Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

See how you like this. Or you may find it old fashionrd.

I'm sort of dense this evening. What is the translation of the name of this song?

 

[YoursTrue]

The "science" of irreducible complexity is not far-fetched and no amount of fossils will change that. If it's not natural, what then? uh oh, might mean a superior force is involved. Nah, many don't want that!
No one can really explain evolution even though they try. They obviously offer explanations but it does not and cannot explain really how it happened, even though yes, they offer explanations. One is: "While there is no direct fossil evidence for the evolution of DNA (because of its size and fragility), scientists have theorized on its origins based on verified laboratory evidence." Oh? They've theorized based on verified laboratory evidence? Really?
The explanation offered goes on: "One theory goes like this: RNA, the compliment molecule to DNA, was the first to evolve naturally from materials already common in the pre-biotic Earth."
But if I were in school again I'd hear it and then figure ok kind of with a slight shrug of the shoulder IF I believed it, knowing of course as a student of science that things change. So maybe yes, maybe no, I'd figure
The article goes on, "Self-replication was achieved through catalytic actions in RNA-based molecules, called ribosomes, or possibly through an intermediary molecule. This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing."
Uh-huh. Unverified. Or possibly. Maybe? Maybe not. But let's figure.

How Could DNA Have Evolved? | Evolution FAQ.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Music evolves but not always in a way I appreciate. I don't think I have a taste for country and western rap.

What about Heavy Metal Rap?

 

[YoursTrue]

We are now over 5,100 posts into this thread. Many members who have actually studied science have provided a tremendous, absolutely huge, amount of actual information and learning. They have been answered with denials backed up by -- well not much actual information and learning, but a lot of doubt based on a lack of those.

Does anybody here still think we're going to teach those who choose their science based on personal preference to examine and and reasonably evaluate the evidence that is so clearly presented? If so, please continue to argue away.

Everybody else, give yourselves a break and leave them to it.

As Dorothy Parker once said, when asked if she could use the word "horticulture" in a sentence:

"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think!"

There's no personal preference when it could be one thing, maybe it's another, theoretically in science, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then again there's always the Easter bunny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no science of irreducible complexity. It is a logical impossibility to determine every possible iteration of a complex to declare that it is irreducible.

All the systems and structures that were claimed to be irreducible have since been shown to be reducible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God

Okay, now it is a pity that you are scientifically illiterate. If you were not afraid to learn I could show you how all of the evidence from the Earth, form Nature, tells us that the Earth is old and that evolution is a fact. That means that if the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark myths were true God would have had to have planted endless false evidence that tells us that those events never happened. Planting false evidence is a form of lying.

Once again, claiming those myths are true would mean that God would have had to have planted false evidence since the evidence clearly says time after time that those events never happened. Planting false evidence is a form of lying. It follows that you are claiming that God is a liar.

 

[Jimmy]

Okay, now it is a pity that you are scientifically illiterate. If you were not afraid to learn I could show you how all of the evidence from the Earth, form Nature, tells us that the Earth is old and that evolution is a fact. That means that if the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark myths were true God would have had to have planted endless false evidence that tells us that those events never happened. Planting false evidence is a form of lying.

Once again, claiming those myths are true would mean that God would have had to have planted false evidence since the evidence clearly says time after time that those events never happened. Planting false evidence is a form of lying. It follows that you are claiming that God is a liar.

Have a good one

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no science of irreducible complexity. It is a logical impossibility to determine every possible iteration of a complex to declare that it is irreducible.

All the systems and structures that were claimed to be irreducible have since been shown to be reducible.

Yes, Behe chose new discoveries and thought "No one can figure these out". Betting against science is usually a very poor bet. I think that most of them were solved by the time his book was published.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have a good one

do you not understand that? This should not be above your reasoning skills.

Planting false evidence at a crime scene is not only lying, it is against the law too. I am not saying that God broke the law, but planting false evidence has been recognized as a form of lying for quite a while.

 

[blü 2]

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..."

Darwin's ideas were considerably more sophisticated than you give him credit for.

For instance, he didn't think "organic life was exceedingly simple". In his The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (published 1868), he had anticipated genetics in proposing ‘pangenesis’ ie that each part of an organism contained ‘gemmules’, particles too small to be seen, by which physical inheritance was passed to offspring, and he noted examples of their "modification" both as a cause of variation and as a cause of genetic disorders.

Certainly the idea that some creatures generated spontaneously was around in his day. I'm not aware that it was ever part of his exposition of evolution ─ if that's wrong, grateful for a citation of where he says such a thing.

And as you know, Darwin's theory of evolution was just the beginning. The theory itself has come a long way since 1859, and as you'd expect is a great deal better researched, better evidenced, more rigorously tested and more deeply understood as a result of more than 160 years of scientific enquiry since then.

As for Lynn Margolis, the result of her important work on symbiosis was the strengthening of the theory of evolution, by improving our understanding of how it worked. Once again you seem to be identifying the modern theory of evolution with Darwin, which is rather like criticizing the Tesla car by attacking James Watt. My friendly suggestion is that if you want to criticize the modern theory of evolution, at least find out what it actually says before pulling the trigger.

 

[John53]

What about Heavy Metal Rap?

I don't I've evolved enough for that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no science of irreducible complexity. It is a logical impossibility to determine every possible iteration of a complex to declare that it is irreducible.

All the systems and structures that were claimed to be irreducible have since been shown to be reducible.

No, not really for objective, inter-subjective and subjective. You can do them all as natural, but you can't reduce them to only one of the 3 I mentioned.

 

[Audie]

She has a lovely voice. It is a shame I don't speak the language to better understand. I linked into another video of hers and am listening to it now. Not reading the language any better than I understand it, I can't say I can place the songs. Though the one you linked certainly sounds familiar to me.

I'm not experienced enough to render and opinion about it being old fashioned, new fashioned or out of fashion. I just like it.

Actually I think you'd like it better not knowing
what the lyrics mean in that particular case.

 

[Audie]

I'm sort of dense this evening. What is the translation of the name of this song?

Feng Fei Fei. "When I hear the applause"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does anybody here still think we're going to teach those who choose their science based on personal preference to examine and and reasonably evaluate the evidence that is so clearly presented?

There has to another reason to do this, and for me, there are several. I would love to be able to help whomever I am answering, but I understand that I don't have much impact there. Two great passions for me are trying to understand how other minds that are different from mine process information, and analyzing arguments. That's what I call the lab part, where interactions are like tapping the glass to see what they elicit. I think that there is benefit to critical thinkers, who learn from one another. I call that the lecture part of the course.

Where else can one get endless access to faith-based thinkers for extended discussions going over weeks at times where there are no negative social consequences of the discussion and anonymity makes it safe for all parties to express themselves? You probably shouldn't have these discussions with family, neighbors, or coworkers. It's usually not possible anyway, and would likely lead to bad blood if it were.

I think by now, I should just give up and just read @It Aint Necessarily So posts. They are an interesting approach and don't leave me frustrated and angry having to deal with the closed minded, anti-science positions that just get repeated and repeated and repeated.

Thanks for that, and it comes at a good time. We seldom know how we affect other critical thinkers if at all.

It is a logical impossibility to determine every possible iteration of a complex to declare that it is irreducible.

It was a good idea in the sense that irreducible complexity would be an indication of intelligent design, but doomed to failure, since there is no algorithm that can decide irreducible complexity, and anything that appears irreducibly complex might not be.

The "science" of irreducible complexity is not far-fetched and no amount of fossils will change that. If it's not natural, what then? uh oh, might mean a superior force is involved. Nah, many don't want that!

A superior force is involved, nature, but there is no evidence that it is awake or intelligent.

No one can really explain evolution even though they try.

Do you mean they can't explain it to you? Do you think that reflects a deficiency in the theory?

Uh-huh. Unverified. Or possibly. Maybe? Maybe not.

Do you consider the use of such language evidence that the theory is incorrect? Do you have something more effective at explaining and predicting observations, where explaining means offering an evidenced argument that includes a mechanism rather than unfalsifiable religious claims? If you don't, what's your specific complaint with the scientific theory?

Here's the problem for you. You are asking people to replace a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, with an idea that can do none of that? Why would they do that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I’m far from lost

Equally far from science.

 

[metis]

Darwin was wrong because his every assumption was wrong

That's a terrible overstatement, as the general drift of what he hypothesized was correct. To blame him for not batting 1000 is like blaming Freud for much the same since so much more is now known about both evolutionary biology and psychology.

 

[Jimmy]

Equally far from science.

I love science. Who cares if I’m far from it

 

[cladking]

Here's another of those comments that all I can say is that whatever you are referring to, it's not a problem for me. Reasoning has worked well for me. I used it to get through school and professionally. I used it to decide what works and what doesn't. I used it to decide where I wanted to be and how to get there. So I don't know what you mean. I can't make it fit my experience whatever meaning I attribute to the words.

It should be easy enough.

The closer our models and beliefs are to reality the more practical they'll be but errors are still errors. None of us can predict the future and anomalies and inconsistencies arise continually whether we notice them or not. A patient who thinks his medication works by rearranging his cells into a more logical order is still cured. A witch doctor can often successfully keep bad mojo away.

The theory accounts for punctuated equilibrium, although Darwin didn't anticipate it. What could Darwin have known mid-nineteenth century that would lead him to suspect catastrophism?

Darwin was nobody's fool.

We are underestimating the importance of "punctuated equilibrium" but more importantly we are misinterpreting the cause and its ubiquity.

The change from no icicle on the eave to an icicle occurs gradually over hours to days. The change back to no icicle happens suddenly when it falls off. Does whatever you believe contradict that?

Reality for EVERY practical purpose unfolds as a series of events. The warmth that causes no icicle was caused when a single butterfly in China flapped its wings. By the exact same token EVERY single speciation event ever seen or caused by man was sudden.

Yet here we are imagining a gradual change in whales over millions of years in homage to Darwin. Time, life, and species occurs in fits and starts. time don't fly it bounds and leaps. This is reality and Evolution is how it looks to homo omnisciencis. Again, it's not my contention that any experiment is wrong. It is my contention that we are misinterpreting experiment.

I don't know the mechanism that generates it, although it seems to be an epiphenomenon of sufficiently complex brains.

Yes, I know. Like most people you want to ascribe complex behavior in simple life forms as "instinct". I don't believe in instinct. There are certainly things plants and animals do that are external to consciousness but there is no magical wiring that guides them through their lives. Humans have this apparent "instinct" as well but most all of us suppress it.

Every consciousness exists to make decisions, execute free will, in order to improve the chances of their individual success. Consciousness is the only gift nature provides her every creature to succeed. Everything else might be said to come from our parents.

So long as you think of humans as being the only truly conscious beast you'll miss the point. Homo omnisciencis is more like a sleepwalker because our actions are guided by neither "instinct" (that isn't even real) nor by consciousness. Our every action is driven by our beliefs. To animals this exterior (to reality) motivation will appear a great deal like sleep walking. They can not understand our actions because they are driven by what can not be seen; abstraction. Animals respond to reality and in most cases this appears as "instinct" to us.

OK, but you haven't made the case to me, nor articulated the paradigm as a coherent mental edifice which parts connect and reinforce one another.

I'm sure the biggest problem is that most of the theory is composed of what you can not believe because your premises and axioms are wholly different. When I cite evidence it is not seen as evidence at all but as a wild assertion. How many people reading this don't believe butterflies in China are the direct cause of hurricanes but have never said a single word to dispute it? This is what I'm dealing with; I present modern science and people dismiss it because they are familiar and comfortable with Darwin to the same degree Egyptologists are comfortable with pyramid builders sleeping on ramps.

Most of what we all believe is fiction derived from old wives tales, language, 19th century "science", and that what we each see is "evidence" despite the fact that we each can see only what we believe.

You think I want to upset a single paradigm but in a very real way this upsets every single paradigm. In a very real way I want to replace many paradigms with a single paradigm. While most of the paradigms have a very short distance to fall, "Evolution" has a very very long way to fall and will be almost wholly upended.

Why are you saying that? What's your greater point relevant to this discussion?

Merely that "survival of the fittest" is an exceedingly poor perspective on life and what causes change in species. If all individuals are "fit" then it must be something else driving change.

Now you've moved the goalpost. Earlier, you said that they were all fit. Also, now you're describing the natural selection of those able to avoid being lunch.

No!

Individuals who are not fit are irrelevant to change in species. They are accidents and freaks of nature. They are lunches.

There would be no geriatric non human consciousnesses either except that with experience comes knowledge and a better understanding of reality.