Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

Everything.

Specifically Islam was the driving force that established the basis of the modern scientific method. Are you even aware that the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers? Can you Imagine how would our world today look like without it?

Fibonacci’s work made the Arabic numerals known in Europe. European trade, books, and colonialism helped popularize the adoption of Arabic numerals around the world. See the link.

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia

(Below is a copy from #332)

The Islamic Civilization was the first Civilization where its citizens were religiously obligated to learn to read, write and disseminate knowledge which led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” that established the basis of the modern scientific method.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science wrote "Perhaps the main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages, was the creation of the experimental spirit ... This was primarily due to Muslims down to the end of the twelfth century.”

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)

No science and math in China?
Not a very thorough cut n paste.

But it was all a false response, as
Islam is not creationism.

Creationism itself is profoundly
contrary to science.

As you keep demonstrating.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

One clarification is a 'reality itself?' as used above includes a subjective claim of what may exist beyond our physical existence such as God and other spiritual worlds. If you define the 'reality itself' to be limited to the possible infinite extent of our physical existence okay.

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 regression 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 than 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.

One comment on 'infinite regression; is that it is a hypothetical closed set infinity that could not possibly apply to our physical existence. Our physical existence is best described as a potential infinity. The variations of the hypothesis of what may be called the Big Bang only provide options of the earliest history of the universe with the expansion of the universe and not a known beginning. The possible singularity is a beginning form in a preexistent Quantum World. The universe is possibly cyclic.

The pssibility of a 'Source' or a 'Mind?' some call Gods is based on subjective beliefs outside the defined realm of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

No science and math in China?
Not a very thorough cut n paste.

But it was all a false response, as
Islam is not creationism.

Creationism itself is profoundly
contrary to science.

As you keep demonstrating.

Yes, Creationism as defined as the literal interpretation of Genesis by many if not most believers in Christianity and Islam, okay definition.

I believe Creationist beliefs to include beliefs that are in harmony with science such as Theistic Evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

demonstrate why not from an evolutionary perspective, isn't the evolutionary process is random? a fifth limp may randomly appear then selection may keep it or eliminate it, right? I guess it may help you when you try to climb a tree.

The concept of randomness actually does not apply to cause-and-effect outcomes in the nature of our physical existence including the occurrence of mutations in life. The outcome of natural causes and effect events in nature are limited and defined by natural laws and processes is fractal defined by Chaos Theory. The confusion comes from the layman's view of 'random.' The occurrence and outcomes of mutations may appear random but from the scientific perspective the causes and patterns of mutations and occurrence are predictable and the outcomes are limited within a range defined by natural laws and processes.

The possibility of a fifth limb is highly unlikely, because of anatomical symmetry. If it occurred the survival value of the individual would be unlikely. Because of symmetry, it would be more likely that mutations in the number of limbs would likely occur in pairs. Nonetheless, there exists a mutation among a few human families with six fingers and six toes very anatomically proportional. It never has become common or dominant, because it has no survival value over the normal five digits. I have personally met members of a family where some members have six digits in Hillsborough, NC.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I feel like humans will have evolved a fifth limb before this thread is settled.

Since the tail can be considered as a limb, the evidence indicates that we lost that fifth limb. And here we are anyway.

I was just about to consider this thread dead.

Scanning through, I don't see anything new that warrants continued examination or re-examination. Just the same protestations repeated ad nauseum with the same techniques applied to present them. From the perspective of a creationist that follows science, I get that Creationists don't like science and reject what I see as God's Work in favor of books that look more and more like the words of man rather than the dictation of a deity.

All I see here are the same refuted points, logical fallacies and personal opinions that have been part of a campaign to repost endlessly regardless of valid response.

If those taking the side against science aren't listening to what I and others have said in response to their claims, I don't see any point in re-examining what appears to be the same protestations repeated in an endless and purposefully voluminous loop.

I consider the protests have been addressed, are without merit and undeserving of my continued engagement, since that effort appears to be ignored.

At this point, it appears that the effort is to perpetuate denial by keeping an argument built on dead claims alive rather than present anything of substance that challenges existing scientific debate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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]

I don't feel like there is any interest in my responses anyway. In the face of a deluge of posts, I find myself asking "Why bother?"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I've solved the problem. Reciprocity. Ignore.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Ok. I'm going by the Bible and the existence of the first man, Adam. His body was created first, then life was given him. That's for starters.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

View attachment 79735

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

View attachment 79736

They're certainly beautiful. I like the second one better though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

View attachment 79735

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

View attachment 79736

Nice photos.

 

[YoursTrue]

One clarification is a 'reality itself?' as used above includes a subjective claim of what may exist beyond our physical existence such as God and other spiritual worlds. If you define the 'reality itself' to be limited to the possible infinite extent of our physical existence okay.


One comment on 'infinite regression; is that it is a hypothetical closed set infinity that could not possibly apply to our physical existence. Our physical existence is best described as a potential infinity. The variations of the hypothesis of what may be called the Big Bang only provide options of the earliest history of the universe with the expansion of the universe and not a known beginning. The possible singularity is a beginning form in a preexistent Quantum World. The universe is possibly cyclic.

The pssibility of a 'Source' or a 'Mind?' some call Gods is based on subjective beliefs outside the defined realm of science.

Interestingly, while the postulation is that fish evolved to mammals because of certain appearances early on, for some this might be conclusive evidence that humans evolved from fish. Of course I doubt anyone would believe we ARE fish, but that is how the theory goes. We evolved from fish. Which leads to the question: what kind of fish? (Yes, salmon remain salmon, cod remain cod and so forth.)

So how do you think Moses knew that fish came before humans? According to scriptures, fish came before land animals. If we just look around us especially before evolution became the accepted mode of understanding how living matter progressed, we might not realize that fish came before humans or mammals. Life is just there. I understand about embryos and eyes moving towards the front. (This does not mean evolution by mindless natural development, however. It means that there could be a higher power developing these things. Why not?)
Please notice Genesis 1, the fifth day of creation: (day is figurative in a sense) - "Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day."

 

[YoursTrue]

No science and math in China?
Not a very thorough cut n paste.

But it was all a false response, as
Islam is not creationism.

Creationism itself is profoundly
contrary to science.

As you keep demonstrating.

Again, there are various takes of "creationism," and as we see here few churchgoers will delineate their ideas as to why they belong to a church that claims basis in the Bible and also promote the ToE. When asked to explain themselves they get upset and defensive as well as accusatory. Oh well is my reaction now about this. Sometimes they say, "Well, I like my church and it's not against my church to believe in evolution even though it is inconsistent with Bible teaching, and besides, they may say, the Bible is filled with myths and very bad things. That explains why.."

 

[exchemist]

Interestingly, while the postulation is that fish evolved to mammals because of certain appearances early on, for some this might be conclusive evidence that humans evolved from fish. Of course I doubt anyone would believe we ARE fish, but that is how the theory goes. We evolved from fish. Which leads to the question: what kind of fish? (Yes, salmon remain salmon, cod remain cod and so forth.)

So how do you think Moses knew that fish came before humans? According to scriptures, fish came before land animals. If we just look around us especially before evolution became the accepted mode of understanding how living matter progressed, we might not realize that fish came before humans or mammals. Life is just there. I understand about embryos and eyes moving towards the front. (This does not mean evolution by mindless natural development, however. It means that there could be a higher power developing these things. Why not?)
Please notice Genesis 1, the fifth day of creation: (day is figurative in a sense) - "Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day."

You can research the answer to "what kind of fish" in these textbooks of yours, which you have had for at least 2 years now, according to your earlier statements on this forum. The evolution of tetrapods will be described. The fossils providing evidence for the theory are well-known. Tiktaalik is possibly the most famous: Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

And here is an interesting study showing how the theory is still developing: Sustained fast rates of evolution explain how tetrapods evolved from fish. This references 2 tetrapods, ichthyostega and acanthostega.

 

[Audie]

You can research the answer to "what kind of fish" in these textbooks of yours, which you have had for at least 2 years now, according to your earlier statements on this forum. The evolution of tetrapods will be described. The fossils providing evidence for the theory are well-known. Tiktaalik is possibly the most famous: Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

And here is an interesting study showing how the theory is still developing: Sustained fast rates of evolution explain how tetrapods evolved from fish. This references 2 tetrapods, ichthyostega and acanthostega.

I'd so love to have an Ichthyostega skeletal
mount in a glass case.
Ever since my comparative vert anatomy
class at NYU.

 

[Audie]

Again, there are various takes of "creationism," and as we see here few churchgoers will delineate their ideas as to why they belong to a church that claims basis in the Bible and also promote the ToE. When asked to explain themselves they get upset and defensive as well as accusatory. Oh well is my reaction now about this. Sometimes they say, "Well, I like my church and it's not against my church to believe in evolution even though it is inconsistent with Bible teaching, and besides, they may say, the Bible is filled with myths and very bad things. That explains why.."

So called quotes from persons unknown mean nothing.

No bearing on what I said.

Are you aware of that?

 

[Audie]

Interestingly, while the postulation is that fish evolved to mammals because of certain appearances early on, for some this might be conclusive evidence that humans evolved from fish. Of course I doubt anyone would believe we ARE fish, but that is how the theory goes. We evolved from fish. Which leads to the question: what kind of fish? (Yes, salmon remain salmon, cod remain cod and so forth.)

So how do you think Moses knew that fish came before humans? According to scriptures, fish came before land animals. If we just look around us especially before evolution became the accepted mode of understanding how living matter progressed, we might not realize that fish came before humans or mammals. Life is just there. I understand about embryos and eyes moving towards the front. (This does not mean evolution by mindless natural development, however. It means that there could be a higher power developing these things. Why not?)
Please notice Genesis 1, the fifth day of creation: (day is figurative in a sense) - "Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day."

" after their kind"

Does that mean exactly?

Evidently not as the dachshund is clearly not a wolf.

So you, unlike any geneticist on earth, know the limits of possibility?
How?
By choosing what interpretation to give to 4 words in
the religion you choose to think is the one True one?

You should apply such ability to cancer research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

You should read and try to understand the articles that you link instead of grasping at straws. The reason that the ensatina salamander is not a ring species is not because the species can interbreed. No, it is because in a ring species there is supposed to be a continuous uninterruped gradient from both sides of the ring. Genetic analysis shows that there were times of clear disruption in the ring.

The basic ideas are still sound. It is just not a case where the evolution could be shown to be continual with the ring existing during all of he speciation events. This article that you linked makes it more obvious:

There are no ring species

TRIGGER WARNING: Evolutionary biology.A while back, when I said in the comments of an evolution post that there were no good "ring species," a few readers asked me what I meant by that. "What abou

whyevolutionistrue.com

So the classic, continual uninterrupted line "ring species" do not exist. Do you think that that little issue matters? You not only grasped at straws, you provided the ammo that refutes your beliefs:



"Based on these results, everyone has now concluded that the formation of this “ring” involved sporadic and important episodes of geographic isolation between populations, so it’s not the classic “continuous gene flow” scenario involved in making a ring species. As Wake himself said in his 1997 paper (reference below), “The history of this complex has probably featured substantial [geographic] isolation, differentiation, and multiple recontacts.” (You can read about the Ensatina story in greater detail at “Understanding evolution,” a great site produced by U.C. Berkeley.)"

Nice shooting. I do believe that you just shot off your little toe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

You need to make your own arguments. Paraphrasing a source and linking to it if you want to offer your reader support for your claims is enough.

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.

Delineating pathways is not relevant unless it is to debunk claims of irreducible complexity. Many creationists demand pathways before belief, but the theory only provides the mechanism - natural selection of phenotypes subject to intergenerational genetic variation.

ring species is a group of subspecies. The variants around the circle are subspecies.

This is the sorites paradox. No subspecies that evolved from its neighbor is sufficiently different to preclude procreation between them, but the ends of the ring are different species by the fertility definition. It's analogous to saying that no human being was ever born to a non-human parent despite the fact that once there were no human being but now there are, but still, no first human. This is a consequence of the predicate human not having a precise definition that allows one to identify a parent as non-human and its offspring as human. A classic example is going from having hair to natural baldness. Bald is an imprecise predicate, and thus no first day of baldness can be identified.

the inability of interbreeding is not enough delineation of species. Great Danes and Chihuahuas cannot mate, yet they are not different species.

Is this how you understand what unable to produce viable offspring means - any inability to conceive together including mechanical barriers to getting spermatozoan to ovum?

Latest research showed that even the smallest living cells (prokaryotes) are cognitive with the ability of input processing/decision making

This must be a new definition of cognitive. Cognition is, "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses." The literal meaning implies consciousness. Tropism isn't cognition by this metaphorical definition. Nor is reflex. I suppose one can go further down that path and call a rock rolling downhill making a decision even though it is unconscious and passively reacting to its surroundings.

 

[John53]

Nice photos.

I wonder if certain parties will acknowledge that it's a random mutation?

It was in company with a female so there might be a chance it will breed. I'm interested if there might be some benefit of the colouring (camouflage from predators, attractiveness to potential mates) and the colouring continues. I suggest we meet back here in 500 years and discuss our findings. The only problem is the local council is trying to get the land rezoned and want to put a caravan park in, they're trying to sell the idea as ecotourism which I find a little ironic... let's chop down all the trees in the name of ecotourism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder if certain parties will acknowledge that it's a random mutation?

I can't imagine those ideologically opposed to science would ever admit or acknowledge facts that support science they deny.

It was in company with a female so there might be a chance it will breed. I'm interested if there might be some benefit of the colouring (camouflage from predators, attractiveness to potential mates) and the colouring continues. I suggest we meet back here in 500 years and discuss our findings. The only problem is the local council is trying to get the land rezoned and want to put a caravan park in, they're trying to sell the idea as ecotourism which I find a little ironic... let's chop down all the trees in the name of ecotourism.

Interesting. I've heard of decisions like that before. It's part of the "Great Moment in" series of what the heck.