Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

That is not a law. And not in direct line does not mean not in the ancestral line.

False, if an intermediate is in the ancestral line for species A, then it’s a transitional form for species A. if an intermediate is not in direct line for species A but rather in direct line for species B (after the branch point), then it’s a transitional form for species B not A. In the case that a specimen is before an alleged branch point, then it’s considered as a relative not an intermediate. It doesn’t depict an ancestral relationship.

A lack of intermediates and a lack of evidence for all intermediates in the fossil record are not equivalent statements. Just because all fossils have not been found does not falsify the theory of evolution.

See # 480

Except that observations don't contradict predictions of the theory.

Are you suggesting that you believe that everything that ever lived left fossilized remains and that we should be able to find all of them and our failure to find all of them is evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.

Tell me that isn't what you are selling here.

I don’t believe that everything that ever lived left fossilized remains, Not at all. I’ve been specific and clear that transitional fossils are extremely rare to the contrary of predictions entailed by phyletic gradualism, that’s why Gould proposed, “punctuated equilibrium” which was rejected by critics including Richard Dawkins who insisted that phyletic gradualism is the mechanism for evolution. The debate was never settled and more evidence against the theory emerged that’s why the need emerged for EES. See#160

You are claiming gaps function to support your views. That is ridiculous.

See # 480

No. It is a fact. The falsification of the theory of evolution or any scientific theory does not operate under a principle of default. Such falsification does not mean that a particular view automatically replaces the theory.

Who is talking about “a principle of default”?
Search the meaning of False dichotomy

Here is your argument as I see it. There are gaps. Therefore every claim of the theory of evolution by science is wrong.

It does not get more concise than that.

See # 480

Obviously, that is not true. You post publicly. That implies you want to be heard (read). You respond to comments. You have a point you want others to see and follow. I don't believe that you don't care whether I read your posts or not.

It’s amazing that you’re arguing about this. Yes, I post publicly, I want others to see it but “others” is not limited to you. Others means current and future readers, I’m posting for those who will benefit from it, don’t get me wrong; I hope you would be one of them but I doubt it. It’s not for you. Again, what you read is totally your concern.

I do understand your posts. And the volume appears more to swamp your reader than enlighten them. They could easily be pared down and made more comprehensible. But your main effort is pretty clear, even though it is failed as indicated by the comments you have received.

No you don’t, if you do, you would agree with it. It would help if you leave your presuppositions behind. Try it.

Long posts happened to be my style of writing, I appreciate the advice and I understand Long posts would greatly limit the number of readers but again; you’re not “the readers”, If you failed to get it for some reason or another, others will.

 

[LIIA]

Most skeptics' argument consists of calling people names and gainsaying them. Most have only read the books but don't really understand the material.

Fortunately there are still a few true skeptics around.

I personally always appreciate a good argument even when it works against my own.

Thanks for bringing up Gould. I should have been familiar with his work but somehow missed him.

I think people don't realize how flexible life is on every single level and taxonomy. Trees seemingly grow out of solid stone and species change suddenly when a new niche appears. Ofttimes they all pretty much change at once. Mutations keep every individual and species on its toes. Life is consciousness very much as reality is change. All things are founded in logic.

Thank you for reading. I hope the info would be of benefit to the readers of the thread.

The mainstream theory of biological evolution is “The Modern Synthesis”. An 80 years old outdated view that is still adopted by the proponent of the ToE today. They’re under the impression that the standard theory provides a coherent explanatory framework but it can’t be further from the truth (Proposed mechanisms of change don’t match observations).

The ToE is an old dying theory with lots of errors and challenges. Top scientists today acknowledge the fact that the standard theory of evolution needs a major revision or to be entirely replaced, many evolutionists are simply not aware of it. See#160

 

[LIIA]

I have not denied there are gaps. I am pointing out to you that gaps in our knowledge of some details is not evidence falsifying the present theory of evolution.

Following your notion, anyone can deny anything by pointing to a single gap.

False, you’re saying that I’m using the exception to deny the rule, which cannot be further from the truth. It’s quite the opposite. Gap is the rule, not the exception and you’re the one who is using exception (the challenged extremely rare alleged transitional fossils) to deny the rule. The rule (extreme rarity of transitional fossils as confirmed by paleontologists) is what governs not the exception.

What is this unfalsifiable hypothesis you mention? Intelligent design?

The scientific method entails that no hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The problem is, with only single hypothesis on the table such as the ToE, all observations have to be interpreted in light of that single hypothesis (there is no other option). Then evidence as the end product of the process is used to support the hypothesis. It’s a fallacious circular reasoning.

As I said before, in principle, any change can be caused by two competing hypothesis:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

If you exclude one option, it renders the other unfalsifiable. Hypotheses "A" was never considered as a competing hypothesis thus hypothesis "B" became unfalsifiable. As the only option possible, it proved itself (circular reasoning), Hence all observations had be interpreted in light of the accepted assumption that "B" is correct.

If you correct this scenario to include a competing hypothesis, both will be falsifiable, then observations are the means to prove or disprove. We cannot simply pick and choose.

 

[LIIA]

Evolution is a process that consists of several observable mechanisms. No assumption is required.

False, principle mechanisms as proposed by “The Modern Synthesis” are proven false.

The ToE via random mutation + natural selection is an 80-year-old obsolete view. Proposed mechanisms of change don’t match the observations. Neither mutations are random nor natural selection has any way to explain speciation. See below.

Non-Random Mutations:

Denis Noble said that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Natural Selection:

Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

 

[LIIA]

That's a pretty big *if*. But can you show any evidence that Gould was wrong?

Gould himself said “it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'”.
That is sure a sudden change to me.

Have you examined the evidence that led Gould to his conclusion?

You’re not being serious here. This is the work of Paleontologists. Do you expect a Paleontologist of high caliber such as Gould to publish unsupported claims and get away with it without getting scrutinized by other Paleontologists, especially when he talks on their behalf! I see you as a rational person but this question is not a reasonable argument.

 

[LIIA]

I notice you are not offering evidence to support this claim.

I do know that is not how it works in any part of biology.

Are you being serious here?
I said, “This is how it works in “evolutionary biology”. The ToE is the single hypothesis on the table. Are you really asking for evidence for my claim?? Is there another option?

No other interpretation of the evidence has generated any alternative that makes sense of the evidence, answers questions or makes useful predictions.

An intelligently guided process predicts that mutations are not random; it’s an important prediction with respect to the understanding of true mechanisms of adaptations, which was already proven to be true.

Thanks for that bit of trivia.

You don’t see the significance of the digital information encoded in the cells of the human body with a total DNA length that can circulate Earth 2.5 million times! Life is all about coded info, the living cell is a digital information processor that utilizes coded information in the DNA (3 billion base pairs in the human cell) to produce proteins of different sequences and specific 3D structures as the building blocks of life to construct different types of cells through gene expression that controls the flow of info to allow wide variety of coordinated and very specific functions within the body that are necessary for life.

Its an extremely complex process beyond imagination that gets executed in extreme accuracy every single time with a perfect end result manifested in a balanced functional being that can successfully survive and reproduce within its niche. There is absolutely nothing in this process that can be attributed to randomness. None.

That is correct based on the conclusions of the science you claim doesn't look at the evidence correctly.

False, it’s based on the conclusions of “functional biology” which is an exact science that I appreciate and respect not the “Geisteswissenschaften" of the “evolutionary biology” as identified by Ernst Mayr (the Darwin of the 20th century). We can't you get it? See the link below and #331

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

it’s ironic that you guys always rely on fallacious generalization and mix of irrelevant confused concepts yet you try to pose yourselves as the proponents of the scientific method!!

 

[LIIA]

Finally. What logic? Whose logic? Symmetry is not perfect. Now you are claiming it is a rule, which doesn't have to imply some intelligent logician at play. Do you have evidence for this belief?

You find symmetry in living things to be amazing. Great. I do too. Our amazement is not evidence that valid theory is suddenly false.

Why are you amazed?

Amazement happens when you see the unexpected. If some rocks roll downhill then you see “Sagrada Familia” at the bottom, you will sure be amazed. This is the kind of amazement we experience in nature. Wherever you look and carefully contemplate, you’ll be amazed. “Sagrada Familia” the last and greatest masterpiece of the genius architect “Antoni Gaudí”, doesn’t compare to a single life cell as a structure of unparalleled complexity. You know this fact, don’t you? Just allow it to settle.

The end product as explained in #424 is not expected to be the end result of randomness. Whenever we see a process that exhibit calibrated/coordinated forces associated with quantified entities specifically utilized in rational relationships towards a sophisticated complex goal, it has to be an intelligently guided process.

As explained in #424, every form of live is perfect. Externally perfect with respect to the balanced, beautiful and functional (reflective) symmetry and internally perfect with respect to internal functional organs that collectively create the structural body plan of a living organism that is capable of growing, reproducing and being successful in its niche.

We are so used to that perfection, we take it for granted to the point that we no longer see it or appreciate it. It’s the norm but why should it be?

If life is the end product of randomness, the results have to be totally different. It would be similar to the process of “trial and error” but even the “trial and error” process has some rationality with respect to the desire of achieving a goal, learning through the process and the intention to make corrections. On the other hand, randomness is neither rationally trying nor selection is wanting to correct the mess created by randomness. If there is absolutely no plan or goal, Imagine the outcome.

If the process is random then the alleged selection per “the modern synthesis”, shouldn’t be just involved in transforming one perfect successful live to another but rather has to work as a purification force to correct the mess of the endless random errors created by randomness.

This is not what we see in nature. What we typically see, even in a single living cell, is the outcome of an absolute intelligence beyond imagination.

That is your belief, but is not supported by any evidence. There is a vast amount of variation between members of the same species, so perfection cannot exist as you claim. Which variation is the perfection? Though, I do note that historically, this idea of perfection has gotten us into a lot of trouble in cases where it was egregiously applied.

My belief? Evidence? Are you serious?
Perfection is exhibited in every single animal and every single variant. No exception.

Did you ever see an animal or a fossil with the right limb longer than the left limp or not a reversed mirror image of it? Did you ever see a species with a tail on its head and 3 eyes on the leg? Did you ever see parts or organs of an animal, that are not logically organized, proportionally sized, reversed mirror image of other symmetrical parts? Did you ever see an animal that is not capable to live and reproduce in its niche?

If the process is random, we must see millions of examples of this mess with the alleged selection process working tediously on the elimination of it. There is not any single example of that. All life forms are perfect. All species are perfectly designed for survival in its niche. No exception.

You may be the first anti-evolution proponent I have seen admit this fact. The usual tactic is to conflate the origins with the theory of evolution, since so much has been lost by those rejecting science on belief and feeling rather than fact. Conflating something we have a lot of confidence in and evidence for support is apparently easier in their minds if that is connected to something we do not know.

Many evolutionists are aware of it but they fail to understand its significance and typically trust and memorize outdated material that has been proven false (per the latest findings in the field) but nonetheless still show in the scientific references.

Yes, the ToE is not about the origin of life, which simply means that the ToE is a theory that is only concerned with the diversity of life not life itself. The ToE doesn’t explain life. Life is not and will never be explained other than some wishful speculations.

As discussed earlier, survival and continuation (ability of reproduction) is the ultimate goal of life. It doesn’t matter what is the shape or form of life but any form of life that can successfully achieve this very specific goal (to live, grow, reproduce and survive in its niche) is a perfect life.

This perfection as explained is an absolute prerequisite to any evolutionary process. This perfection comes first without any role played by any evolutionary process. Nonliving matter cannot evolve or slowly pass changes to offspring.

Life explains evolution (adaptation). Evolution doesn’t explain life. It only shifts the problem to the origin and leaves it unexplained.

A single cell is not a simple thing that can just emerge (per the false understanding of spontaneous generation that was believed to be true till proven false by Louis Pasteur in 1859, same year when the Origin of Species was published) but rather a living cell is the most complex system man has ever witnessed. Shifting the problem to the origin may give the illusion of an answer but is not. If a single cell is not explained, no multicellular organism is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ridiculous Nonsense, you’re responding to #410. It’s a very short post with the simple point of refuting your claims that my referenced articles are 40 years out of date. I explained the reasons why your claim is an indication of either incompetence or dishonesty. Can you deal with a single point? It doesn’t get any easier than that, does it? If you can’t, then stop your nonsense.



As usual you escape by ignoring the point of the post (as explained above), moving the goalposts by referring to another post (#424) then do nothing but claiming that you magically refuted all points in the other post without any reasoning other than some meaningless denial.

I did discuss epigenetics before in earlier posts such as # 55 & #145 but you neither read nor understand. (use Ctrl+F if the post is long for you to read).

In #424, the point was not about the specifics of the gene expression process but rather how it unfolds, the end product of the process and its significance as a manifestation of an “intelligently guided process”. In that sense, it’s not directly a refutation but rather evidence for ID.

You don’t even have any clue what an argument is about or the specific points on the table for discussion. You typically rely on meaningless denial as your reasoning for refutation. It’s nonsense.

sorry but unless you read, understand, get to the specifics of an argument and respond in a logical manner, I’ll not be able to take you seriously.



Pick any single point of your preference and state your reasons for disagreement. If you can’t think of any logical reasons, it’s better for you to stay quite.



Fine with me, you’re responding here to #410. Refute the single point of #410 as explained above. Can you? Just try, you may surprise yourself if you try. Otherwise, stop your foolish nonsense.

I see that you still cannot debate properly.

Take a deep breath , relax, and try to focus. One point at a time.

Can he do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think the man can do it. He appears to be all over the place and cannot focus with anyone.

 

[LIIA]

Selection is not random. You seem to miss that repeatedly.

No, I don’t, selection is a purifying force not a creative force, the mess created by randomness has to appear first then gets purified by the alleged selection process. We don’t see that in nature but rather alleged selection is always working on transforming one perfect life form into another as previously explained. See#487 and #414

regardless, you have an obsolete understanding of selection. The role of selection as a driving mechanism for speciation (as hypothesized by “the modern synthesis”), do not match observations. Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation. This is an old obsolete view that was proven false through research. Whether you wrap your head around it or not, that’s what it is. See the link.

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

The order that we see has not been established to exist for any reason outside of natural laws of nature. Gravity, chemistry, space, motion, biological need, etc.

Order in that context is not the same as intelligence. Order is one the manifestations attributed to Intelligence but manifestations of intelligence are at a much higher level than mere order. Leave some rocks to roll freely downhill; you know where it will land. That is order but if you see “Sagrada Familia” at the bottom of the hill. You know its not mere order, but rather a manifestation of an intelligently guided process. See#349

This is not the subject of this thread but in principle, reality with respect to causality can be described as three levels (of different nature) of causal relationships as follows:

Level A causes level B which causes level C.

You trust the principle of causality and find comfort in the fact that level C (observable phenomena) is explained by level B (natural laws), then you stop and don’t go any further. But what explains level B? Why don’t we demand an explanation for level B?

Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, cosmological constant, spacetime, etc. are all components of level B. The question is what explains level B of calibrated/coordinated forces in relation to each other to collectively establish an extremely fine-tuned universe? What is the cause that explains level B? You cannot stop at any single level without reaching the final root cause, yet convince yourself that you have a satisfactory answer. You don’t. The hierarchy of causal levels must end with a brute causeless fact. No other end is possible.

Level B is a contingent entity that started with the Big Bang (not a brute fact) and must depend on another causal level (level A) for its instantiation in reality. Scientifically, we know that the nature of level A (beyond the Big Bang) is unobservable and non-physical which necessarily means that level A is not subject to causation (A brute fact). The non-physical/unknown nature of level A is not equal to absolute nothingness, especially if level B is causally dependent on it.

To summarize, level C comprises observable physical entities. Level B exhibits physical forces that are not directly observable but recognized by its observable direct manifestations in level C. Causal factor in Level A is of unknown nature but recognized by its direct manifestations in level B.

Even so manifestations of intelligence exist in level C but what you’re referring to is the order exhibited in level C as a manifestation of level B. Level B itself which is collectively responsible for the fine-tuned universe (especially the cosmological constant), is a manifestation of intelligence of unknown nature at level A.

This is a totally separate discussion, you may See#132 on page 7 of the thread (Necessary Being: Exists?)

Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I don’t, selection is a purifying force not a creative force, the mess created by randomness has to appear first then gets purified by the alleged selection process. We don’t see that in nature but rather alleged selection is always working on transforming one perfect life form into another as previously explained. See#487 and #414

regardless, you have an obsolete understanding of selection. The role of selection as a driving mechanism for speciation (as hypothesized by “the modern synthesis”), do not match observations. Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation. This is an old obsolete view that was proven false through research. Whether you wrap your head around it or not, that’s what it is. See the link.

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia



Order in that context is not the same as intelligence. Order is one the manifestations attributed to Intelligence but manifestations of intelligence are at a much higher level than mere order. Leave some rocks to roll freely downhill; you know where it will land. That is order but if you see “Sagrada Familia” at the bottom of the hill. You know its not mere order, but rather a manifestation of an intelligently guided process. See#349

This is not the subject of this thread but in principle, reality with respect to causality can be described as three levels (of different nature) of causal relationships as follows:

Level A causes level B which causes level C.

You trust the principle of causality and find comfort in the fact that level C (observable phenomena) is explained by level B (natural laws), then you stop and don’t go any further. But what explains level B? Why don’t we demand an explanation for level B?

Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, cosmological constant, spacetime, etc. are all components of level B. The question is what explains level B of calibrated/coordinated forces in relation to each other to collectively establish an extremely fine-tuned universe? What is the cause that explains level B? You cannot stop at any single level without reaching the final root cause, yet convince yourself that you have a satisfactory answer. You don’t. The hierarchy of causal levels must end with a brute causeless fact. No other end is possible.

Level B is a contingent entity that started with the Big Bang (not a brute fact) and must depend on another causal level (level A) for its instantiation in reality. Scientifically, we know that the nature of level A (beyond the Big Bang) is unobservable and non-physical which necessarily means that level A is not subject to causation (A brute fact). The non-physical/unknown nature of level A is not equal to absolute nothingness, especially if level B is causally dependent on it.

To summarize, level C comprises observable physical entities. Level B exhibits physical forces that are not directly observable but recognized by its observable direct manifestations in level C. Causal factor in Level A is of unknown nature but recognized by its direct manifestations in level B.

Even so manifestations of intelligence exist in level C but what you’re referring to is the order exhibited in level C as a manifestation of level B. Level B itself which is collectively responsible for the fine-tuned universe (especially the cosmological constant), is a manifestation of intelligence of unknown nature at level A.

This is a totally separate discussion, you may See#132 on page 7 of the thread (Necessary Being: Exists?)

Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists

That is philosophy. As doing philosophy I can do that differently and I don't accept this "we" of yours "... Why don’t we demand an explanation for level B?"

 

[LIIA]

That is the problem. No one knows what a perfect organism is. No one has demonstrated that they exist, have existed or will exist. So your claim, logically, falls apart.

You really haven't explained or demonstrated that living organisms are perfect,

Survival and continuation (ability of reproduction) is the ultimate goal of life. It doesn’t matter what is the shape or form of life but any form of life that can successfully achieve this very specific goal (to live, grow, reproduce and survive in its niche) is a perfect life.

As explained in #424, every form of live is perfect. Externally perfect with respect to the balanced, beautiful, proportional and functional (reflective) symmetry and internally perfect with respect to internal functional organs that collectively create the structural body plan of a living organism that is capable of growing, reproducing and being successful in its niche. All life forms are perfect. All species are perfectly designed for survival in its niche. No exception. See # 487.

I do want to be the first to welcome you to the 21 Century. In these modern we do not follow the chain of being that has been falsified.

Sorry, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the 80 year old modern synthesis? Can you be a little more specific and explain what was exactly falsified and how it was falsified?

I'm guessing that you don't have any training or experience in biology or science. We don't see what you are claiming in nature. That is demonstrated. If you take a broader look at the fossil record, these perfect beings you allege simply are not there.

Every single life form is absolutely perfect. No exception. Perfection is a measure of success with respect to how an organism achieves the ultimate goal of life as explained above. Every organism with the ability to live, grow, reproduce, survive and repeat its own life cycle without a deficiency to preclude its successful survival within its niche is a perfect organism. Without this kind of perfection of an organism that can gradually pass changes to fertile offspring, no evolutionary process is possible.

What is there shows us that species that exist on this planet today did not exist here millions of years ago. And those were preceded by more other species too.

So what is your point?

You fail to mention that with the exception of very few questionable fossils but typically no relationship can be established between these fossils to fit any possible evolutionary progression line neither in time or geographical location. After the discovery of the 7 million years old Toumaï, bernard wood said about the hominid fossils “how they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.”

Human fossils with a face of a modern man “Homo antecessor” dated back more than 780,000 years was found in Spain in 1995.

The hypothesized macroevolution through gradual continuous transitional sequences entails millions of transitional forms for every single species ever existed, (otherwise the sudden appearance of massive genetic info wouldn’t be explained). it should be the rule in the fossil record not merely some questionable exception. Real world observations as confirmed by Paleontologists, do not support the theory.

Paleontologists such as Gould admit the fact of extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record. It simply doesn’t support the slow and steady transformation of a whole species into a new one. Gould as an evolutionist wanted an explanation that acknowledges real world observation (which actually disproves the ToE & phyletic gradualism), that is why he proposed punctuated equilibrium, on one hand, he didn’t explain the sudden appearance of massive genetic info, on the other hand, he didn’t consider the fact that rejecting phyletic gradualism as a fundamental principal of the ToE shakes the theory to it’s roots. That is why punctuated equilibrium was rejected by the proponents of phyletic gradualism such as Richard Dawkins. After Gould’s passing away, punctuated equilibrium lost popularity and the gradualistic slow and steady transformation became the ruling dogma again.

 

[LIIA]

Speciation is the process where new species arise. Extinction could happen for many reasons. It could be that derived species do out compete the ancestral species to the point of extinction.

You previously refused the scenario competing multiple occupancy and now you use it to justify extinction! See #343. Regardless I agree extinction may happen for one reason or another but if you claim that all these millions of ancestral species/transitional forms went extinct every time speciation took place, then it’s a totally false and baseless claim.

If they are geographically isolated, by definition allopatric species are not likely to be in physical proximity to each other. Show me how gradual change and speciation would lead to the co-existence of all ancestral and derived species. Saying it does not make it a fact. Can you demonstrate that in just a few paragraphs instead of this overwhelmingly (possibly intentional) huge volume of words?

Almost every and all examples of speciation would lead to the co-existence of all derived species. Any evolutionist should know that. Your statements can be interpreted as an indication of ignorance or dishonesty but I think its not but rather it’s the typical ridiculous denial of most evolutionists, which is the main reason of their failure to see the facts.

Here is a classic example that started it all, “Darwin's finches”, about 18 different species of finches on Galapagos island that is believed to be all derived from the single type of finch species found on mainland South America. All species coexist within a limited geographical range.

For me this is an example of adaptation due to non-random directed mutations that allows a species to better fit an environment. Regardless all variants stay as finches even if they don’t interbreed. A finch will never be anything else other than a finch.

Hox genes are highly conserved. We would expect that changes to them would always be lethal and that is what the evidence indicates. The mutations you mention would not survive in nature or to be born and is the reason we do not see them.

However, when mutagens are present in the environment, we do se many physical anomalies in sensitive populations. Do you know anything at all about frogs and other amphibians?

Exactly, but more accurately random changes would be lethal. The question is how these perfect Hox genes came to existence to begin with (changes to it would always be lethal)? A trial an error will not give an organism a chance of survival to continue to evolve to that perfection (perfection is a prerequisite to the process), if a random process took place on an enormous scale as hypothesized, then we have to see evidence of it. With no evidence, the hypothesis is false. There is no evidence of this hypothesized randomness.

Anomalies do exist as the exception. The rule is perfection. A random process entails that anomalies to be the rule not the exception.

Largely, what I see is that your reasoning is based on a faulty interpretation of theory and a biased desire to see it fall.

It’s not a biased desire. What you all fail to understand is that the fundamental principles of the modern synthesis (random mutations +natural selection) are discredited by latest scientific finds. Neither mutations are random nor natural selection has any way to explain speciation. See#484.

The collapse of these fundamental principles necessarily means that the theory itself has collapsed. It’s not a claim. It’s a fact. Your biased desire to defend a discredited mid-20th century view of evolution is the reason for your failure to see it.

This is just your opinion. I can't even say that it is based on what you write here. Mostly, because I think what you write is based on your belief and not the other way round. In other words, you are doing what you can to force the evidence to fit your personal position and ignoring valid explanations for the evidence.

It’s totally the other way around. My opinion is based on the observable fact that there is no evidence of randomness. None.

You are the one who ignore the facts and force the evidence to fit a false theory. Again, the principles of the modern synthesis are proven false.

That's fantastic. You Tube is always the place to go to get valid information. Not saying they don't have it, but isn't there some publications you could list? You do like to load up your posts. A bibliography would sure do that. You go on and on about the literature, why the paucity now?

that is ridiculously false, how many times I referenced the entire articles and lectures? But you repeatedly fail to read or understand and when I make it easier and provide a concise video you don’t like it either. That’s pathetic. See#349 same references were provided many times in other posts.

Directed mutations is still a controversial subject and to date, I know of no research that supports it. But if it were the case, that does not make your belief the cause by default. It doesn't make my beliefs the cause by default. You said that my previous mention of this was my false dichotomy. And here you go and do the demonstration supporting my previous statement for me. Thanks for that.

False, it’s not a controversial subject, all careful studies of mutagenesis proved it.

You don’t understand what false dichotomy means. Whether my premise is right or wrong is irrelevant with respect to the validity of your premise.

I never said that the ToE being false makes my belief the cause by default, I said if the intelligently guided process is an option on the table, then all observations will confirm it, not only in living organisms but also in everything we can observe in the cosmos and even at the atomic and molecular level.

Previous studies do not confirm that all or any mutations are directed and non-random. The evidence indicates that proteins evolved through change over time.

meaningless denial and wishful thinking don’t prove anything.

Latest findings disproved random mutations. How many times I provided references for multiple articles and lectures? Yet you cannot wrap your head around it? See # 349

 

[LIIA]

Not hardly. The theory explains what is observed in the fossil record and it provides a mechanism that is not random. Mutation is random in that that they do not occur in response to some anticipated need for a living organism. There is no mechanism that would explain directed mutations. Natural selection is not random. This is supported by the evidence. Random mutations acted on by selection of the environment drives change in living populations. This change is reflected in the fossil record, in genomes, and in nature.

One more thing about posting so much material that I have noticed. Detailed responses are more likely to go over the character limit to the forum. Did you know that? I did. It is an annoyance, but not a barrier.

again, it’s nothing but your wishful thinking and a false unjustified premise based on an outdated and discredited mid-20th century view of evolution as hypothesized by the ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism). Repeating a false claim multiple times without any support doesn’t prove it.

Yes, mutations respond to anticipated need, It’s not random but rather a response of the organism to the variables of an environment. It’s not gradual and can be inherited. This is what non-random directed mutations is. Live with it.

Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts”

Denis Nobel said “We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.”.

Below are the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis, which all have been disproved. No exception. Wake up. See the link

- First, genetic change is random.
- Second, genetic change is gradual.
- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.
- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.

As the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble said in his lecture, “ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPROVED in various ways and to varying degrees, and it is also important to note that a substantial proportion of the experimental work that has revealed these breaks has come from within molecular biology itself. Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

James A. Shapiro gives large numbers of references on the non-random nature of mutations.

“genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”

“Cells possess the biochemical activities that allow them to restructure DNA in the same ways that we do in laboratory genetic engineering (Table 5). Thus, the summary term “natural genetic engineering” (NGE)”

https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Sh...Write (RW) Genome.Physics of Life Reviews.pdf

2016 “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology” conference in the Royal Society meeting, Gerd B. Müller discussed the challenges of MS theory and the need for the EES. The extended evolutionary synthesis acknowledges developmental bias as one of the core assumptions. He said,
“Before natural selection can act, the developmental system harbours tendencies towards certain solutions, a property that has been called developmental bias”

Here the article by Gerd B. Müller that was published on 2017.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

 

[LIIA]

Gould was arguing about the mode of evolution and not claiming it does not happen or that the changes were instantaneous or without the mechanism of natural selection. He was still arguing evolution.

By proposing, “punctuated equilibrium”, Gould tried to explain the unexplainable but he failed. All what “punctuated equilibrium” achieved was discrediting “Phyletic gradualism” (hence discredited the Modern Synthesis itself) on the other hand failed to explain the massive appearance of genetic info. That’s why critics such as Richard Dawkins rejected it.

And the capitalization and bolding does make it look like you are angry. If this makes you so angry, perhaps you should look into another hobby.

I did explain to you before, I’m aware that my posts are long and many readers wouldn’t pay attention. I’m only trying to get their attention to important parts. Sorry if it bothers you but you're not the only reader.

 

[LIIA]

This "extended theory" is still evolution and not magic or evidence for a designer. Presenting arguments among scientists is not evidence that the theory is failing. It might be, but based on what I have read, the version of the extended theory they propose isn't holding up so well.

The fundamental conceptual framework of biology as entailed by the ToE doesn’t provide scientific explanations of living phenomena that are consistent with new empirical evidence. The Modern Synthesis is a mid-20th century theory; all of the assumed Modern Synthesis principles of organismal change over time have been disproved. That’s why top scientists are calling for the EES.

The proposed "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" is about the integration of latest finds of functional biology not just the baseless “Geisteswissenschaften” assumptions of evolutionary biology. It’s a step in the right direction. At least the baseless hypothesis of random mutations + natural selection and all the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproven because of the lack of consistency with the empirical evidence. See #494 and second page of the lecture below by Denis Noble.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134

That people are seeing the need to revise a theory does not make belief-based views suddenly the default accepted view. It means that new evidence needs to be explained in light of the present theory or that the present theory be revised to include that evidence. This has happened before with the theory of evolution. If the theory is falsified, all that evidence still has to be explained based on logical, reasonable and supported explanations and not what some person wants to believe.

I never mentioned anything about a default-accepted view. Evolutionists are the ones who adapt false default view. Again, you’re making a false dichotomy.

Yes, the present theory should be revised to include latest evidence.

Again, in principle, any change can be logically caused by two competing hypothesis:

A) Intelligently Guided Change.

B) Non-Intelligently Guided Change (Random Change).

I’m not saying drop the scientific method; I’m saying let the scientific method decide which option is supported by observations. Why is that so difficult to accept?

No one should just pick or choose. If all empirical evidence support that changes are Intelligently Guided, then why would anyone insist that the changes are random and try to force all interpretations to fit that false premise?

 

[LIIA]

One thing, given enough time there may be still only one species of man alive, but in 200,000 years it will be dubious if it could mate with a Homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago.

Many people think that a single species continually living is always the same species.

Nonsense. A single species is always the same species, it can be a single species with different gene pools (and keeps the ability of interbreeding) but it can’t be a single species but not the same species. It’s either a single species or multiple different species, there in no other option.

You’re making an untestable false hypothesis. It’s only your wishful thinking, Speciation as a key mechanism of evolution, is the only means through which the interbreeding capability would be lost. Without speciation, the species will always continue to be the same species and will stay capable of interbreeding.

Losing the ability of interbreeding in the speciation process means that future changes in one species may not directly impact the other and all species can coexist independently.

If this is the case, what is the reason that all alleged transitional hominid forms (that necessarily emerged through speciation) went extinct? This may happen only in the case that intermediates never lost the ability of interbreeding and continued to evolve. But this hypothesis entails that no speciation was ever involved. No speciation ever happened (because speciation is necessarily associated with the loss of interbreeding capability).

Speciation as a key mechanism of evolution, if we dismiss Speciation, it necessarily means that the ToE is false.

However you look at it, you will see that these predicted scenarios are false and not consistent with real world observations. See #414

The ToE as a theory is fundamentally about speciation that takes place through random mutations and natural selection, the fact is these two fundamental principles are false. Neither mutations are random as explained multiple times nor natural selection has any way to explain speciation. That is why top scientists such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble are calling the replacement of modern synthesis with the extended modern synthesis “EES”. See # 160

Non-Random Mutations:

Again, Denis Noble said that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Natural Selection:

Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Conclusion:

The fundamental principles of the ToE are false.
The ToE is false.

 

[LIIA]

That is philosophy. As doing philosophy I can do that differently and I don't accept this "we" of yours "... Why don’t we demand an explanation for level B?"

meaningless denial, why don't you?

 

[LIIA]

I see that you still cannot debate properly.

Take a deep breath , relax, and try to focus. One point at a time.

Can he do it?

You asked for a single point, I gave it to you and you failed. Pathetic.

You were responding to #410, If you want to prove me wrong go back to #410 and refute my single point (which is refuting your claims that my referenced articles are 40 years out of date.). If you cannot, then stop your pathetic excuses. No one will buy it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

meaningless denial, why don't you?

I have tried and found none. I am a strong philosophical skeptic.