called Skull 5 — in 2013, researchers made the controversial argument in the journal Science that various contemporary Homo species, including Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis and possibly Homo ergaster, were actually Homo erectus.”

“Scientists also don't agree on whether H. erectus is a direct human ancestor to Homo sapiens.”
Homo Erectus: Facts About the 'Upright Man'


**EVEN SO H. SAPIENS WAS REDEFINED TO INCLUDE H. ERECTUS AS A SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY SPECIES BUT YET H. ERECTUS IS STILL USED IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES AS A HUMAN FOREBEAR. **


8.4- Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal) lived about 400,000 - 40,000 years ago in Europe and southwestern to central Asia.

- April 2014, a study published on PLOS ONE based on 151 earlier papers about the Neanderthal, showed that Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern human.

“archaeologists’ characterizations of Neandertals as cognitively inferior to modern humans have created an interpretive framework within which subtle biological differences between Neandertals and modern humans tend to be overinterpreted”

“archeological record was not different enough to support the purported cognitive “gap” between them and their contemporary modern humans.”
Neandertal Demise: An Archaeological Analysis of the Modern Human Superiority Complex

- June 2020, a study published on the Royal Society showed that Neanderthal and anatomically modern humans (AMH) were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.0690#d1e1039

Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern human; their brains were just as large as ours and often larger. Neanderthals practiced same sophisticated and symbolic behavior like modern humans. Neanderthals were homogeneous species capable of interbreeding with AMH. Neanderthals genome sequence showed same 99.7% genetic material of modern humans, meaning Neanderthals were humans and most importantly they were not human ancestors.


**EVEN SO NEANDERTHALS WERE NEITHER TRANSITIONAL FORMS LEADING TO H. SAPIENS NOR HUMAN ANCESTORS, YET NEANDERTHALS ARE STILL SHOWN OR IMPLIED TO BE AS SUCH IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES.**

ALL OF THESE SPECIMENS WERE EITHER PRIMATES LIKE THE CASE OF “AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS” OR ACTUAL HUMAN LIKE “HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS”. THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY TREE, NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES, AND NO COMMON ANCESTOR OTHER THAN IMAGINATION AND WISHFUL THINKING. GREAT MINDS AND GREAT EFFORTS ARE WASTED, EVEN SO REAL WORLD DATA NEVER SUPPORTED THE PREDICTIONS OF THE TOE BUT UNDER THE FALSE NOTION THAT ONLY ONE (UNFALSIFIABLE) HYPOTHESIS IS POSSIBLE, THEN ALL OBSERVATIONS HAD TO BE INTERPRETED TO FIT THIS HYPOTHESIS.

 

[LIIA]

That is correct. But Chimps are our closest "living" relatvies. Our closest relatives, Homo neanderthalensis, Denisovans, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc. have not survived

Why not? Why the chimps survived but other claimed closer relatives (higher than the chimp) went extinct? Per the ToE, foundational species that remain reproductively successful within its niche should not go extinct just because new variants emerged. All successful variants would have their chance of survival.

If the ToE predictions are true, then we should see large number of successful variants alive, even larger number of variants (both successful and unsuccessful/extinct variants) should be found in the fossil record. In the real world, neither is true. Real world data clearly disprove the theory. See #112

the split between humans and chimpanzees at only around 5-6 million years ago."

The Human-Chimpanzee Last Common Ancestor "HC-LCA" (the alleged species from which the hominin lineage and the chimpanzee lineage diverged) is nothing but a hypothesis without any evidence other than wishful thinking.

Again, why all alleged transitional hominid forms went extinct but the chimp survived? Foundational species shouldn’t go extinct merely because a new variant emerged.

The hypothesized macroevolution through gradual continuous transitional sequences (on the basis that advantageous random mutations would have better survival chance) necessitates the existence of enormous number of transitional forms. The fossil record clearly proves that the hypothesis is false.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, I know. Your book, which the word of Allah, says:
"Wa laqad khalaqnal insaana min salsaalim min hama im masnoon"
Assuredly We have created humankind from dried, sounding clay, from molded dark mud. - Al-Quran ul-Kareem 15.26
It definitely cannot be otherwise.

First of all it’s 14:26 not 15:26.

Al-Quran is only in the Arabic language. A translation to other languages is not Quran. It’s interpretations of Quran. Multiple different translations can be found in each language and it depends on the understanding of the translator.

The translation is “Assuredly We have created humankind from salsaalim min hama im masnoon"

“salsaalim min hama im masnoon" means a plastic substance from earthy mixture of solid material and water that has its color darkened and odor changed due to prolonged decomposition of organic material present in the mixture. (“حمأ مسنون" means old sludge).

About 98% of the mass of living cells is composed of four elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. The remaining 2% includes phosphorus, sulphur, calcium iron, zinc, sodium, potassium, chlorine, selenium, iodine, and small amounts of other elements.

considering the chemistry conservation principle, organisms would retain their chemical traits as a reflection of the environment from which it originated. If this is the case, then there is no substance in any environment on earth that reflects the elements/chemistry of the living cell better than “حمأ مسنون" as explained above. A 2013 study by Cornell University suggested that life might have evolved in Clay.

It’s interesting that when Darwin proposed that life may have originated in some warm little pond with all sort of elements (in his letter to Joseph Hooker), the idea was appealing to many till today.

The difference here is we are talking about an intelligently guided (intentional) process not a random process. The hypothesized emergence of a living cell (complex internally intelligent system) through slow random process from nonliving mater is not possible simply because any biomolecules that may have emerged from nonliving mater through an unknown process, will decompose relatively very quickly before it gets any chance to change into something more complex. (It will not wait millions of years to get the other essential molecules. It will simply decompose.) See # 236.

We don’t know what life is but we do know beyond any doubt that a single living cell is an extremely complex structure beyond any thing that could be possibly engineered by man and that there is absolutely no process in nature through which nonliving matter could be transformed into the extremely complex living cell.

If we did not and cannot explain a single cell, then we did not explain or even have the slightest idea for that matter what life is.

Fundamental answers with respect to “Beginnings” are not attainable through science, it’s beyond the jurisdictions of science. Any thing that cannot be observed, replicated or get experienced with is beyond the jurisdictions of science. But we can logically understand that objective reality doesn’t stop at the point where we cannot see any further. We don’t and cannot identify the limits of objective reality.

Again this thread is about the ToE, religious beliefs/concepts are beyond this discussion.

 

[LIIA]

If you insist on using strawman arguments you lose.

Do you understand what “strawman argument” is? My argument is not strawman argument. If you say it is, explain why.

It would be incorrect to call Non ID change random change. Just because you or even possibly everyone does not know the cause of change does not make it random.

You cannot just agree with everything I say and pose it as an argument to the contrary!! That’s illogical.

Yes, I’m definitely arguing that specific changes are not random and even If no one knows the cause of change, it would be incorrect to categorize an apparently “intelligently guided change” as random change.

If we agree that the change is not random then it has to be intelligently guided.

Intelligent/non random change necessitates that the change is following an intelligently guided course of action. Like the example of a self-driving car, it doesn’t move randomly but move in a calculated intelligently guided manner.

Intelligence as the cause of a change is manifested as an intentionally planned / non-random action.

Also you really need to consider your unfalsifiable claim. I have as yet to see a falsifiable version of ID. In fact by your standards we should be trashing ID.

This is a fourth grader’s argument “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”.

this is a False Dichotomy. The deficiency of your stance has nothing to do with other stance being right or wrong.

But no, if “ Intelligently Guided Change” is on the table as the other possible option, then it can be logically concluded that manifestations of intelligence observed everywhere around us are in favor of this option. In this case, Option B (random change) will be dismissed because real world observations do not support it.

 

[LIIA]

Good grief.

Everything you've just said that’s backwards.

You understand neither science, nor logic. And you certainly don’t understand what evidence is.

Do I? Is that because you said so? This is not an argument only meaningless statement.

Is that what being taught to you in Islam?

If you’re referring to my statement that you quoted above, then No, this is the basic understanding of the scientific evidence as established through the logical principles of inference.


a causal relationship between the observations and hypothesis does not just exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence but rather provided by the observer seeking to establish observations as evidence. Background, experience and beliefs of the observer establish a prior that impacts perceived relationship. Independent observers of the same event may arrive at different conclusions, which may be correct or incorrect, or with a certain degree of accuracy. The rules of valid inference (if property applied) help the establishment of neutral logical conclusion with higher probability of correctness.


It sounds like I’m saying “1+1=2” and you reply “Is that what being taught to you in Islam”? These are the basics, I didn’t expect you or any one else for that matter to argue about it. We shouldn’t argue about the basics.

Check the “Principles of Inference”. After you do, I don’t expect you to continue making this kind of argument, but if you do, I have nothing else to say.

Logic is completely “man-made”, LIIA', and logic isn’t inerrant, nor infallible. People can make mistakes when using logic.

Logic is the reference that gives meaning to everything.

Logic is an absolute prerequisite to the scientific process. Science is a relative entity, its reference is logic. Logic proves science. Without logical evaluation of data, no conclusions can be drawn hence the scientific method wouldn’t be possible.

But sure, improper logic would lead to false perception of evidence hence wrong conclusions would be drawn.

The ultimate expression of man’s logics, are mathematics, but mathematics aren’t “absolute”, nor they aren’t “fool-proof”. And if look at the history of sciences, the reality of nature don’t always agree the maths.

Inaccuracies don’t arise from mathematical logic but mainly from wrong application of logic. The accuracy of mathematical predictions depends on the adequacy of the model for describing the reality. Inaccuracy of predictions shows a need for an improved or even different mathematical model. The problem is not the logic itself but the improper application of logic.

The physical or natural phenomena are the reality, and the evidence are parts of the phenomena. And it is evidence that determine if the explanation-parts, predictive-parts and maths/logic-parts of theory or hypothesis is true or false, probable or improbable, verified or refuted.

You repeat yourself. I already explained in #280. You really need to have a better understanding of the principles of inference.

The physical or natural phenomena are indicative of reality (not the reality). Reality as we understand it is a relative concept dependent on our interpretations of the natural phenomena and our collective knowledge. It’s not absolute. Limited perspective or improper logic can lead to a false or inaccurate perception of reality.

Reality as understood by Aristarchus is not the same reality understood by Newton or later by Einstein. In that sense, Reality is a relative concept that is subject to continuous change as we improve our understanding and gain more knowledge. Our perceived relative concept of reality doesn’t establish a sufficient disclosure of the unchangeable absolute reality that lies independently outside the limits of awareness/knowledge.

Take the theoretical physics, like String Theory and Superstring Theory for instances, each of these relied heavily on mathematical equations (hence logic), and yet there have been no evidence, nor experiments, to verify them to be true, hence they haven’t the testing requirements of Scientific Method, hence both String Theory and Superstring Theory are not “scientific theory”.

I partially agree but with the exception that the scientific method itself has limits, beyond the point where we cannot observe any further, only logic continues.

The context of this thread is the ToE. If you think that the typical scientific method applies to “evolutionary biology”, then you’re wrong. It doesn’t. It’s only your wishful thinking. It may apply to “functional biology” but not to “evolutionary biology”. Based on your argument, then the ToE is also not “scientific theory” unless of course we stretch the rules of the scientific method as much as we need to include what is otherwise considered as fallacious non-scientific practice.

In “evolutionary biology”, it’s not about the evidence or even natural laws, it’s about a single (unfalsifiable) concept and the construction of historical narrative as the relied upon method whenever evidence are not attainable. And being “Autonomous”, biology is allowed to break free beyond the restrictions of the scientific method. How convenient??

Ernst Walter Mayr, one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists, (he was called “the Darwin of the 20th century”). See below what he wrote in the 2004 edition of his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” and my comments on it in bold underline.

- “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus,1 are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

“evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases where experiments are inappropriate.”

Let alone that these species are not transitional forms leading to h. sapiens (see# 326 & #327), but Ernst Mayr is admitting the fact that in absence of evidence, “evolutionary biology” is relying on the “CONSTRUCTION OF A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE” to explain the unexplainable.

- “Indeed evolutionary biology as a science, is in many respects more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences. When drawing the borderline between the exact sciences and the Geisteswissenschaften it would go right through biology and attach functional biology to the exact sciences while including evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften.”

“However biology is in many respects a very different science from the so-called exact sciences. Perhaps the most pronounced difference is that biology, in part, is a historical science. In this part of biology, evolutionary biology, the method of historical narratives is the most heuristic approach.”

“evolutionary biology” is not an exact science, it should be included with “the Geisteswissenschaften”

“This revealed that some of the basic principles of the physical sciences are simply not applicable to biology. They had to be eliminated and replaced by principles pertinent to biology”


Per Ernst Mayr, basic principles of the physical sciences including Essentialism, Determinism, Reductionism are simply not applicable to biology in addition, universal natural laws are absent in biology.


Ernst Mayr stated that the specific concepts or principles of biology is what warrant the “Autonomous characteristics of biology”. Biology is free to govern itself.

https://camscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/what-makes-biology-uniqu1.pdf

Logic without evidence, isn’t science. Logics are only good, in science, if the evidence back up and verify the logics, and not the other way around, as you have claimed.

I never undermined the importance of the scientific method but Logical principles establish the necessary axiom that precede and validate the scientific process itself.

Evidence don’t verify logic (it may verify a hypothesis not logic). Evidence can be established through logic to verify a hypothesis. Logic itself comes ahead as the necessary axiom that verifies how data relate to a hypothesis. Without logic, no conclusions can be drawn and the scientific method wouldn’t be possible.

The process unfolds in a linear progression starting with logic that leads to evidence and then a conclusion.

You are describing a process in which evidence come first as if evidence prove itself. It’s a fallacious “circular reasoning”. It doesn’t work this way. It has to be a linear progression in which logical evaluation comes at the very top of the process, which leads to evidence then a conclusion.

Excuse me, LIIA, but you really need to go beyond 9th-11th centuries Islamic Natural Philosophy.

This is an irrelevant statement. It’s not an argument.

Again, if you think that the typical scientific method applies to “evolutionary biology”, then you’re wrong. Other than your wishful thinking, claims with no evidence are acceptable in “evolutionary biology”. the lack of evidence is simply substituted by assumed historical narratives.

 

[LIIA]

Islamic empires (before Galileo’s discoveries) all supported the Earth flat like disk or coin (flat Earth model), and stationary (geocentric model, sun, stars and planets orbiting around Earth), because the Quran alluded to both concepts.

Only one 11th century Persian philosopher , Al-Biruni, had started to propose heliocentric model (Earth orbiting the Sun), but only to change his mind in 1031, because his concept wasn’t popular, reverting back to geocentric model.

The oldest proposal for heliocentric model, come from 3rd century BCE, Hellenistic Greek astronomer and mathematician, Aristarchus of Samos, but his work was lost, but a later 3rd century bce polymath & inventor Archimedes, who had summarized Aristarchus’ works in his The Sand Reckoner.

Of course, Aristarchus was never able to verify the heliocentric model, but at least, Aristarchus had never back down as Al-Biruni did, and Aristarchus had never mixed astronomy with astrology, aa Al-Biruni did.

False.

First of all, your argument is irrelevant to my point that observations can be deemed as sufficient evidence while it’s not.

You ignored the point of my argument and moved the goalposts to the Islamic influence on the establishment of the geocentric model, which is false but I’ll entertain it.

The 8th century Muslim astronomer Jafar al-Sadiq refuted the geocentric model and suggested a heliocentric model in which the Earth rotates about its own axis and around the Sun.

Next, the 9th century Muslim astronomer al-Balkhi developed a planetary heliocentric model of the solar system

In the early eleventh century, Al-Biruni, did not reject the heliocentric theories and agreed with the Earth's rotation about its own axis. He proposed that if the Earth rotates on its axis and moves around the Sun, it would remain consistent with his astronomical parameters, he considered heliocentrism to be a philosophical problem difficult of solution and refutation rather than a mathematical problem. Al-Biruni considered the heliocentric model as unverifiable but he did not reject it.

Several other Arab scholars- al-Hashimi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi,Sinjari, Qutb al-Din, and astronomers of the Maragheh observatory (that was established in 1259) developed a heliocentric mathematical model for the solar system.

The Quran don’t support the geocentric model but rather include references to the heliocentric model. The Quran says “And you will see the mountains, thinking they are stationary but they travel like the clouds. That is˺ the design of Allah, Who has perfected everything. Surely He is Well-Acquainted with what you do” An-Naml 88

Even so, the relative movement of mountains cannot be detected directly by the viewer but it moves with planet Earth similar to the movements of the clouds with Earth's atmosphere. Indeed, the movement of mountains is true only if the entire planet is moving but the viewer from Earth cannot detect the movement.

In the 16th century, Copernicus built his astronomical views upon the Islamic roots of the heliocentric model.

The Islamic Civilization was the first Civilization where it’s citizens were religiously obligated to learn to read, write and disseminate knowledge which led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” that established the basis of the modern scientific method.


Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science wrote "Perhaps the main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages, was the creation of the experimental spirit ... This was primarily due to Muslims down to the end of the twelfth century”

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

 

[Aupmanyav]

These are meaningless names that many proponent of the ToE don’t know much about; ..

Such a succession of long posts due to incorrect reading of what I wrote. Did I say that they were our ancestors? I said 'relatives', cousins, closer than apes, orangutans and chimps. Read my post again.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Per the ToE, foundational species that remain reproductively successful within its niche should not go extinct just because new variants emerged. All successful variants would have their chance of survival.

That is a wrong reading of ToE. The raptors went extinct but the birds which evolved from them exist today. In our case also from what we evolved did not survive.

"The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back 57-85/90 million years. One of the oldest known primate-like mammal species, Plesiadapis, came from North America; another, Archicebus, came from China."
Evolution of primates - Wikipedia
(click the links to see their fossils)

 

[Aupmanyav]

First of all it’s 14:26 not 15:26.

The hypothesized emergence of a living cell (complex internally intelligent system) through slow random process from nonliving mater is not possible ..

.. but we do know beyond any doubt that a single living cell is an extremely complex structure beyond any thing that could be possibly engineered by man and that there is absolutely no process in nature through which nonliving matter could be transformed into the extremely complex living cell.

Wrong again. You do not know your own book. It is 15.26, Surah Al-Hijr.

It is not only possible. It actually happened that way only. Have you heard of self-replication of molecules? See RNA - Wikipedia, RNA virus - Wikipedia and Bacteria - Wikipedia. These organisms lie between the non-living and the living oganisms, can be classified as any. Under suitable conditions, an RNA virus can live for any period of time.

I think you know some thing of science but are willfully ignoring its implications. Scientists have created living cells. Read about them here: Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

Take care, be sure of what you post, don't write silly things.

 

[cladking]

“evolutionary biology” is not an exact science, it should be included with “the Geisteswissenschaften”

You've made dozens of solid, accurate, and very specific points.

Thanks for the new word. I'm a big fan of "thought experiments" but this word that means "science of mind" is new to me and is not thought experiments which are determined principally by theory and definition are wholly distinct from Geistswissenschaften. I use the term "Look and See Science" for the concept that all an expert needs to do is look at the evidence and he'll know the answers. It is nonsense of the highest order even exceeding the nonsense that reality is reflected in mathematics and therefore a mathematician can deduce nature through paper and a sharp pencil. At least in the latter case the results will resonate with reality in some way but in Geistswissenschaften the results will resonate only with the assumptions of the observer.

Evolutionary biology has been invented from Darwin's assumptions and do not conform with experiment or observation. The ancient writing is closer to the reality of how and why species change than are biologists.

They can't even find our immediate ancestors because they are looking in all the wrong places. And they are looking for the wrong ancestor. We are Homo omnisciencis so they should be looking for homo sapiens who have been extinct for over 3000 years.

Consciousness underlies all life and all change in life but it is invisible to the "Look and See Scientists" because like all of our species we see not what is there but our own assumptions. It is entirely possible that consciousness underlies not only how species change (through behavior) but why it changes. It is experiment and specifically the construction of theory through experiment that will lead to scientific "answers". Geistswissenschaften will just lead our cart and horse into a ditch as it already has.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you understand what “strawman argument” is? My argument is not strawman argument. If you say it is, explain why.

It is. You called non-ID change "random change". That is a strawman argument. Just because an intelligence is not behind a change does not make it random. Of a rock comes loose on a slope does it go in a random direction? Does it go up? Does it only go sideways? No, it goes in a direction mostly downhill. There will be some random motion as it hits objects on the way, but there is still a general direction. Not random.

You cannot just agree with everything I say and pose it as an argument to the contrary!! That’s illogical.

Yes, I’m definitely arguing that specific changes are not random and even If no one knows the cause of change, it would be incorrect to categorize an apparently “intelligently guided change” as random change.

If we agree that the change is not random then it has to be intelligently guided.

Intelligent/non random change necessitates that the change is following an intelligently guided course of action. Like the example of a self-driving car, it doesn’t move randomly but move in a calculated intelligently guided manner.

Intelligence as the cause of a change is manifested as an intentionally planned / non-random action.

Don't accuse others of being illogical when that appears to be what you are doing. You are apparently assuming that there is an intelligence behind change. Where is your evidence for this? I doubt if you even understand the concept of scientific evidence. By the way, we should discuss that. Scientific evidence is well defined and has very reasonable standards. Its main objective is to avoid irrational thought.

This is a fourth grader’s argument “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”.

this is a False Dichotomy. The deficiency of your stance has nothing to do with other stance being right or wrong.

But no, if “ Intelligently Guided Change” is on the table as the other possible option, then it can be logically concluded that manifestations of intelligence observed everywhere around us are in favor of this option. In this case, Option B (random change) will be dismissed because real world observations do not support it.

What? No it is not. You screwed up hugely here. Those supporting evolution are not guilty of that. That was why I pointed out the problem that you are largely basing your beliefs on untestable claims. In the sciences using untestable claims is not allowed.

I think that you need to spend some time learning the basics of science. That would be understanding the scientific method and also the concept of scientific evidence. If those supporting evolution did not follow those rules they would be laughed at too.

So first get rid of your strawman argument. Natural change is not random change. Just because you or I may not understand a change does not make it random. You may be confused a bit because mutations are generally random. But, there are two main parts to evolution (it is more complicated than that, but understanding the two basic mechanisms will get you 90% there). The two mechanisms are variation, which is random, and natural selection. Which is not random.

Let's go back to our rock rolling down a hill. The terrain and objects that the rock strikes will put some random elements to the direction of the rock, but it is going to go generally downhill. It is never going to go uphill and end up higher than it started. The more one knows about the objects in the way, the way that the slope varies and other factors would allow one to predict more and more accurately where the rock will end up. One will not be able to predict precisely due to all of the factors involved. but there never is a need to invoke an Intelligent Mover of the rock in getting it to its final resting place.

 

[cladking]

It is never going to go uphill and end up higher than it started.

You made several erroneous statements but here is where your analogy fails. Just as a space probe might use the gravitation of a large body to propel it to a distant destination through the actions of those who pilot it a rock were it conscious could gather enough momentum to go anywhere it wanted even including changing directions.

Rocks aren't conscious but every living thing is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 of 2

These are meaningless names that many proponent of the ToE don’t know much about; most people are under the false impression that alleged hominid fossils fit along a coherent evolutionary developmental line as gradual transitional variants (linear progression) from the alleged common ancestor to modern humans. It couldn’t be further from the truth. None of these fossils can be established as a transitional form / ancestor leading to Homo sapiens. That’s why the word “ancestor” is avoided and replaced with “relative” to imply some sort of unknown relationship.

1-Per a paper published on Nature in 2005, early modern humans first appeared in Ethiopia about 195 ± 5 kyr ago.
Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia | Nature

2-Per PHYS.org in 2017, Moroccan fossil (from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco) find rearranges Homo sapiens family tree by extended our species' recorded existence by a third, from 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-moroccan-fossil-rearranges-homo-sapiens.html

Currently, the Natural Museum of Natural History “Smithsonian" site states that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 300,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens

3- in 1995, researchers in Spain discovered human fossils and tools dated back more than 780,000 years.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/

The 800,000 years old Spanish fossils were assumed to be the ancestors of Neanderthals but the face was of a modern man.

Juan Luis Arsuaga said “we must rethink human evolution to fit that face, The Gran Dolina face is 800,000 years old and yet distinctively ours. It is almost that of a modern human. "

“The most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It’s like finding something like--like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don’t expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago--it’s the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.”

The name "Homo antecessor" was given to these unexplained fossils
The Face of an Ancestral Child

An article on Nature on April 2020, confirmed that the modern-like face of H. antecessor is similar to that of modern humans
The dental proteome of Homo antecessor | Nature

Science.org also confirmed that face shape of H. antecessor is remarkably similar to that of modern humans.

Science | AAAS


3- in 1998 and 1999 in Kenya's flat-faced man " Kenyanthropus platyops" dated to 3.5 million years ago was discovered.


Nature wrote “The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago.”

Another face in our family tree - Nature


Science wrote ”The discovery of a 3.5-million-year-old hominid skull “Kenyanthropus" and other fossil remains in northern Kenya is shaking the human family tree at its very roots.”

Science | AAAS


Science wrote ”experts are unanimous in the opinion that “Kenyanthropus" will complicate efforts to trace the convoluted course of human evolution”

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.291.5512.2289


4- 2002, in northern Chad, Michel Brunet found a skull 6-7 million years old. He named it Toumaï.

Nature wrote:

“TOUMAÏ IS THE TIP OF THAT ICEBERG - ONE THAT COULD SINK OUR CURRENT IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION. "


“ANYBODY WHO THINKS THIS ISN'T GOING TO GET MORE COMPLEX ISN'T LEARNING FROM HISTORY,"


“HOW THEY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER AND WHICH, IF ANY OF THEM, ARE HUMAN FOREBEARS IS STILL DEBATED.” says anthropologist Bernard Wood (of George Washington University in Washington DC) about the alleged fossil hominids.

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News

5- 2015, at Olduvai in Tanzania earliest modern human-like hand bone >1.84-million-year-old was found.

Earliest modern human-like hand bone from a new >1.84-million-year-old site at Olduvai in Tanzania | Nature Communications.


6-April 2020, BBC News wrote:

“We once thought of human evolution as a linear progression, with modern humans emerging at the end as the pinnacle of evolutionary development. But everywhere we look, it's increasingly clear the real picture was much messier.” says Paul Rincon, Science editor of BBC News.
Three human-like species lived side-by-side in ancient Africa

7- the understanding that early modern humans first appeared in Ethiopia about 200,000 years ago was proven false by other findings in Kenya, Chad, Tanzania and Morocco. But Africa was still assumed to be the origin of humans, tell recent evidence published in 2017 of hominid settlement in China dated 2.48 million years.
The earliest evidence of hominid settlement in China: Combined electron spin resonance and uranium series (ESR/U-series) dating of mammalian fossil teeth from Longgupo cave - ScienceDirect

July 2018, NewScientist wrote “Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution”
Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity | New Scientist

January 2020, sciencealert wrote, “These breakthroughs suggest that many of our previous ideas about the human origin story – who we are and where we came from – were wrong.”
Recent Discoveries Have Overhauled Our Picture of Where Humans Came From, And When

No relationship can be established between these fossils to fit any possible evolutionary development, that is why it’s now shown on the alleged evolutionary tree as relatives not ancestors.

What is your point here? None of these references indicate that evolution is not taking place or that humans didn't evolve. It just looks like details and discussion about details.

What argument of your does this support?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You made several erroneous statements but here is where your analogy fails. Just as a space probe might use the gravitation of a large body to propel it to a distant destination through the actions of those who pilot it a rock were it conscious could gather enough momentum to go anywhere it wanted even including changing directions.

Rocks aren't conscious but every living thing is.

Why do you think that matters? I doubt if you could find one erroneous statements. You could demonstrate how you do not understand the topic of discussion as you just did here.