Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

This was in response to, "If you were correct, you could verify it here. You could show your sound, evidenced argument that shows that natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations did not produce the tree of life. But you can't, because the theory is correct, and correct ideas cannot be falsified." I don't see that sound, evidenced rebuttal, just a sentence with some words outlined in orange and an expression of skepticism without counterargument.

When we talk about the theory of evolution, we’re specifically talking about the Modern Synthesis. Currently there is no other agreed upon theory. Latest advances of the 21st century science disproved the MS and all its fundamental assumptions. I didn’t only highlight some keywords of the abstract but also provided the link to the entire article as well as many other articles before.

That said, if you don’t want to read these articles and insist to dwell in denial, then it's up to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

really? shouldn't the random change appear first before selection would play any role? pathetic

LOL! Yes, your understanding is pathetic. Evolution is continual. Random variation is always making new information. Most of it worthless. But it only takes a small percentage to enable it to advance.

 

[LIIA]

There are no examples of irreducible complexity, just the claims. I think the scientific community is done doing that. I know of several biological systems offered by cdesign-proponentists as irreducibly complex that were debunked - eye, flagellum, clotting cascade, and immune system - but I imagine that the scientists are just disregarding these claims now. Bare claims don't need debunking.

I did explain my point about irreducible complexity in #5999. You didn’t pay much attention and simply ignored everything I said. You may go back and read it.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 300 | Religious Forums

Lets keep things simple, the main point is specifically about “survival”. If the organism doesn’t survive, it doesn’t evolve. “Survival” is a product of numerous interdependent functions, if you take a system out or only a key component of a system, survival wouldn’t be possible (irreducible complexity).

For example, an animal that has all required complex interdependent systems for survival but missing only the “Epiglottis” or maybe something simpler such as the “Anus”, how long it would survive to somehow get one through some random means? The animal simply would neither survive nor evolve.

Now let's touch upon another less tangible aspect of life, which is the “psychological characteristics” such as feelings, awareness, and behavior. Assuming that the animal somehow got all necessary physiological functions but doesn’t have a feeling/desire to feed or maybe feeding causes unpleasant/painful experience, the animal would neither feed nor survive. If the animal can feel the need/desire to feed but doesn’t have the ability of input processing/decision making, it can neither feed nor survive. If it doesn’t have pain awareness, it will not survive. If it doesn’t feel a desire to mate, it will neither survive nor pass changes to offspring. Survival is contingent upon all necessary psychological and physiological systems being functional from day one (irreducible complexity).

The alleged gradual change/transitional forms is a myth (nonexistent in the fossil record). Generally, whether the entity subject to the alleged gradual change is an organic molecule or actually a living system, survival/persistence is an absolute prerequisite before any gradual change of any kind may emerge/materialize. Neither a living system can survive without the vital functions from day one nor a biomolecule can persist for a long time without getting decomposed/disintegrated. If survival/persistence of a system is not possible, then no evolutionary process of any kind is possible

Only a perfect organism equipped with all required vital functions for survival from day one may persist and adapt (through directed mutations, see #1245). What we witness in the real world is directed adaptation not random microevolution. The hypothesis of macroevolution is false.

 

[LIIA]

always making new information. Most of it worthless.

Really? Why we never see examples of these worthless new random changes in nature? Why we never see random dark color mutations among polar bears? Pathetic.

 

[LIIA]

No you won't. Nor need I or the scientific community delineate any pathway that evolved. We get this with the creationism apologists arguing that if we can't identify the last common man-chimp ancestor and identify all of man's ancestral forms connecting it to him that there is a flaw in the theory.

No I will. Delineate a pathway to the evolution of a simple organ such as the “Epiglottis” or the “Anus” and I’ll accept evolution. Show me a single random body plan (such as longer limbs on one side that violate the reflective symmetry rule) from the Cambrian period till now and I’ll accept evolution. Show me a single artificial breeding experiment that gave rise to a new family and I’ll accept evolution. But if you don’t and you will not then just accept the fact that the hypothesis of macroevolution is false.

 

[LIIA]

Fallacious argument. You're imagining a creature that never existed, one with all the other systems except perhaps a circulatory system.

I’m not imagining anything; it's the other way around. I’m talking about real life, on the other hand, you’re talking about imaginary random transitional forms that neither exist nor can survive.

You imagine transitional creatures that don’t have all interdependent physiological systems that are necessary for life being existing/functioning at the same time but rather emerging in random fashion in isolation of each other. But per the ToE itself, if some system somehow randomly evolved, let's say a circulatory system without the other interdependent systems such as the respiratory system or digestive system or nervous system, then it would neither function nor help for the survival of the organism. A nonfunctional system cannot be kept by selection till the other interdependent systems appear somehow and more importantly, if the organism cannot survive, then no evolutionary process would take place.

Unless all interdependent systems exist and functional at the same time from the very beginning, none of it will be functional and will not allow for the survival of the organism to allegedly allow for further random change.

In conclusion, the organism must survive and pass changes to offspring before any alleged evolutionary change may occur but how to get to survival to begin with, there is no route for the extremely complex interdependent systems to develop randomly in isolation of each other, simply because along that imaginary route, neither these isolated systems would be functional to be kept by selection nor the organism will have the ability to survive.

 

[LIIA]

I don't need absolute truth, nor is it available to conscious agents, if by absolute you mean reality unmodified by the human nervous system.

I guess you’re happy with your own relative mental construct of reality and don’t care about the absolute truth that is independent of your own perception. You’re the creator of your reality. If this is the case, then sure, you’re free to choose for yourself.

OK. I wrote, "Science assumes nothing." That was lazy on my part. Science assume that nothing is true until it is demonstrated to be true.

Since the context was abiogenesis, then NO, abiogenesis was not demonstrated to be true.

That was a reply to, "We *have* a growing body of evidence in support of naturalistic abiogenesis, but not enough yet, and none for creationism."

I don't see a rebuttal in your comment. How do you think that that contradicts the claim that there is a body of evidence as described? If you have a counterargument, please make the gist of it yourself in a few sentences.

“Body of evidence” is a misleading term. It implies a false status of abiogenesis, It’s about the significance of the evidence and the relevant conclusion. If you want the true status of abiogenesis today, you may refer to the conclusion at the end of the article.

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

See the quotes below from the conclusion:

“All attempts to recapitulate the biological pathways for nucleotide synthesis (or other chemistries) have at best produced dubious results with no significant follow ups."

“To date there has been no single prebiotically plausible experiment that has moved beyond the generation of a mixture of chemical products, infamously called “the prebiotic clutter”"

“—creating prebiotic clutter and nothing further. None of the above have led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution"

“the experimental set up is not widely accepted as prebiotically realistic in terms of its concentrations, spatial-sequence separation and the availability of pure starting materials.”

“….clean starting materials and controlled lab environments that call the relevance of the results of the chemistries of abiotic synthesis into question.”

See # 1850

Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

Yes, I know, but I don't know why you wanted to make that point.

Because if self-replication is not possible, then abiogenesis as an assumed pathway to life is false.

 

[LIIA]

No, they are not. The ends of the ring are different species once they can no longer produce fertile offspring together.

No, ring species is a group of subspecies. The variants around the circle are subspecies. See the article below about ring species by Oxford University Press.

Ring Species | Encyclopedia.com

The end species are connected by a chain of populations, and each population can exchange genes with the adjacent one all the way around the circle from one end to the other, that is why all populations belong to the same species.

More importantly, “ring species” is an over a century old concept with no good examples in the classic sense today. Latest scientific research showed that almost all previously known examples do not qualify mainly because the end species were found to interbreed in both lab and field.

The herring gull complex is not a ring species (separate species that are not closely related)​

The herring gull complex is not a ring species | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

15255043.pdf (nih.gov)

The salamander “Ensatina eschscholtzii" is not a ring species

In 1998, after a series of studies on the molecular data of the salamander “Ensatina eschscholtzii" Berkeley expert David Wake concluded that the data do not support the ring species hypothesis.

Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex (pnas.org)

Is Ensatina eschscholtzii a Ring-Species? on JSTOR

Is Ensatina eschscholtzii a ring-species? (eurekamag.com)

Taxonomy of the Plethodontid Salamander Genus Ensatina on JSTOR

See the article below titled “There are no ring species” published on the pro-evolution site “whyevolutionistrue.com" by Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.

There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True

 

[LIIA]

Yes, it is.

No, the inability of interbreeding is not enough delineation of species. Great Danes and Chihuahuas cannot mate, yet they are not different species.

You need to cease in your condescension. Please make your statements without it.

Sorry if you understood my statement as “condescension”. The intent was to get your attention to the point.

You're taking liberties you haven't earned or been granted

I’m not sure if you actually meant “liberties”. Liberties are not given and definitely you are not the grantor of liberties. We are all born with it, yet liberties can be taken away unjustly but even if that happens, your soul continues to be free. No one can ever force you to love, hate or believe anything. Your physical body can be oppressed but your soul is always free.

That said, your response expressed some emotions yet didn’t address the subject of the discussion.

 

[LIIA]

The watermarks are qualitatively different from the other nucleotide sequences. Only one - the one written in a conventional, symbolic language that must be learned to be understood - reflects intelligence.

DNA is the language of life. Base pair (bp) is the unit of measurement of DNA, the human genome contains about 3.2 billion base pairs. The way base pairs store the info is analogues to a machine code/binary system.

A “bit” is the smallest unit of data in the binary system with a value of 0 or 1. Even so base pairs are way more complex than a binary digit but “bp” can be considered as the smallest increment of data as analogues to the “bit”

The binary system would appear extremely simple only 0 or 1 but programming with the machine language to engineer meaningful software is extremely complex. In fact, higher-level languages are typically used to translate our human logic to executable machine code. The programming process allows the simple alteration of 0 and 1 binary digit sequencing to create endless of logical applications in a variety of fields.

The stored biological information in the DNA constitutes an executable program similar to a machine code program to manufacture proteins from amino acids with unique specific structure and functions which are not only dependent on the DNA sequence but also on the complex gene expression mechanisms that interpret the genetic codes.

Direct programming with the machine language to execute complex processes is an extremely high level of intelligence beyond the capacity of humans. Machine language programming reflects an unimaginable level of intelligence compared to a conventional, symbolic language. The DNA code is analogous to a machine language programming.

 

[LIIA]

There is no apparent intelligence there. The machinery is unconscious, not intelligent, and needs no intelligent oversight to generate new life from nonliving ingredients.

How do you know whether the machinery is conscious or not or controlled by a conscious entity? Latest research showed that even the smallest living cells (prokaryotes) are cognitive with the ability of input processing/decision making

All living cells are cognitive - ScienceDirect

Regardless, even if you can somehow confirm that the machinery is unconscious, isn’t automated machinery is always a product of intelligence?

Watch the video below.

We Challenge All Evolutionists to Watch This Video! - YouTube

 

[LIIA]

I always find the argument that artificial selection selection hasn't resulted in a new taxonomic family to rather laughable.

There is no intent in artificial selection to achieve family level phylogenesis. So not seeing it would be the expectation.

Chicken breeders, corn breeders, cotton breeders and those breeding any plant or animal are not breeding them to create some new family of organisms. More advanced techniques of biotechnology involving genetic engineering or molecular breeding aren't carried out to create new families of organisms.

Those breeders are looking for agronomically important traits that result in new varieties of existing species to be useful to people.

Seriously? So, scientists are interested to conduct an ongoing study in experimental evolution for decades from 1988 till now (Lenski’s E. coli experiment) but no one is interested to utilize advanced techniques of biotechnology involving genetic engineering or molecular breeding to create new families of organisms?

That is really pathetic, the fact is not that they don’t want, they can't.

 

[LIIA]

Very nice Gish Gallop and world class quote-mining. My congratulations.

Really? Would you kindly let me know the source of my “world class quote-mining”. I would appreciate a response that attempts to address the subject of the discussion rather than some irrelevant statements. Thanks anyways.

 

[LIIA]

Since the thread is not about hell-fire or what happens after death -- I shall refrain from going into detail about your post. Meantime, going back to the topic, did death "evolve" from life? What do you think? Remember here -- I'm speaking of death. And evolution. Did it evolve?

It depends on the person’s understanding of what is life or death. An atheist would equate death to non-existence; in this case death came first.

You may understand death as the loss of life, then for death to be possible, there must be a life that preceded it.

On my end, I understand it differently. Life happens when the connection between the lifeless body and soul is established. In this case the lifeless body (dead physical body) came first. It’s like your TV, it must exist first before you connect it to power to bring life into it. In that sense death came first.

The body is a vehicle for the soul to allow it to interface with the physical world in a limited physical manner.

The soul is what gives you consciousness/self awareness and the ability to have qualia. The soul is what makes you alive. Death happens when the connection between your body and soul is broken.

The physical body may have an end, but the soul doesn’t end. It transcends from one phase to another. The soul doesn’t die.

 

[John53]

Really? Why we never see examples of these worthless new random changes in nature? Why we never see random dark color mutations among polar bears? Pathetic.

Take up bird watching and you'll see them all the time, here's an Eastern Rosella I photographed the other day that has way more red than your average Eastern Rosella. Definitely a random colour mutation.

And here's a regular coloured Eastern Rosella for comparison.

 

[exchemist]

Really? Would you kindly let me know the source of my “world class quote-mining”. I would appreciate a response that attempts to address the subject of the discussion rather than some irrelevant statements. Thanks anyways.

And it's taken you over 2 months to respond? No, I can't remember what this was about and have better things to do than read through all the correspondence, when ID is such a waste of space anyway. I'll leave you in the capable hands of @Subduction Zone. [cue sepulchral laugh]

 

[Subduction Zone]

So only the scientifically illiterate would make such a mistake but you have seen scientists make this sort of error again and again. I guess scientists are scientifically illiterate. its not only your argument but also your ad hominem is pathetic.

LOL.Is your area of expertise not listening? And used the false accusation of an ad hominem again. Lastly we all know who is pathetic here.

You will never learn if you only parrot terms used against you in debates that you lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

really? shouldn't the random change appear first before selection would play any role? pathetic

You did not list again. Perhaps you use the word "pathetic" as a warning to others as to how weak your argument is going to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Why we never see examples of these worthless new random changes in nature? Why we never see random dark color mutations among polar bears? Pathetic.

Natural selection. Creationists can never deal with both natural selection and variation occurring together.


And yes, it is confirmed. When he uses the word "pathetic" it is a warning to don some face palm protection devices.

 

[Audie]

The nonsense is your typical disagreements/claims without justification merely because you said so. It has no value to anyone other than yourself.

If you are pro-science, then you should know that the scientific method is all about seeking causes to explain the observations/effects in an endeavor to ultimately understand reality itself.

Reality in an absolute sense exists beyond any relative guess/hypothesis. Along the process to understand reality, we may speculate/hypothesize within the observable domain but beyond that domain; no explanation is possible on the basis of “observation/experimentation".

Reality at a fundamental level (beyond the subatomic particles or beyond the Big Bang) is a threshold that the typical scientific method cannot cross simply because no further “observation/experimentation" is possible. The relative scientific knowledge is limited within the confinements of the observable domain, but the absolute reality is not.

If we observe an influence, then the cause must exist even if the nature of the cause is not known/understood (which is always the case). As we continue to seek causes for the observed contingent entities, our options are either “absolute/first cause” or “infinite regress of effects/causes". Infinite regress is a logical fallacy; it doesn’t provide an answer but rather shifts the question back in time. The cause/effect chain is necessarily broken at the point (BB) that time itself doesn’t exist (beyond the BB you can no longer go back in time). At that point, the cause is absolute/uncaused (with no preceding cause). You cannot argue that the Big Bang is the absolute first cause simply because the Big Bang has a beginning at a specific point in time, it didn’t always exist, I.e., a contingent entity. The absolute cause/necessary being must always exist without a beginning/cause and not subject to the confinements of spacetime or the influence of any contingent entity of any kind. Everything other that the necessary being is a contingent entity that cannot be explained without the absolute first cause.

The nature of the necessary being (beyond spacetime) cannot be understood but similarly no nature of any observable contingent entity within our realm can be understood. We may observe how entities within spacetime appear/interact, but we can never understand its fundamental nature. In that sense the nature of the necessary being is no exception.

Not bad (other than the calumny) till you go off the rails with assertions about " beyond the observable domain" and whst is possible- and end up with kalam cosmo.