Darwin's Illusion

[exchemist]

Fine, have fun. Debunking the ridiculous historical narrative (ToE) about fish transforming into elephants is something I do whenever convenient but it’s not for fun.

Have a good night.

It's morning. And there is no theory in science that says fish transform into elephants, as you know perfectly well.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, the lifeless body came first, then the soul is what made the body alive. Your body is not you. Your real being is your soul.

That’s not how Jews see “the soul”.

I had started a very old thread, asking what Jews think about the soul and the afterlife.

One of them had reply, and said that the soul is the “breath” that give life to the body, but it belonged to God, not to the people who live and die.

The soul is not anyone’s spirit, the soul don’t contain your personality, your thought, your memories.

The soul is indestructible and immortal. So when you die his breath or the soul returned to God. You don’t go to heaven or to hell, because the soul doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to God.

So the soul only housed in these temporary bodies, while we are alive, but once we died, the soul would to God.

As far as I understand it (and any Jews can correct if I remember this incorrectly), there are no heaven or hell awaiting us. We only get one life, here.

The idea of the people having afterlife were foreign to early Jews. Jews began adopting and adapting pagan beliefs from the 4th to 1st centuries BCE Egyptian, Persian or the Greek religions, where the spirits of the departed being judged, and either been sent to paradise (eg Field of Reeds, Elysian Field, etc) or tartarus-like hell…which in turn, were promoted by Christians and later by Muslims.

The very idea of spirit or soul being judged, and ascension, actually have pagan origins from much older polytheistic religions, from Bronze Age Egypt and that of Sumer and Babylonia. Christian and Islamic religions have been influenced by these polytheistic religions.

 

[Audie]

​

Leucism is an example of a mutation that can adversly affect fitness. It's makes the bird or animal much more vulnerable to predation or unable to hunt because they lose the camouflage advantage, which is why we see a lot of white birds and animals in captivity but not in the wild.

Guess you never saw a seagull.

 

[Audie]

Fine, have fun. Debunking the ridiculous historical narrative (ToE) about fish transforming into elephants is something I do whenever convenient but it’s not for fun.

Have a good night.

As if you had the capacity to " debunk" ToE.
You might as well claim you jump over the moon.
When convenient.

 

[Audie]

My argument is not based on the kalam cosmological argument, but the concept is very much the same.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. The cause beyond the beginning of the universe (BB) is beyond time and space. The cause beyond time has no beginning. The cause is a brute fact (causeless).

Absolute nothingness cannot cause anything. A brute fact must exist as the origin of all existence (absolute origin).

A slight rephrasing of k- cosmo isn't clever.
Adding a flaw of two isn't, either.

 

[Audie]

How is that relevant? Again, I’m saying the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers, are you claiming that these numbers are Chinese? See the link below.

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia

Why is that?

Creationism is the belief that nature, the universe, and life originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In that sense, how is Islam not creationism?

The cause of the universe is beyond time and space, hence supernatural, i.e., of a unique nature that can't be witnessed or imagined. This is the Islamic view of God.

“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing."

Ash-Shuraa 11

“Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One. Allah, the Eternal. He neither begets nor is born. Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

Al-Ikhlas

Not true, Creationism is contrary to some specific theories not science in its entirety. In the case of Islam, I can't think of any scientific theory that Islam rejects other than the ToE.

But as Ernst Mayr said, evolutionary biology is not an exact science, it should be included with the Geisteswissenschaften. In that sense, Islam doesn’t reject any aspects of science but rather the false historical narrative of the ToE. See #331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

As you don't understand the difference
between a religious concept and a religion
we feel much of your defrctive thinking
is explained by such a disability.

Belief in creationism (magic) is profoundly anti science. So is rejecting ToE for religious reasons.

As for singling out ToE to reject while respecting science, that can only done via deep ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Or both.

All relevant data from every field of science supports ToE. If you wish to deny / disprove all of it, go have fun.

But if that's too demanding try to find for us ONE fact that disproves ToE.

The Nobel will be among the least of
your honors for what may be the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time.
Until / unless you provide such data,
all you anti ToE talk is nothing but
silly ignorant blather.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are the one making a travesty out of reason. Bye for now. Because you don't see it, and don't want to see it. Because you are not understanding history and reason, I'm saying have a good one to you for now.

'Bye doe now' for the thousandth time without presenting anything of substance. All I see is mindless rants and assertions based on an ancient religious mythical agenda \.

 

[shunyadragon]

I see. So random mutations do not drive evolution insofar as the theory goes?

No, there is no such thing as random mutation as explained before. The environment changes drives evolution as explained before.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

As described before and in many threads including at least one thread on fractal math and Chaos Theory. There is no such thing as randomness in nature. The pattern and outcomes of cause-and-effect events including mutations occur within a predictable pattern constrained by laws of nature and natural processes. A particular species of bird has to have the genetic potential for a particular color or color pattern for that variety to occur. Also if particular color patterns have a superior survival value that range or particular color pattern with dominate. This has been demonstrated by the case of the color of moths in the following case: Peppered Moths: Natural Selection.

In 1896, J. W. Tutt suggested that the peppered moths were an example of natural selection. He recognized that the camouflage of the light moth no longer worked in the dark forest. Dark moths live longer in a dark forest, so they had more time to breed.

All living things respond to natural selection. Over 100 other species of moth were observed to darken over time in polluted forests. Scientists call this effect industrial melanism. Natural selection is still at work in the peppered moth. In the last 50 years, most industrial countries have significantly reduced their pollution. As predicted by the theory, the number of dark moths is dropping as the forests become cleaner.

This reference also describes well environmental change driven 'natural selection' in a clear and understandable manner.

If the outcomes of cause-and-effect events did not occur in a predictable pattern and range of outcomes life and our universe could not exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

My argument is not based on the kalam cosmological argument, but the concept is very much the same.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. The cause beyond the beginning of the universe (BB) is beyond time and space. The cause beyond time has no beginning. The cause is a brute fact (causeless).

From the Naturalist perspective, there is no problem with Natural Laws and natural processes being the ultimate cause of everything and always have existed. By the evidence, it is speculation based on the 'belief' that anything exists that causes Natural Laws to exist.

The Kalam argument is circular based on the assumption that God exists, and not justified logically. I believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), but I would not use bad arguments to justify my belief.

Absolute nothingness cannot cause anything. A brute fact must exist as the origin of all existence (absolute origin).

There is no evidence that 'absolute nothing' ever existed. It is a philosophical/theological concept with no basis in reality. The present evidence fits best that there is a boundless Quantum World based on Natural Laws that underlie our physical existence.

Even the various Bib Bang hypothesis' depend on a Quantum existence prior to the expansion of our universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? The knowledge was lost! According to whom? You?

No, the knowledge of the Islamic golden age was not only preserved but it was also the main source of knowledge to later generations during the Renaissance and the scientific revolution in Europe and with a strong influence that can be still seen clearly in our day-to-day life today. A close example is the Arabic numbers itself as well as many terms with Arabic origin, such as Algebra, Algorithm, Average, Cipher, Alchemy /Chemistry, Alcohol, Elixir, Alkaline, Almanac, Azimuth, Nadir, Zenith, etc.

See the link below for the article titled “Words from Arabic” on Collins Dictionary and the quote below from the article.

“This era of intellectual achievement from the middle of the 8th century to the middle of the 13th has rightly been called the Islamic Golden Age and the texts from it proved a vital source of knowledge to later generations during the Renaissance and the scientific revolution. Although the importance of this period has at timesi been underplayed in Europe, the influence can clearly be seen in the English language.”

Words from Arabic - Collins Dictionary Language Blog

According to anyone that has studied the topic. Yes we got words from the Arabic language. And it was known that at one point that Arabic people were making advances. But your own ignorance of the scientific method shows why the Arabic people failed and much of their knowledge was lost. It is why Europeans are rightfully accredited with developing the scientific method. Are you aware that before the Arabs the Chinese were at the forefront? And worse yet you keep ignoring where our modern numerical system came from. The shape of our numbers are Arabic. But the concept of the decimal system is Indian.

A lot of ideas did survive the effects of Islam on Arabic societies. But the ability to point to specific Arabs that were far ahead of anyone else then does not help you. The scientific method has one step that was key to its development. And it also tells us that you do not understand the scientific method at all. It also explains why you and so many other creationists fail when they attack Darwin. I even told you why they failed.


So what important part of the scientific method did the Arabs not develop?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant nonsense. You get off track very easily. What is your point? Go back and read my post #7408 and let me know which part of what I wrote that you don’t agree with and why.

Let me explain. @It Aint Necessarily So claimed that the ends of the ring are different species. In my post #7408 I said that the ring species complex is a group of subspecies and further clarified that ring species is an old concept with no good examples in the classic sense today. Now, let me know which part that you don’t agree with.

That said, in your case, whether these examples are true examples of ring species or not, different species or subspecies, it wouldn’t make a difference with respect to your axiom since you tend to interpret everything in light of that axiom regardless of what it is.

Dude you make me laugh. Your own inability to read and understand the links that you use is one of the main reasons you keep failing in such an epic manner. That article both explained why the sited examples are not perfect versions of ring species, but it also explained why the idea is still valid.

There are "good examples". The ensatina salamander is one of them. It is not a perfect example. Fundamental reasoning is an oxymoron. You won't let your mind understand that nature is very complex simplex so simplified explanations will always be " wrong" if one goes into enough detail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, have fun. Debunking the ridiculous historical narrative (ToE) about fish transforming into elephants is something I do whenever convenient but it’s not for fun.

Have a good night.

Perhaps you continually fail, and shoot yourself in the foot more often than in not is because you get no enjoyment out of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. Again the article below by ACS Publications dated January 9, 2020 provided a background and up-to-date progress that allows the reader to judge where the field stands currently with respect to the “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis”. Did you bother to read at least the conclusion? See # 1850

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

All fundamental forces of reality are concepts in individual brains; we can only observe the effects, never the causes. Did you ever see a video of dark energy, strong nuclear force, gravity, etc.? You can only observe the effects, make a video if you wish but you can never see the causes or know its fundamental nature, how it controls entities, how/why it came into being. You can only hypothesize about its existence and build a mental construct/a concept of it in your brain.

I’m only saying that part of reality must be a brute fact that always exist/uncaused, otherwise no caused entity can be explained.

God is not a physical entity within spacetime that reflects light so you may record it on a video. You can't even have a video of any fundamental force within spacetime for that matter; you can only observe the effects not the causes.

God as the initial cause for everything in existence (including the universe and spactime itself) is not subject to the confinements of spacetime or any physical law of any kind.

You’re making a logically fallacious “infinite regress” argument. I’m telling you the beginning must be a brute fact.

The cause/effect chain in its entirety continues to be a contingent being (no matter how long it gets) and must depend on a non-contingent being/ brute fact for its existence. Do you understand?

Homunculus Fallacy (logicallyfallacious.com)

Okay. so what? The conclusion only says that for abiogenesis we may need to open our minds up a bit for the cause. It does not imply that the cause would be anything but natrual.

You seem to constantly misinterpret various scientific papers. Papers will very often point out how the details of a particular model is wrong. Does that mean that the basic concept of the model is wrong? No. It only means that the model has to be adjused a bit.

Take the examples of known ring species as an example. Deeper investigation revealed that for some, like the ensatina salamander, that an ability to interbreed all of the way up and down the line did not exist all of the time. Is that evidence in any way at all that the general concept is wrong? Not at all. it only shows that due to the complexity of environments that it would be almost impossible to have a continual open pathway to possible interbreeding all of the way up and down the line. Ironically you can only "refute" it by assuming that evolution is true. In other words you have to accept the evolution to refute very very small part of evolution. That would be a pyrrhic victory on your part at the best.

We re not saying that we understand evolution perfectly. We have a method that allows us to test the concept and get ever closer to an answer.

So let's turn the tables. What do you believe and why? What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1) Life/survival is a necessary prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. (If it doesn’t survive, it doesn’t evolve). Survival came first.

2) Survival (even in simplest life forms) is always contingent upon complex interdependent systems being functional. The functionality of these systems is contingent upon every individual system playing its specific role at the same time. Any single system wouldn’t be functional in isolation of the other interdependent systems.

3) If an individual system appears somehow randomly, it would not be functional in isolation of the other systems; hence it will not play a role for the survival of the organism. And even if we assume that the organism somehow survives, then selection wouldn’t retain a non-functional system. Meaning, there is no route through which the essential interdependent systems would develop to become collectively functional towards the goal of survival. But how can we claim a process to work gradually towards a goal (survival) if such goal is an absolute prerequisite for the process to begin with? (Circular reasoning), see #7403.

In conclusion, 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 (ToE) nor a biomolecule can persist for a long time without getting decomposed/disintegrated (abiogenesis). If survival/persistence of a system is not possible, then no evolutionary process of any kind is possible.

That's better. It's unreasonable to expect others to review your sources to learn what you are arguing.

You wrote, "If an individual system appears somehow randomly, it would not be functional in isolation of the other systems; hence it will not play a role for the survival of the organism." Your claim seems to be that living things are irreducibly complex - that their constituents couldn't have evolved naturalistically by natural selection applied to genetic variation across generations. I doubt that you could produce an example of a demonstrably irreducibly complex biological system, but seem to assume that such things exist.

you wouldn’t care to delineate pathways.

I told you that they are irrelevant except to debunk claims of irreducible complexity.

Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all central assumptions of the theory.

See #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Your link doesn't support your claim that, "Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all central assumptions of the theory." It proposes that the theory is incomplete. If that can be demonstrated to be correct empirically, the narrative will be updated yet again to accommodate that knew knowledge. Gods still aren't necessary in that narrative.

the argument was that the ends of the ring species complex are identified as subspecies not different species as you claimed.

No, that was your claim. If species is defined by fertility criteria, then two salamanders that cannot breed are different species. To say they are not - that they are subspecies - is to redefine the word.

The size difference between the two prevents any part of the process from occurring naturally and if attempted artificially the offspring of Great Danes grow too large too quickly for the female Chihuahua to carry, usually both the mother and the puppy die. Yet both Great Dane and Chihuahua are the same species, (Canis familiaris), not even a subspecies.

Where are you going with this? What's your purpose in discussing the definition of species? I presume that your ultimate purpose is to argue for an intelligent designer, but I need you to give me your larger argument to decide if this will be a profitable avenue to pursue further with you. Right now, I can't see any relevance to whether the theory is wrong or not.

Regardless how the variants of dogs differently appear and even if they lose the ability of interbreeding in nature, they stay the same species. No matter how hard we try to artificially breed dogs, the result is always the same species, not even a subspecies, and definitely never a new taxonomic family.

Why do you consider that relevant? The theory predicts that all dogs will be born to dogs even when artificial selection is substituted for natural selection.

Do you actually acknowledge that the “mental action/ understanding through thought and senses, i.e., consciousness” is not a physical process?

No. I have no reason to believe that consciousness (and thought) is not a physical epiphenomenon of brains.

If cognition is a physical process (interaction of matter) so, why do you think the cognition of the living cell is “new definition”.

Because cognition as the word is most commonly meant occurs in evolved conscious brains. "Cognition: of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (such as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)" If you want to use the word to describe something going on in cells, you're giving it another definition than that one.

what makes cognition (in a fundamental sense) different in humans compared to living cells?

It occurs consciously.

See the sources below for further info about microbial cognition.

You know the drill. You'll need to summarize your own case to help me decide if looking at your supporting links is likely to be a profitable use of my time. All you've presented to date are insufficiently evidenced claims and a vague new definition of cognition which includes tropism. This is not cognition:

Is there anything in any of those links you'd like to quote as an incentive to investigate further?

 

[John53]

​

Guess you never saw a seagull.

Correct, I haven't, I believe there is no such thing as a Seagull, it seems to be a generic name for some sea birds. I have seen 3 species of Gull, Pacific Gull, Kelp Gull and Silver Gull around here. The first two are very uncommon vagrants to my area, Silver Gulls on the other hand are numerous.

Interestingly (for me at least), even though adult Silver Gulls are white and light grey their chicks are a mottled brown. I'm guessing because they're a ground nesting species it is for camouflage so a leucistic Silver Gull would most likely become dinner for a predator because it would stand out. It all points to natural selection in my opinion.

I was going to waffle on about Sulphur-crested Cockatoos and my thoughts on how all white birds survive but I'll spare you.

 

[John53]

It’s actually a good example but I think it’s a very rare condition/disorder that may or may not pass to offspring and wouldn’t support “Randomness" as a rule. The statistical significance of the observations is what supports the assumption of a dominant rule, not some minor exceptions.

In fact, strange deformations can be seen in the fruit fly (such as legs growing out of their heads in place of antennae) but again, exceptions don’t prove a rule. Actually, such exceptions help us to understand and appreciate the rule.

Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns (utah.edu)

I'm really not sure what the point is you're trying to make. You seem to have said that random mutations don't happen but are now now saying they do happen but are rare. Which is more or less what @Subduction Zone said in the first place which you called him pathetic for saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, I haven't, I believe there is no such thing as a Seagull, it seems to be a generic name for some sea birds. I have seen 3 species of Gull, Pacific Gull, Kelp Gull and Silver Gull around here. The first two are very uncommon vagrants to my area, Silver Gulls on the other hand are numerous.

Interestingly (for me at least), even though adult Silver Gulls are white and light grey their chicks are a mottled brown. I'm guessing because they're a ground nesting species it is for camouflage so a leucistic Silver Gull would most likely become dinner for a predator because it would stand out. It all points to natural selection in my opinion.

I was going to waffle on about Sulphur-crested Cockatoos and my thoughts on how all white birds survive but I'll spare you.

We have a slew of different gulls and terns here. Perhaps it was typo and she meant Sea-gal.

15 Types of Gulls (and Terns) Found in Washington! (state)

Learn the types of GULLS and TERNS in Washington and how to identify them. How many of these gulls and terns have YOU seen?

birdwatchinghq.com

 

[John53]

We have a slew of different gulls and terns here. Perhaps it was typo and she meant Sea-gal.

15 Types of Gulls (and Terns) Found in Washington! (state)

Learn the types of GULLS and TERNS in Washington and how to identify them. How many of these gulls and terns have YOU seen?

birdwatchinghq.com

View attachment 79973

Don't get me started on people calling Terns, Gulls.

 

[John53]

As described before and in many threads including at least one thread on fractal math and Chaos Theory. There is no such thing as randomness in nature. The pattern and outcomes of cause-and-effect events including mutations occur within a predictable pattern constrained by laws of nature and natural processes. A particular species of bird has to have the genetic potential for a particular color or color pattern for that variety to occur. Also if particular color patterns have a superior survival value that range or particular color pattern with dominate. This has been demonstrated by the case of the color of moths in the following case: Peppered Moths: Natural Selection.

In 1896, J. W. Tutt suggested that the peppered moths were an example of natural selection. He recognized that the camouflage of the light moth no longer worked in the dark forest. Dark moths live longer in a dark forest, so they had more time to breed.

All living things respond to natural selection. Over 100 other species of moth were observed to darken over time in polluted forests. Scientists call this effect industrial melanism. Natural selection is still at work in the peppered moth. In the last 50 years, most industrial countries have significantly reduced their pollution. As predicted by the theory, the number of dark moths is dropping as the forests become cleaner.

This reference also describes well environmental change driven 'natural selection' in a clear and understandable manner.

If the outcomes of cause-and-effect events did not occur in a predictable pattern and range of outcomes life and our universe could not exist.

I guess I'm using random in the wrong way. Might be better off saying uncommon or rare.