Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

What makes you say that? Evolutionary theory is on exactly the same footing as anything else in science, surely? It is grounded in reproducible observations of nature and makes testable predictions. What's special about it?

Sounds like an honest question. You believe what you say. All of your life, you were made by many others to believe the evolutionary idea. It became a component of your belief system, which makes it hard for you to believe otherwise.

But first let's agree that the number of people who believe/support an idea has nothing to do with the validity of the idea (Ad Populum). Second, you should know that “who you are” reflects on your choices and on which side you want to be. It’s not really about your knowledge or intellect. On each side you will see all levels of knowledge/intellect, it’s not the decisive factor, it’s your "free will". You’re free to choose, you make your choice, not all choices are equal, and it will have consequences.

I explained the point about the ToE many times. The interface of this forum was recently updated; unfortunately, my older posts with highlighted snapshots from the scientific articles are no longer visible. I can’t repeat it, but I'll try to summarize. You may refer to #1864.

When we talk about the ToE as a scientific theory, we’re not concerned with Darwin's original ideas but rather the contemporary evolutionary theory today, which is “The Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism”. The MS is a mid-20th century view of evolution and till today there is no other scientific evolutionary theory other than the MS.

The proposed explanatory framework of the Modern Synthesis and all the central assumptions/mechanisms were found to contradict empirical evidence per latest scientific finds. Regardless of the challenges/new evidence, the MS is still considered as the mainstream evolutionary theory today and is still being taught in biology textbooks.

See attached PDF and the link below

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

Again, the MS is the only evolutionary theory, if the MS has failed, then the ToE has failed as a scientific theory. The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) was proposed to address this issue but currently there no agreed upon theoretical framework for the EES. Meaning, today there is no theory of evolution that is scientifically valid/agreed upon.

That said, now let's establish some basis and try to clear the confusion.

1) We have to understand/agree that evolution doesn’t explain life. A fully functioning living organism with the ability to stay alive, grow, reproduce and pass changes to offspring must exist before any evolutionary process may take place. I.e., life creates the chance for evolution to exist not the other way around.

2) Life in any shape or form is extremely complex. A single living cell is extremely complex. Life doesn’t not emerge spontaneously from nonliving matter. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory.

3) There are allegedly two general classes of evolutionary change: microevolution and macroevolution. The evidenced directed adaptation phenomenon was incorrectly understood as random microevolution, which in turn led to the false speculation of the unevidenced macroevolution.

4) Directed mutation of the organism gives rise to the observed adaptation process to allow the organism to better fit an environment. But adaptation never causes a family of organisms to transform to a different family. There is absolutely zero evidence to back up such claim. We can have new traits, but new traits will never cause the transformation to another family. Consider the example of artificial breeding of dogs, it will never create new species, it will always be dogs. If you breed different species, you get sterile offspring; you can never create a new species. It’s not possible. It’s only new traits.

5) Adaptation is a fact. Evolution is a myth. The adaptation process is never about better survival chance because of accidental advantageous random mutations among endless useless/harmful mutations. It’s always about directed mutation of the organism, which is controlled by the cell machinery to better fit an environment. In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that 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.”

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

 

[LIIA]

You are complaining about the need for rather small changes

Yeah, right, small changes. See attached article.

The "framework" is fine

See attached article

I know that you do not like it, but you are still a monkey.

No, I don’t but it appears that you enjoy being a monkey whether the ToE is true or false.

 

[LIIA]

A different moral theory for me? Is your purpose to change me or share your views? It must be the former if you find no value in further discussion on the matter. I'm content with my present understanding of what is right and wrong and how that is decided. I still find myself tweaking my behavior, but only when I notice that it is not achieving its intended purpose according to a stable set of core values and a humanist agenda.

No one can change the other. You’re the only one who can. It must be you; there is no other way. You are free and I don’t have any problem with your freedom as long as it doesn’t encroach on mine. I wouldn’t encroach on your freedom either. You bear the burden of your choices, no one else.

If you think you are the defining reference, then it’s all relative and we don’t have a common reference to define what is true or false. There is no point of the discussion. My purpose is only to convey a message; sure we may disagree; yet we stay fellow humans. On my end, I believe the "free will" is ordained by God himself. Who am I to change that? A forced choice is not a choice at all. We’re all free and God is the only judge.

you probably believe that moral values should be received through a religion. But those values are not mine, following them would feel immoral to me in places, and they were not chosen with the individual's (including my) interests at heart.

Not exactly, I believe moral values shouldn’t be relative but rather defined by an authority. The highest authority is God. Yet ignorant men who live on an isolated island can feel and value morality at heart even if they cannot specifically define it.

You’re making a judgment based on a specific limited understanding of the religious definition of morality and I cannot change that.

Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion for a practical purpose. It's the one that tells its adherents to be meek, to be longsuffering, and to turn the other cheek for a great reward after death. That's terrible advice for the individual in my estimation

Judaism addressed the need for law/justice. Christianity addressed the issue of rigid adherence to the law in Judaism by embracing a new level of love/tolerance. Islam restored the balance by affirming the essential need for justice while emphasizing the value of tolerance/forgiveness as a higher level of righteousness.

Of course. You seem surprised or disappointed. And that independence has served me well.

I’m neither surprised nor disappointed. You choose for yourself; you bear the burden of your choices. I wish you the best and for all of us to see the truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood, but I can’t choose for you or for anyone else. We’re all free.

 

[LIIA]

You say that, but you are completely ignoring that there are hundreds of philosophies, past and present, eastern and western, many of them long forgotten.

And more importantly, many are not rational at all, and often contemporary schools disagreed with another. Meaning, philosophies are different from one another, and not all are “rational”, “logical”, or “wise”.

Not all philosophies focus on natural phenomena. Many are social or cultural, while others focused on political issues, other still on morality.

For instances, neither Stoicism, nor Taoism, concerned itself with the studies of nature - the natural phenomena, plus the natural processes (or the mechanisms).

So how would you determine which of these hundreds of different philosophies to be true?

So my real question to you:

Which of these philosophies are you talking about?​

There is no “one philosophy”, LIIA.

Btw, @LIIA

The majority of philosophies are just talks - blah-blah-blah this, blah-blah-blah that - so they have no substances. To put it very bluntly, most of them are outdated pieces of craps.

Very few are worth the time of learning, but for me, only out of personal curiosity I would look at the fraction, but the rest are not worth my time.

I would to add that many of philosophies don’t EXPLAIN in any details in biology, especially molecular biology, genetics and evolution.

For instances:

Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the anatomy of brown bear, or that of horse, or that of the barn owl?Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the photosynthesis of plant life?Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the differences between the crocodiles and lizards?
None of the philosophies would offer any accurate or useful answers to those questions I have just ask you. There are no comparisons between modern natural sciences and any of the philosophies.

It’s neither my intention to do philosophy nor I’m here to argue about any school of philosophy nor made any claim that philosophy explains the anatomy of brown bear, horse, owl, crocodile, lizards or any animal nor philosophy provides answers to those kinds of questions that you asked. Why all of that confusion? What is wrong with you?

The point was the relationship between philosophy and the scientific method. It’s not possible to develop/test a theory or conduct scientific research without rational reasoning/inference logic. Such reasoning is the essential reference that allows for the evaluation of observations and affirming conclusions. Philosophy provides that reference. Whether it’s a deductive top-down reasoning, inductive bottom-up reasoning, the concept of falsification, the null hypothesis, it’s all fundamental aspects of the scientific method, which are only possible through philosophy. You cannot affirm something to be true/false without a philosophical ground to serve as the defining reference to validate the rationality of your conclusions.

 

[LIIA]

The c) is the dogmatic one as per Agrippa.
You have listed the 3 problems identified by Agrippa. "Ax is dependent on "the Absolute". "The Absolute" is non-contingent/first cause." is without evidence and treated as a fact, hence it is dogmatic.
What you don't understand is that all 3 happen in a given brain and are not observed independent of brains, yet they are all 3 about what is independent of brains.
And all 3 are a result of processes in brains. That is Agrippa's Trilemma.

Whether you deny all possibility of knowledge or advocate for the suspension of judgment, but it appears that to certain extent the reference/premise behind your skepticism is “Agrippa's Trilemma".

Your skepticism itself is a conclusion/judgment, which is derived from or based on a reference/premise. Meaning, you successfully managed to make a judgment based on a premise, which effectively defeats your original argument that no judgment is possible.

Regardless, if your reference is the Trilemma, then I’m using the Trilemma as a common reference for both of us to draw conclusions.

Again, we both agree that neither the circular nor the regressive argument is valid logically.

We are left with only the third mode of the Trilemma. You consider option C to be the dogmatic one but it’s not, here is why:

First, the dogmatic mode is about asserted arbitrary premise that is accepted without justification. This is not the case with option C. The problem with the fallacious “ad infinitum" mode of the Trilemma is that each proof requires a further proof. Logically, the only way to break such fallacious chain is to stop at an entity that doesn’t require further proof. Meaning, the entire chain must be grounded in a non-contingent entity that exists by virtue of its mere essence.

Second, even so the absolute is the only logical option to break the fallacious infinite regress, yet I never posed option C as a fact. I posed it only as an option not a fact (Being an option, it's not a dogmatic mode), and then I asked you which option of the 3 is logically valid. Obviously, it’s option C. I know you can see it. Why don’t you admit it?

If your view is “skepticism”, so I guess it’s Ok to be skeptic about “skepticism.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, right, small changes. See attached article.

View attachment 74893

See attached article

View attachment 74894



No, I don’t but it appears that you enjoy being a monkey whether the ToE is true or false.

We have have gone over why those articles fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like an honest question. You believe what you say. All of your life, you were made by many others to believe the evolutionary idea. It became a component of your belief system, which makes it hard for you to believe otherwise.

But first let's agree that the number of people who believe/support an idea has nothing to do with the validity of the idea (Ad Populum). Second, you should know that “who you are” reflects on your choices and on which side you want to be. It’s not really about your knowledge or intellect. On each side you will see all levels of knowledge/intellect, it’s not the decisive factor, it’s your "free will". You’re free to choose, you make your choice, not all choices are equal, and it will have consequences.

I explained the point about the ToE many times. The interface of this forum was recently updated; unfortunately, my older posts with highlighted snapshots from the scientific articles are no longer visible. I can’t repeat it, but I'll try to summarize. You may refer to #1864.

When we talk about the ToE as a scientific theory, we’re not concerned with Darwin's original ideas but rather the contemporary evolutionary theory today, which is “The Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism”. The MS is a mid-20th century view of evolution and till today there is no other scientific evolutionary theory other than the MS.

The proposed explanatory framework of the Modern Synthesis and all the central assumptions/mechanisms were found to contradict empirical evidence per latest scientific finds. Regardless of the challenges/new evidence, the MS is still considered as the mainstream evolutionary theory today and is still being taught in biology textbooks.

See attached PDF and the link below

View attachment 74887

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

Again, the MS is the only evolutionary theory, if the MS has failed, then the ToE has failed as a scientific theory. The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) was proposed to address this issue but currently there no agreed upon theoretical framework for the EES. Meaning, today there is no theory of evolution that is scientifically valid/agreed upon.

That said, now let's establish some basis and try to clear the confusion.

1) We have to understand/agree that evolution doesn’t explain life. A fully functioning living organism with the ability to stay alive, grow, reproduce and pass changes to offspring must exist before any evolutionary process may take place. I.e., life creates the chance for evolution to exist not the other way around.

2) Life in any shape or form is extremely complex. A single living cell is extremely complex. Life doesn’t not emerge spontaneously from nonliving matter. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory.

3) There are allegedly two general classes of evolutionary change: microevolution and macroevolution. The evidenced directed adaptation phenomenon was incorrectly understood as random microevolution, which in turn led to the false speculation of the unevidenced macroevolution.

4) Directed mutation of the organism gives rise to the observed adaptation process to allow the organism to better fit an environment. But adaptation never causes a family of organisms to transform to a different family. There is absolutely zero evidence to back up such claim. We can have new traits, but new traits will never cause the transformation to another family. Consider the example of artificial breeding of dogs, it will never create new species, it will always be dogs. If you breed different species, you get sterile offspring; you can never create a new species. It’s not possible. It’s only new traits.

5) Adaptation is a fact. Evolution is a myth. The adaptation process is never about better survival chance because of accidental advantageous random mutations among endless useless/harmful mutations. It’s always about directed mutation of the organism, which is controlled by the cell machinery to better fit an environment. In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that 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.”

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

We have gone over why those articles fail.

 

[LIIA]

Environmental pressure is the basis for natural selection, which I have said, by itself, was actually a good rational theory. If we stopped the theory of evolution, at Darwin's natural selection, that aspect can make predictions. If we placed thick and thin fur animals, from all over the world, in a tropical rain forest, I bet thin fur is selected. Thick fur will become a liability due to too much R-value. The loss of predictive value, in the modern theory, begins with DNA and casino math.

Before “natural selection" selects a favorable variant, we have to ask where all the variants came from. Per the ToE the variants emerge through a random process but do we really understand what such randomness entails? Do we understand the casino math?

Random mutation is supposedly an uncontrolled process. Any change of any kind (neutral, harmful or advantageous) may emerge at any time in an uncontrolled fashion. The random change is not a controlled response to a pressure. Environmental pressure doesn’t play any role till the variants emerge randomly. the change may or may not emerge and there is no guarantee that advantageous traits would happen among the endless random variants, if it does happen, then it would leave more offspring in the next generation than other variants and gradually becomes the dominant variant.

Random mutation means that the rule is a vast majority of non-advantageous/ harmful changes. The exception is the accidental/unintended change that happened to be advantageous within an environment.

Now, let's see if observations support the hypothesized randomness.

Do we ever see a polar bear random mutant in the Arctic environment with thin or dark fur? If the change process is random/uncontrolled, why we don’t see evidence of such random or harmful changes that keep emerging then get filtered out by selection? Random/uncontrolled change is not limited to fur color/thickness; it can be any error, deformation or non-advantageous changes of any kind that keep getting eliminated by selection. Maybe a limb that is missing, deformed, mislocated, longer on one side or any random change of any kind. It should be by far the vast majority of the random changes (compared to the exception which is the beneficial change) and should be observed in nature. We never see such random mess in nature. Mutations are not random. See #1245.

The response to the environmental pressure is controlled by the cell machinery. In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that 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.”

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

Randomness is a mathematical impossibility there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out all the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the alleged evolutionary process, even for a single species.

The Music of Life-sourcebook.pdf

 

[LIIA]

We have gone over why those articles fail.

really! Ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

really! Ok

Yep. Time for you to find some new arguments.

Perhaps you should state clearly what you believe. Then perhaps we could see if there were any valid sources that support you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whether you deny all possibility of knowledge or advocate for the suspension of judgment, but it appears that to certain extent the reference/premise behind your skepticism is “Agrippa's Trilemma".

Your skepticism itself is a conclusion/judgment, which is derived from or based on a reference/premise. Meaning, you successfully managed to make a judgment based on a premise, which effectively defeats your original argument that no judgment is possible.

Regardless, if your reference is the Trilemma, then I’m using the Trilemma as a common reference for both of us to draw conclusions.

Again, we both agree that neither the circular nor the regressive argument is valid logically.

We are left with only the third mode of the Trilemma. You consider option C to be the dogmatic one but it’s not, here is why:

First, the dogmatic mode is about asserted arbitrary premise that is accepted without justification. This is not the case with option C. The problem with the fallacious “ad infinitum" mode of the Trilemma is that each proof requires a further proof. Logically, the only way to break such fallacious chain is to stop at an entity that doesn’t require further proof. Meaning, the entire chain must be grounded in a non-contingent entity that exists by virtue of its mere essence.

Second, even so the absolute is the only logical option to break the fallacious infinite regress, yet I never posed option C as a fact. I posed it only as an option not a fact (Being an option, it's not a dogmatic mode), and then I asked you which option of the 3 is logically valid. Obviously, it’s option C. I know you can see it. Why don’t you admit it?

If your view is “skepticism”, so I guess it’s Ok to be skeptic about “skepticism.”

Let me explain something very simple. And I will take it one step at a time.
I can't by my own control move around as I want, because when I try to move in air and not fall to the ground, I fall to the ground, because I can't move as I please, therefore I can't move at all.
Please explain what I am talking for granted in my example and what is at play in general for the human ability to do something.

 

[exchemist]

Sounds like an honest question. You believe what you say. All of your life, you were made by many others to believe the evolutionary idea. It became a component of your belief system, which makes it hard for you to believe otherwise.

But first let's agree that the number of people who believe/support an idea has nothing to do with the validity of the idea (Ad Populum). Second, you should know that “who you are” reflects on your choices and on which side you want to be. It’s not really about your knowledge or intellect. On each side you will see all levels of knowledge/intellect, it’s not the decisive factor, it’s your "free will". You’re free to choose, you make your choice, not all choices are equal, and it will have consequences.

I explained the point about the ToE many times. The interface of this forum was recently updated; unfortunately, my older posts with highlighted snapshots from the scientific articles are no longer visible. I can’t repeat it, but I'll try to summarize. You may refer to #1864.

When we talk about the ToE as a scientific theory, we’re not concerned with Darwin's original ideas but rather the contemporary evolutionary theory today, which is “The Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism”. The MS is a mid-20th century view of evolution and till today there is no other scientific evolutionary theory other than the MS.

The proposed explanatory framework of the Modern Synthesis and all the central assumptions/mechanisms were found to contradict empirical evidence per latest scientific finds. Regardless of the challenges/new evidence, the MS is still considered as the mainstream evolutionary theory today and is still being taught in biology textbooks.

See attached PDF and the link below

View attachment 74887

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

Again, the MS is the only evolutionary theory, if the MS has failed, then the ToE has failed as a scientific theory. The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) was proposed to address this issue but currently there no agreed upon theoretical framework for the EES. Meaning, today there is no theory of evolution that is scientifically valid/agreed upon.

That said, now let's establish some basis and try to clear the confusion.

1) We have to understand/agree that evolution doesn’t explain life. A fully functioning living organism with the ability to stay alive, grow, reproduce and pass changes to offspring must exist before any evolutionary process may take place. I.e., life creates the chance for evolution to exist not the other way around.

2) Life in any shape or form is extremely complex. A single living cell is extremely complex. Life doesn’t not emerge spontaneously from nonliving matter. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory.

3) There are allegedly two general classes of evolutionary change: microevolution and macroevolution. The evidenced directed adaptation phenomenon was incorrectly understood as random microevolution, which in turn led to the false speculation of the unevidenced macroevolution.

4) Directed mutation of the organism gives rise to the observed adaptation process to allow the organism to better fit an environment. But adaptation never causes a family of organisms to transform to a different family. There is absolutely zero evidence to back up such claim. We can have new traits, but new traits will never cause the transformation to another family. Consider the example of artificial breeding of dogs, it will never create new species, it will always be dogs. If you breed different species, you get sterile offspring; you can never create a new species. It’s not possible. It’s only new traits.

5) Adaptation is a fact. Evolution is a myth. The adaptation process is never about better survival chance because of accidental advantageous random mutations among endless useless/harmful mutations. It’s always about directed mutation of the organism, which is controlled by the cell machinery to better fit an environment. In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that 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.”

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

Your reply does not address my question, actually. You asserted evolution is regarded as an axiom rather than a normal scientific theory, suggesting - if I am right in following your line of thought - that it is thus protected from the normal scrutiny and testing of scientific theories. Nothing you have posted supports that assertion, however.

You have highlighted the exact opposite, in fact. Your examples show that the theory is constantly under review and parts of it are disputed, as we discover more mechanisms by which evolution can occur. That is evidence it is not treated as axiomatic.

No one, to my knowledge (though I am not a specialist), has suggested that the orginal idea of evolution by viariation and natural selection is wrong. The subsequent debates have been about supplementary mechanisms such as epigenetics, or other ways in which genetic information can be transmitted beside DNA in the nucleus, and so forth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your reply does not address my question, actually. You asserted evolution is regarded as an axiom rather than a normal scientific theory, suggesting - if I am right in following your line of thought - that it is thus protected from the normal scrutiny and testing of scientific theories. Nothing you have posted supports that assertion, however.

You have highlighted the exact opposite, in fact. Your examples show that the theory is constantly under review and parts of it are disputed, as we discover more mechanisms by which evolution can occur. That is evidence it is not treated as axiomatic.

No one, to my knowledge (though I am not a specialist), has suggested that the orginal idea of evolution by viariation and natural selection is wrong. The subsequent debates have been about supplementary mechanisms such as epigenetics, or other ways in which genetic information can be transmitted beside DNA in the nucleus, and so forth.

Yes, they conflate the following.
The current model of evolution is not true, thus evolution is wrong.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, they conflate the following.
The current model of evolution is not true, thus evolution is wrong.

It's not even that it's "not true", so far as I can see. It seems to me that, as is also true of many theories, it has defects and needs revision, rather than being "untrue".

Nobody anywhere in the relevant fields has suggested it is untrue that:
1) organisms change over generations - via a series of processes we are still learning about - to adapt better to their environment and,
2) crucially, that this leads to the appearance of new species.

That is what evolution is about, basically, whatever the details of the mechanisms responsible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your reply does not address my question, actually. You asserted evolution is regarded as an axiom rather than a normal scientific theory, suggesting - if I am right in following your line of thought - that it is thus protected from the normal scrutiny and testing of scientific theories. Nothing you have posted supports that assertion, however.

You have highlighted the exact opposite, in fact. Your examples show that the theory is constantly under review and parts of it are disputed, as we discover more mechanisms by which evolution can occur. That is evidence it is not treated as axiomatic.

No one, to my knowledge (though I am not a specialist), has suggested that the orginal idea of evolution by viariation and natural selection is wrong. The subsequent debates have been about supplementary mechanisms such as epigenetics, or other ways in which genetic information can be transmitted beside DNA in the nucleus, and so forth.

Winner Frube!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, they conflate the following.
The current model of evolution is not true, thus evolution is wrong.

Like it is all or nothing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Interactions of matter don’t give rise to consciousness/self-awareness/the ability to have qualia.

Disagree. They probably do.

there is no evidence to such claim

Disagree again. Various modifications of matter (brain) result in predictable alterations of consciousness.

consciousness/self-awareness is not even understood or can be explained by science.

Agreed, yet here you are making pronouncements about what it can and cannot be.

On the other hand, the NDEs prove that consciousness is non-physical and continues beyond the non-functioning physical body. You say it’s not convincing but in what sense?

Disagree. It's not an example of a mind without a living brain.

It’s not a theory but rather documented events that were verified through scientific research.

But we don't know what they signify.

All of your life, you were made by many others to believe the evolutionary idea. It became a component of your belief system, which makes it hard for you to believe otherwise.

Not my life. I don't remember hearing about it before high school, and it wasn't a course taught. What I also didn't have was a religious upbringing, and so also had no god concept. I didn't really wonder about where everything came from until I was older. I learned about evolution in a college course, and it was education, not indoctrination. The difference is that indoctrination is repetition without a sound, evidenced argument, and your indoctrinator cares if you believe or not. My evolution professor never asked me what I believe, just whether I knew the course material in tests.

If you think you are the defining reference, then it’s all relative and we don’t have a common reference to define what is true or false.

Weren't we discussing deciding right from wrong and good from bad? We do have a common reference for deciding correct and incorrect if we are both critical thinkers and apply the same fallacy-free reasoning to the same evidence. That process also works with moral issues if we share the same values, but our moral intuitions (premises) aren't rational. I subscribe to utilitarian ethics for societies and the Golden Rule for myself. Why? I have no reason other than that it feels right, which is why I call it nonrational. It isn't derived using reason. It's received like all intuitions, from invisible processing centers that only give us their conclusions.

I believe moral values shouldn’t be relative but rather defined by an authority. The highest authority is God.

That's consistent with what I wrote: "you probably believe that moral values should be received through a religion." The humanist generally has his own moral intuitions and follows those, although some might look to systems like Buddhism and Confucianism for moral guidance. I never did, but came to much the same conclusions independently, as they were apparently using the same method of applying reason to similar native moral intuitions.

You’re making a judgment based on a specific limited understanding of the religious definition of morality and I cannot change that.

In the Abrahamic religions, moral behavior is whatever the deity commands, does, or says. It's called divine command theory. If the deity says that homosexuality or unbelief is an abomination, that makes it so for the believer.

Judaism addressed the need for law/justice. Christianity addressed the issue of rigid adherence to the law in Judaism by embracing a new level of love/tolerance. Islam restored the balance by affirming the essential need for justice while emphasizing the value of tolerance/forgiveness as a higher level of righteousness.

But none of that addresses the comment in its quote box: "Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion for a practical purpose. It's the one that tells its adherents to be meek, to be longsuffering, and to turn the other cheek for a great reward after death. That's terrible advice for the individual in my estimation." Can I assume that you cannot falsify any of that? Your response is to give what you believe is the case without explaining why you think what you read cannot be correct (rebuttal, contradiction, counterargument). I'm not moved by the Christian understanding of love, justice, or mercy.

Per the ToE the variants emerge through a random process but do we really understand what such randomness entails?

Do we need to understand it? Sometimes, it's gene reshuffling during meiosis. Sometimes, it's a copying error. Sometimes, it's a cosmic ray piercing a DNA molecule. Sometimes, the randomness results from a founder effect. It's all the same to natural selection.

If the change process is random/uncontrolled, why we don’t see evidence of such random or harmful changes that keep emerging then get filtered out by selection?

We do. Evolution tried an interesting experiment with Jeffrey Dahmer: cannibalism. In another culture under different circumstances, that might have conferred a selective advantage and spread through the population and its gene pool, but in Jeffrey's world, it got him incarcerated then murdered before he reproduced - a failed experiment.

Randomness is a mathematical impossibility there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out all the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the alleged evolutionary process, even for a single species.

That's a philosophical issue - whether anything is really random. It appears so on the quantum level, anyway, but even if the universe is strictly determined, if we can't make the determination and predict the outcomes, then the event can be considered unpredictable and treated as random.

The argument you linked to is a variation of Hoyle's junkyard tornado and 747 fallacy, which generates astronomical numbers by treating all events as independent.

Also, there is no requirement that all possibilities be tested, nor any expectation that they should or could. The process works fine testing whatever nature serves up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We have have gone over why those articles fail.

I thought repeat what Denis Noble says was supposed to happen on the first. I missed it anyway I guess. I'm so sad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We have gone over why those articles fail.

The hubris of a non-scientist making declarations regarding theories, lines of research, routine examination of theory and disagreement among scientists and blowing it all out of proportion on the bias of a belief-based agenda bearing all the flaws they project onto science amuses me.

The claim that the study of evolution is all or mostly axiom and then using arguments by scientists based on evidence is the sort of contradiction I have come to expect here. Along with the usual logical fallacies and reliance on the ignorance of a particular portion of their audience that would agree with them no matter what nonsense they espouse.

We have theories to best explain the evidence. If we knew everything, we wouldn't need them. We wouldn't need science. That actually seems to be the ultimate goal here. Disavow science and return to the golden age of ignorance so that a few can tell the rest how to think.

 

[gnostic]

It’s neither my intention to do philosophy nor I’m here to argue about any school of philosophy nor made any claim that philosophy explains the anatomy of brown bear, horse, owl, crocodile, lizards or any animal nor philosophy provides answers to those kinds of questions that you asked. Why all of that confusion? What is wrong with you?

The point was the relationship between philosophy and the scientific method. It’s not possible to develop/test a theory or conduct scientific research without rational reasoning/inference logic. Such reasoning is the essential reference that allows for the evaluation of observations and affirming conclusions. Philosophy provides that reference. Whether it’s a deductive top-down reasoning, inductive bottom-up reasoning, the concept of falsification, the null hypothesis, it’s all fundamental aspects of the scientific method, which are only possible through philosophy. You cannot affirm something to be true/false without a philosophical ground to serve as the defining reference to validate the rationality of your conclusions.

But you are still ignoring the facts that hundreds of philosophies don’t use rational reasoning or logic.

Most philosophies are related to how one should behave or how ones should live their lives...hence most of them have to do with cultural or social philosophies. And here, it goes beyond being rational or logical, WHICH ARE REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO STUDY OF NATURE.

Only a fraction of the philosophies involved pure logic and reasoning, and even then, these are not always compatible with Natural Sciences.

Sure, scientists needs to be rational, logical, analytical, methodological, and so on, and it is a good thing to have does qualities, but even then physical evidence take precedence over anyone’s logic & reasoning.

Reasons and logic alone, don’t make a hypothesis into science.

To give you an example:

Picture this: a scientist, known for his superior logical reasoning, starts a new hypothesis on some phenomena.

What if the person’s rationality or logic is wrong, because the evidence refute his hypothesis. Do that scientist simply ignore the evidence because of his supreme intellect?

If such scientist, then he is allowing his ego cloud his judgment, because he no longer following the requirements of Scientific Method. That’s biases, LIIA. It is bias when a scientist ignore evidence that counter the hypothesis.

I seriously don’t think you understand the Scientific Method, if you think logic and reasoning alone would rule over evidence. It doesn’t.

The testable evidence are, what make a hypothesis or scientific theory, “science”.

The whole purposes of the scientific Method:

• To test the explanations & predictions of a model in the hypothesis or theory.
• To test the logic and maths (eg equations, formulas, constants, numbers, etc).

The “test” means “observation”, eg EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENTS, DATA.

It is the evidence, not the logic and reasoning that determine if the hypothesis or theory -

• true or false,
• probable or improbable,
• verified or refuted/debunked.

All reasoning and logic must be tested. No reasoning or logic are true by-default.

I am not saying that scientists shouldn’t be logical or rational. Sure, they have to be. Logic and rationality can be helpful when developing a new hypothesis. But it evidence that objectively determine which hypothesis is scientific or not.

Philosophies, the majority of them, are just talks, they have no values if there are no evidence to support the studies of nature.

There are only 3 requirements that must be needed for any prospective “theory”:

• That the concept be “falsifiable”.
• That it followed the requirement of Scientific Method, which involves 2 stages -

1. Formulation of the hypothesis (which is to turn “concept” into detailed “explanations” with predictions)
2. Test the hypothesis (eg evidence & experiments)

• Peer Review (presents the hypothesis, plus evidence & data, to independent scientists to analyze, review & test them, as well to find errors or discrepancies)

Failing the 1st point (Falsifiability), won’t allow scientist to proceed to the next (Scientific Method). And a scientist would only present his works for peer-review if his testing support the explanations & predictions in the hypothesis.

Philosophy is useless in this regards.