Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

I don't know. I hate the terminology. "Consciousness" arose because life couldn't exist without it. It might have arisen in fits and starts as life became more complex. It is the means by which every individual (except homo omnisciencis) survives.

It is definitional to life.

True, Consciousness/cognitive capacity with the ability of input processing/decision making is definitional to life. Even the smallest living cells (prokaryotes) are no exception. Yes, life couldn’t exist without it.

The concept of Consciousness and how life of all kinds depends on it is a much higher level of understanding of life that many cannot wrap their head around (even so it’s actually a scientific fact). That is why in my post #5999, I intentionally didn’t mention the “cognitive capacity” as an essential component at the very top of the "irreducible complexity of life" to avoid triggering confusion/denial.

“Irreducible complexity" in a limited sense is concerned with the biological systems but in a broader sense, it includes consciousness/cognitive capacity, as an essential aspect that life wouldn’t be possible without it.

The scientific article below sheds light on the cognitive capacity of the living cells. Here are some quotes from the article:
“These observations indicate that all living cells are cognitive.”
“COGNITION IS A BASIC FEATURE OF LIFE”
“Wherever examined, even the smallest living cells (prokaryotes) display sophisticated regulatory networks establishing appropriate adaptations to stress conditions that maximize the probability of survival.”

Here is the link for the article:

All living cells are cognitive

We discussed consciousness/cognitive capacity of life before on this thread and the sources below were previously provided.

- "Bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than thought."
"We see now that bacteria are, in their way, big thinkers, and by knowing how they 'feel' about the environment around them, we can look at new and different ways to work with them."
Bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than thought -- ScienceDaily

- Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart
Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart (evo2.org)

- How bacteria choose a lifestyle
How bacteria choose a lifestyle | Nature

- How Do Bacteria Decide Where to Divide?
How Do Bacteria Decide Where to Divide?: Cell

-The intricacy of choice: can bacteria decide what type of myeloid cells to stimulate?
Editorial: The intricacy of choice: can bacteria decide what type of myeloid cells to stimulate? - PMC (nih.gov)

- Brainy bacteria could revolutionize healthcare
Brainy bacteria could revolutionise healthcare | Research | The Guardian

- "Researcher teases out secrets from surprisingly ‘intelligent’ viruses"
“Viruses are very intelligent. They can think. They do things that we do not expect. They adapt to the environment. They change themselves in order to survive,”
Researcher teases out secrets from surprisingly 'intelligent' viruses - USC News

- Microbial intelligence
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

Nobody burns in hell.

This thread is not about comparative theology, but every claim must have a reference. You are a Christian. Your reference is the Bible. Jesus (PBUH) taught about hell/eternal place of punishment more than anyone else in the Bible. Here are some examples:

1- “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
(Matthew 25:41)

2- “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
(Matthew 25:46)

3- “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister [a] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
(Matthew 5:22)

4- “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
(Matthew 5:30-29)

5- “In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”
(Luke 16:23-24)

6- “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell
(Mark 9:43-47)

7- “But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”
(Luke 12:5)

The test (of earthly life) brings out who you are. “Who you are” is permanent. Your eternal settlement must be consistent with who you are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, whether creationism provides a model or not, it has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the ToE. You’re playing a false dichotomy.

Second, as I explained many times, you are under the illusion that you have a model that explains the observations which is absolutely false. From the largest scale to the smallest scale known to mankind, do you really think you have explanations? Do you have a model that explains how dark energy drives cosmic objects apart? Do you have a model that explains how the strong nuclear force holds together the fundamental particles to maintain the stability of matter? All what you really have is some given names of unknowns that exert influence on matter in an unknown way yet you think you have an explanation! Your typical explanation is “The unknown force did it in an unknown way” How is that an explanation? It’s really pathetic.

Even if you are happy with your model “the unknown force caused the observed influence in an unknown way” then why don’t you go a step further and ask what entity/force caused these unknown forces itself (we know that it’s not a brute fact). Our inquiry for causes can never stop till we reach a brute fact. God is the brute fact that gave rise to every contingent entity.

As we approach the fundamental levels of reality, no explanations are possible. We can only observe an influence and infer that a cause exists. The hierarchy of relative causes must end at the absolute first cause. The absolute cause is causeless, yet its existence is logically necessary to explain every caused entity. No other explanation is possible or logical.

No, that is not a false dichotomy. But it does point to hypocrisy on your part. We know why you are doing this.

And you need to provide evidence that there is an "absolute cause". Right now that just looks like unjustified nonsense. You are making the mistake of ignoring quantum physics. Not everything has a "cause".

The current model does not answer all questions. But it beats your failed reasoning into the ground. You are making unjustified assumption, where scientists are willing to say "We don't know yet" in answer to certain problems. It is always better to admit when one does not know something for sure instead of making up bull**** to save one's superstitious beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow! A long post with an attempt to be rational and you provided your source for a change!! Amazing, this is not your style! Who wrote this post for you? But regardless of the nice attempt, it’s still pathetic.

So, you acknowledge that the journal is well known peer-reviewed publisher, Peter A. Corning is a highly qualified scientist but his specific article that you don’t like is merely an opinion!! How pathetic? Peer-reviewed articles are accessible via the academic databases. Here is another link to the same article via one of the Academic Databases for the Health and Biomedical Sciences (PubMed)

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

Your denial is beyond pathetic. But again, the sources provided in #4087 were not limited to the work of Corning on Elsevier but also many other prominent scientists such as Noble, Müller, Steele, Crkvenjakov, Heng, Gorczynski, Lindley, Tokoro and may others as published on multiple well known publishers. See #4087

Darwin's Illusion

Wow! Amazingly poor reading comprehension on your part. Perhaps that is why you never understand any of the few valid sources that you can find.

I did not say that was well known and well respected. I pointed out how scientists think that it no longer is well respected Elsevier is no longer well respected. You will find many scientists that no longer read their publications or will do peer review for them since they went predatroy.

As to PubMed, that is just a search engine. It is not a "seal of approval".

Any article in medicine or biology will likely be referenced there It can be handy at times when one is looking for articles in the field.

You failed at finding a well respected source.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

”We’re never neutral”. When I said “we”, did I claim myself to be the exception? “We” means all of us. I’m no exception but at least I’m aware of it. Got it.

Yes, that is a good point. But the problem is that there is more than just one we as in play in practice. So even we are never neutral means in practice different biases and no just we are never neutral, so we all have the same bias.

So what is your bias and what is mine?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1+1=2 (Y)
Go ahead and do (Z), I guess you can if you’re irrational, but it will be logically false.

Yeah, all of the world is 1+1=2 and not anything else. In fact since everything is 1+1=2 you are not reading anything else that 1+1=2, right now?!!! So if you think anything else that 1+1=2, you are delusional, right?!!!
So don't do anything else than 1+1=2! But if you answer differently than 1+1=2, then you have proven my point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, we can do differently. But when it comes to “1+1”, there is only one logical Answer. We cannot answer differently unless you are irrational and since you already acknowledged that you are irrational, then go ahead and do differently but it will be false from a logical perspective.

We’re all different but the quality of being different or the ability to do differently has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of ideas. The validity is governed by logic (if you’re rational and acknowledge logic as the reference).

3!!! Everything is 3 and if you claim otherwise, you are irrational, because everything is 3.

Now if you want to do the law of non-contradiction and its limit, we can do that. Not that it doesn't work at all, but that it is limited in how it works, then we can do that, but until then 3!!!

 

[blü 2]

you are under the illusion that you have a model that explains the observations which is absolutely false.

The modern ToE, derived by empiricism and induction, sets out, like any system of reasoned enquiry into nature, to explore, describe and seek to explain.

To be fair, creationism doesn't seek to explain nature. But in bypassing the evidence of nature, creationism still can't explain the nature or processes of the magic it relies on instead.

From the largest scale to the smallest scale known to mankind, do you really think you have explanations?

Perfect explanations? No, in science there are no absolute statements.

The best explanations available in 2023? Dang sure!

Do you have a model that explains how dark energy drives cosmic objects apart?

Dark energy is the name of a problem, not a thing. At this time it's just a particularly obvious example of science being a work in progress.

As to the answer to the dark energy problem, if science doesn't find it, no one else will.

Do you have a model that explains how the strong nuclear force holds together the fundamental particles to maintain the stability of matter?

There are many cases in physics where the what must suffice for the why until we learn more. Meanwhile you continue to live off the benefits of science ─ such as being able to post on RF, or be made more resistant to Covid than you'd otherwise be, or buy an electric vehicle with a practical range of 400 miles, and so on.

Since you mention creationism, what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?

 

[cladking]

First, whether creationism provides a model or not, it has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the ToE. You’re playing a false dichotomy.

Second, as I explained many times, you are under the illusion that you have a model that explains the observations which is absolutely false. From the largest scale to the smallest scale known to mankind, do you really think you have explanations? Do you have a model that explains how dark energy drives cosmic objects apart? Do you have a model that explains how the strong nuclear force holds together the fundamental particles to maintain the stability of matter? All what you really have is some given names of unknowns that exert influence on matter in an unknown way yet you think you have an explanation! Your typical explanation is “The unknown force did it in an unknown way” How is that an explanation? It’s really pathetic.

Even if you are happy with your model “the unknown force caused the observed influence in an unknown way” then why don’t you go a step further and ask what entity/force caused these unknown forces itself (we know that it’s not a brute fact). Our inquiry for causes can never stop till we reach a brute fact. God is the brute fact that gave rise to every contingent entity.

As we approach the fundamental levels of reality, no explanations are possible. We can only observe an influence and infer that a cause exists. The hierarchy of relative causes must end at the absolute first cause. The absolute cause is causeless, yet its existence is logically necessary to explain every caused entity. No other explanation is possible or logical.

There's not even a model for how everything can be intimately related. Where is the model for how butterflies cause hurricanes? How can we know everything and nothing simultaneously?

 

[cladking]

The modern ToE, derived by empiricism and induction, sets out, like any system of reasoned enquiry into nature, to explore, describe and seek to explain.

Empiricism is not science and induction is word play, not science. Only experiment can lead to a conclusion not defined by the assumptions and deduction can speed the process.

The best explanations available in 2023? Dang sure!

Every witchdoctor who ever lived said the same thing. There are better answers even today.

Since you mention creationism, what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?

It invented science.

Life has far more in common with religion than science. Living a life with only scientific perspective and no spirituality is not a good thing for most individuals. No, don't run out and adopt a family of beliefs but we should accept and embrace the fact that we have no answers.

 

[cladking]

True, Consciousness/cognitive capacity with the ability of input processing/decision making is definitional to life. Even the smallest living cells (prokaryotes) are no exception. Yes, life couldn’t exist without it.

The concept of Consciousness and how life of all kinds depends on it is a much higher level of understanding of life that many cannot wrap their head around (even so it’s actually a scientific fact). That is why in my post #5999, I intentionally didn’t mention the “cognitive capacity” as an essential component at the very top of the "irreducible complexity of life" to avoid triggering confusion/denial.

“Irreducible complexity" in a limited sense is concerned with the biological systems but in a broader sense, it includes consciousness/cognitive capacity, as an essential aspect that life wouldn’t be possible without it.

The scientific article below sheds light on the cognitive capacity of the living cells. Here are some quotes from the article:
“These observations indicate that all living cells are cognitive.”
“COGNITION IS A BASIC FEATURE OF LIFE”
“Wherever examined, even the smallest living cells (prokaryotes) display sophisticated regulatory networks establishing appropriate adaptations to stress conditions that maximize the probability of survival.”

Here is the link for the article:

All living cells are cognitive

We discussed consciousness/cognitive capacity of life before on this thread and the sources below were previously provided.

- "Bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than thought."
"We see now that bacteria are, in their way, big thinkers, and by knowing how they 'feel' about the environment around them, we can look at new and different ways to work with them."
Bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than thought -- ScienceDaily

- Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart
Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart (evo2.org)

- How bacteria choose a lifestyle
How bacteria choose a lifestyle | Nature

- How Do Bacteria Decide Where to Divide?
How Do Bacteria Decide Where to Divide?: Cell

-The intricacy of choice: can bacteria decide what type of myeloid cells to stimulate?
Editorial: The intricacy of choice: can bacteria decide what type of myeloid cells to stimulate? - PMC (nih.gov)

- Brainy bacteria could revolutionize healthcare
Brainy bacteria could revolutionise healthcare | Research | The Guardian

- "Researcher teases out secrets from surprisingly ‘intelligent’ viruses"
“Viruses are very intelligent. They can think. They do things that we do not expect. They adapt to the environment. They change themselves in order to survive,”
Researcher teases out secrets from surprisingly 'intelligent' viruses - USC News

- Microbial intelligence
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia

Thank you. I had no idea that there had been any real work done in this area. When you stay on the back roads you're late to a lot of parties.

 

[gnostic]

you fail to understand that my concern is the scientific theory of evolution. the theory has failed as a scientific theory. it's a verifiable fact. do you understand? I'm not concerned about your axiom. you may keep it.

So you believe that Genetic Drift don’t work? Or that Mutations don’t happen?

What are genes and DNA? Do you ignore the evidence of these?

Where and when are you living in? In the mid-14th century? Or in the Dark Ages, perhaps?

Btw, Mutations, Genetic Drift & Natural Selection, are each verifiable mechanisms, not axioms as you are falsely claiming.

The relatedness of the living and extant species of humans and chimpanzees, the DNA are much closer than those DNA of other species of apes.

But such DNA doesn’t say that humans evolved from chimpanzees, or chimpanzees evolved from humans; no what the genome tests reveal both have evolved from common but some extinct species some 6 million years ago. One of those extinct species is the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, dated to 7 million years ago, the possible divergence. They still needs more fossil evidence, before they can verify & conclude this is the species in which the modern humans & modern chimpanzees came from.

Beside you ignoring the evidence that supporting evolutionary biology, do you have any better alternative hypothesis to diversity of life, other than your personal opinions against evolution?

 

[cladking]

The concept of Consciousness and how life of all kinds depends on it is a much higher level of understanding of life that many cannot wrap their head around (even so it’s actually a scientific fact). That is why in my post #5999, I intentionally didn’t mention the “cognitive capacity” as an essential component at the very top of the "irreducible complexity of life" to avoid triggering confusion/denial.

“Irreducible complexity" in a limited sense is concerned with the biological systems but in a broader sense, it includes consciousness/cognitive capacity, as an essential aspect that life wouldn’t be possible without it.

I often ponder how the first life arose without consciousness. Of course there are many possibilities and life/ consciousness might have evolved together. Perhaps it was so effective at the simplest levels that nature worked on creating ever more complex organisms with ever more complex consciousness. Nature "wants" her every creature to survive which is why they are all equally fit. She wants species to survive which is why "fitness" is defined differently in every individual. I'm neither striving to exclude nor include a Creator, but as you say at some point we will have to ponder the "ultimate (initial) cause". In the meantime I just don't know but I sure do know almost everybody from ditchdiggers to peers misunderstand science and theory. Humans misunderstand the nature of consciousness because we are different than other life forms.

 

[gnostic]

Since you mention creationism, what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?

It invented science.

Life has far more in common with religion than science. Living a life with only scientific perspective and no spirituality is not a good thing for most individuals. No, don't run out and adopt a family of beliefs but we should accept and embrace the fact that we have no answers.

It’s good to know you have a personal standard of how far you’d bury your head in the sands of your superstitious religion.

It would explain that you are hack in science, history and language, subjects that you don’t even understand, so you would invent fake science, fake history and fake language.

 

[cladking]

Yeah, all of the world is 1+1=2 and not anything else. In fact since everything is 1+1=2 you are not reading anything else that 1+1=2, right now?!!! So if you think anything else that 1+1=2, you are delusional, right?!!!
So don't do anything else than 1+1=2! But if you answer differently than 1+1=2, then you have proven my point.

This is the first error we all learn. Reality doesn't include "two" of anything at all. There are only zero and one. What we call "two" is really "the first one plus the second one". All of our errors derive from modern language and thought.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the first error we all learn. Reality doesn't include "two" of anything at all. There are only zero and one. What we call "two" is really "the first one plus the second one". All of our errors derive from modern language and thought.

Yeah, but even one is a mental construct. Stop doing that and stop using language and thought at all. That is your error!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Considering that the evidence indicates that 99.9% of all living things that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct, dead and gone, nature doesn't seem too concerned about who or what lives, just so long as something does. And even if living things are wiped out, nature can start from fresh with the right conditions.

Our survival and success are not guaranteed or equal for all. Even if you make it onto this world, there is a constant struggle for resources and the successful use of them.

I find it odd to see claims of equality of spirit equated to biological success as if it were a fact when the reality is far more obtuse and even harsh. The successful leader that embodies all the qualities of fitness that some erroneously impute to biological fitness may have far less reproductive fitness than a janitor with 10 and barely enough money to scrape by.

That is the oddest thing I find about those remaining detractors of the scientific theory. If they were successful and removed it and much of science from the landscape, it wouldn't change any of the things they claim it impacts. Nature would go on just as it is. Just as it had before we came along and picked philosophies or made discoveries about the world around us.

Not all eggs get laid. Not all that do hatch. Not all those newborn things manage to live to age. Those that do struggle with each other and with other living things to maintain survival. There are differences that philosophical pandering will not cover up.

Living on a fantasy or conscripting metaphors for biological constructs and interactions doesn't make those fantasies or conscripts real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If we are all equally fit, then a family of four from Iowa should be able to live successfully and survive as easily as tuna 200 km out to sea and 200 meters down.

That is the sort of sense one is dealing with when confronting claims of equality of fitness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that is not a false dichotomy. But it does point to hypocrisy on your part. We know why you are doing this.

And you need to provide evidence that there is an "absolute cause". Right now that just looks like unjustified nonsense. You are making the mistake of ignoring quantum physics. Not everything has a "cause".

The current model does not answer all questions. But it beats your failed reasoning into the ground. You are making unjustified assumption, where scientists are willing to say "We don't know yet" in answer to certain problems. It is always better to admit when one does not know something for sure instead of making up bull**** to save one's superstitious beliefs.

Did you ever notice how often people forget about metaphors and start to think the metaphor is an actual description of something. DNA described by metaphor as language--something we do know a little about--so that we can better come to understand DNA. I don't see the unconscious interaction of microbes describe metaphorically as cognition to be any different.

But those that want their personal views to be the truth for all, latch onto this ignorantly, and like the plague, try all the logical fallacies and tricks to get their personal view to spread like a pathogen.

I also find interesting, the claims that those that do accept science are falsely seen to cling to it as a means to know everything. The interesting part is that these claims are levied by those that attack from a perceived position of belief that they know everything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, but even one is a mental construct. Stop doing that and stop using language and thought at all. That is your error!

I'm with you 100%. I think there are some here whose time would be better spent trying to send me their thoughts telepathically rather than waste words here that could be interpreted to mean anything. Direct brain to brain communication. Cut out the middle man. That's what my dad always said.

Well, he really didn't, but it sounds folksy and almost true to say so.