Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic I know you're trying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@gnostic I know you're trying.

Too bad that you aren't. I tried. Too many times. You want answers but all to often deny them when they are given to you. It gets to a point where I do not give answers "for free" with some posters. There is a small price to be paid.

 

[exchemist]

Since you have been trolling the thread. I decided to troll you a bit. But, yes, if you claim to be a human being then you are also claiming to be an ape.

@YoursTrue claimed, back in 2021, to have books on evolution. There is no way he or she does not already know, perfectly well, the answers to these questions. Trolling is what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue claimed, back in 2021, to have books on evolution. There is no way he or she does not already know, perfectly well, the answers to these questions. Trolling is what it is.

I know. I overextend the benefit of the doubt to most posters. But after a while I tire of bad behavior.

 

[gnostic]

Why you can't squeeze a sponge brain? So let's be honest for a change. Sponges without brains came before substances with brains. Right? Not sponges with brains because it seems sponges are brainless.

Did sponges without brains pop up, I mean evolve, and then become something with brains? I know you'd love to say more about brains ... Cmon...but little by little you think maybe or is it for certain that according to the evidence organisms with brains evolved from organisms with no brains.

if you remember the list of invertebrate animals I had I already given you, 10 of them, they all have no brains. Remember jellyfishes, clams, sea urchins, starfishes, sea squirts, corals, etc. The last one was the sponges.

oysters and clams have no brains, but they do have nerve tissues, and I know that at least with the oysters, their bundled into two cords.

But some of them have at least basic neurons connected to each other, called the “nerve net”; they are not nerve tissues. Nerve net provide some of them the ability to swim (eg jellyfishes, comb jellies) or move about the sea floors (eg starfishes), or to react to touch of their preys and sting them.

While some of them have nerve net, sponges don’t even have that. Sponges not only have no brains, they have no nerve whatsoever.

i told you to look it up nerve net (eg google it or use wiki), and clearly you didn’t, because I don’t think I am quite smart enough to break it down in layman‘s term, so I had suggested to you to do some researches. I don’t have the time do your homework for you.

perhaps, you should look up which of these 6 or 7 with nerve net, were responsible for evolution from nerve net to nerve tissues?

Then there are trilobites, which existed from the Cambrian to the Permian, which we know that some have eyes, while other don’t (because some inhabited in the very deep ocean floors, where there are no light can reach. If they have eyes, then it would imply they might have brains or other nervous systems.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If the Bible is God's Word and universe is God's Work, I have found it strange that some believers demand a literal interpretation of one and total disregard of the other.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that is far off to be real. You need to take a hard look at what it means to be random. ALL outcomes of cause and effect events in nature are fractal within the range of possible outcomes determined by the laws o Nature. Just a brief google search turned up many references that describe the fractal nature of events in nature. I disagree with some of the language in this reference, but other than that it addresses the issue. It is best to read the whole thing. Nothing new here.

Read James Gleick book Chaos: Making an New Science,

Fractal Evolution​

Fractal Evolution
Copyright 1995 - Leading Edge Research Group​

"A decade after Mandelbrot published his physiological speculations, some theoretical biologists began to find fractal organization controlling structures all through the body. The standard 'exponential' description of a bronchial branching proved to be quite wrong; a fractal description turned out to fit the data...." --James Gleick

In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. Genetic mutation proposes, Natural Selection disposes.

The question of "design" in nature was one that troubled Charles Darwin all his professional life. In the year following the publication of the Origin, he writes to Asa Gray: "I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design."

Darwinist Ernst Mayr, for one, is well aware of the design dilemma. "No consequence of Darwin's theory of natural selection was a source of greater dismay to his opponents than the elimination of design from nature. Those who studied the countless superb adaptations of animals and plants had been most gratified by the explanation that such perfection was clearly the result of design by the maker of this world." In fact, Darwin did not eliminate design from nature, as he himself indicates in his letter to Gray. Darwin and his followers succeeded only in challenging the traditional idea that the source of all design is God.

After citing many examples of fantastic design in nature, Mayr goes on to say, "But when we ask how this perfection is brought about, we seem to find only arbitrariness, planlessness, randomness, and accident...." If Mayr and his fellow Darwinists find in nature only "arbitrariness, planlessness, randomness, and accident" that is a reflection on their ability, not on the capability of nature.

Today, any graduate student asked to develop a paper on the subject of design in nature would invariably wind up looking into fractal geometry and mathematics. Fractal geometry, as its name implies, is a geometry focusing on the description of geometrical structures, and structuring, in fract[ion]al space.

Until 1975, we didn't have a fractal geometry. Our only geometry was the familiar Euclidean geometry, which goes back over two thousand years. The Elements of Euclid (circa 300 B.C.) summarized in thirteen volumes the mathematical knowledge of ancient Greece. Up into our own century, Euclid's books of geometry were taken as the final, authoritative word on the subject. Euclidean geometry deals with whole rather than fractional realities. Plane geometry concerns planar (one- and two-dimensional) structures, and solid geometry describes volumetric (three-dimensional) structures.

"New geometry's always begin," writes James Gleick, "when someone changes a fundamental rule." Fundamental supposition would be a better term than rule. Gleick continues: "Suppose space can be curved instead of flat, a geometer says, and the result is a weird curved parody of Euclid that provides precisely the right framework for the general theory of relativity. Suppose space can have four dimensions, or five, or six. Suppose the number expressing dimension can be a fraction.... suppose shapes are defined, not by solving an equation once, but by iterating it [repeating it] in a feedback loop."

French mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot made a number of the above suppositions, and the result was the birth in 1975 of "fractal" (fractional) geometry and mathematics (Les Objets Fractal). The original stimulus behind Mandelbrot's work was an interest in irregular (seemingly "chaotic") patterns. Cotton prices over a long period of time, frequency of earthquakes, flooding conditions.... all seemed to occur with a regular irregularity. What was the principle of order within the chaos?

Mandelbrot's "studies of irregular patterns," Gleick indicates, "and his exploration of infinitely complex shapes had an intellectual intersection: a quality of self-similarity. Above all, fractal meant self-similar."

I read Gleick's book about 30 years ago. Perhaps it is due for reread.

I'm not arguing against the nature of randomness, but mutations are effectively random in their unpredictability and with regards to selection. There is no evidence they occur in response to the anticipation of a future selection.

Claims of directed mutation have been addressed in the literature and demonstrated to be the expected natural selection. Directed mutation is often brought up by literalist-creationists to leverage the introduction of conscious design and a designer into the discussion of evolution.

There is a growing body of information that organisms have evolved means to protect parts of their genomes from the effects of mutagenesis, but this is the result of selection and not an indication of the influence of an external agent.

 

[YoursTrue]

if you remember the list of invertebrate animals I had I already given you, 10 of them, they all have no brains. Remember jellyfishes, clams, sea urchins, starfishes, sea squirts, corals, etc. The last one was the sponges.

oysters and clams have no brains, but they do have nerve tissues, and I know that at least with the oysters, their bundled into two cords.

But some of them have at least basic neurons connected to each other, called the “nerve net”; they are not nerve tissues. Nerve net provide some of them the ability to swim (eg jellyfishes, comb jellies) or move about the sea floors (eg starfishes), or to react to touch of their preys and sting them.

While some of them have nerve net, sponges don’t even have that. Sponges not only have no brains, they have no nerve whatsoever.

i told you to look it up nerve net (eg google it or use wiki), and clearly you didn’t, because I don’t think I am quite smart enough to break it down in layman‘s term, so I had suggested to you to do some researches. I don’t have the time do your homework for you.

perhaps, you should look up which of these 6 or 7 with nerve net, were responsible for evolution from nerve net to nerve tissues?

Then there are trilobites, which existed from the Cambrian to the Permian, which we know that some have eyes, while other don’t (because some inhabited in the very deep ocean floors, where there are no light can reach. If they have eyes, then it would imply they might have brains or other nervous systems.

Thank you, Dan. Sorry, that was @gnostic. Thank you again gnostic. There is nothing that anyone can list as if they KNOW how all this came about (changed or grew or evolved, however you want to phrase it). I do find it interesting that some organisms have brains while others do not. I'm not going any further now, thanks for your response.

 

[YoursTrue]

If the Bible is God's Word and universe is God's Work, I have found it strange that some believers demand a literal interpretation of one and total disregard of the other.

I know I have to keep this simple for several reasons. Primarily because I don't know that much about the complexities of what is considered to be the process of evolution as posited by scientists. But I understand there are 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen to combine to make water. That is pretty straightforward. I don't think there's too much guesswork there. maybe there is though at this point. But then I think about hydrogen. And oxygen. etc. Nobody is going to tell me these are not complex entities.

 

[YoursTrue]

P.S. I'm not saying oxygen does not exist. and that it does not combine with other elements.

 

[John53]

If the Bible is God's Word and universe is God's Work, I have found it strange that some believers demand a literal interpretation of one and total disregard of the other.

There's no proof a rib turned into a woman. No one has seen it happen, a rib is still a rib. I've eaten a few ribs in my time and not one of them turned into a woman! There is no proofs of ribs ever having been anything but ribs.

 

[Audie]

If the Bible is God's Word and universe is God's Work, I have found it strange that some believers demand a literal interpretation of one and total disregard of the other.

"Same evidence, different interpretation"
SEDI

Aka intellectual dishonesty

 

[Audie]

I read Gleick's book about 30 years ago. Perhaps it is due for reread.

I'm not arguing against the nature of randomness, but mutations are effectively random in their unpredictability and with regards to selection. There is no evidence they occur in response to the anticipation of a future selection.

Claims of directed mutation have been addressed in the literature and demonstrated to be the expected natural selection. Directed mutation is often brought up by literalist-creationists to leverage the introduction of conscious design and a designer into the discussion of evolution.

There is a growing body of information that organisms have evolved means to protect parts of their genomes from the effects of mutagenesis, but this is the result of selection and not an indication of the influence of an external agent.

It seems to me an insult to a " creator" that he'd
have to tinker and meddle to keep his contraption
going.

 

[shunyadragon]

I read Gleick's book about 30 years ago. Perhaps it is due for reread.

I'm not arguing against the nature of randomness, but mutations are effectively random in their unpredictability and with regards to selection. There is no evidence they occur in response to the anticipation of a future selection.

This does not address the question of randomness in genetics. The mutations themselves are neutral to the question of 'natural selection. 'natural selection' is a response to the relationship between the populations' diversity in the gene pool and environmental factors. The question of randomness in mutations is whether the how, why, and when are truly random any mutations in terms of the physiology of life forms take place in and of themselves.

The different types of mutations in and of themselves can only take place within a range of possible ranges of outcomes determined by the nature of genetics and actually show a fractal relationship over time.

Again the only thing that is random in mutations is the timing of the individual mutation.

Claims of directed mutation have been addressed in the literature and demonstrated to be the expected natural selection. The directed mutation is often brought up by literalist-creationists to leverage the introduction of conscious design and a designer into the discussion of evolution.

There is a growing body of information that organisms have evolved means to protect parts of their genomes from the effects of mutagenesis, but this is the result of selection and not an indication of the influence of an external agent.

You are roughly correct here. The question of an external causal relationship outside the nature of our physical existence is a philosophical/theological question, and such claims are often a misuse of science The property of 'directed mutations' in DNA is a result of natural selection over time that results in a selective benefit to the population and has a natural explanation in genetics.

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me an insult to a " creator" that he'd
have to tinker and meddle to keep his contraption
going.

Biblically the 'Creator' did a lot of tinkering to cover up mistakes. This represents an ancient world view of a 'Source' some all Gods.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There's no proof a rib turned into a woman. No one has seen it happen, a rib is still a rib. I've eaten a few ribs in my time and not one of them turned into a woman! There is no proofs of ribs ever having been anything but ribs.

Don't you think I haven't tried. But all I have found is that ribs are delicious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me an insult to a " creator" that he'd
have to tinker and meddle to keep his contraption
going.

I have no evidence that a creator does tinker with it or doesn't. It isn't an issue for science, since there is nothing to test. No way of knowing whose belief is right and whose is wrong or if disbelief carries the day.

On a theological level, it isn't information that seems to carry the need to know leading to divine inspiration.

Literal creationists may concern themselves with it trying to devise questionable means and methods to twist and turn in order to make the question moot, but I don't worry about it. To me, that is an ideological issue and not a theological or scientific issue.

The idea that nature has means of its own and follows patterns that we can observe and increasingly understand seems to offend some theists to no end as the want know to end in favor of their favorite method of belief (ideology). And I see them continue to do this using those questionable means to no avail.

When the arguments come to consist of logical fallacies, word play and apparent games, it seems pretty clear to me, that they have given up their seat in the discussion and debate. I don't think they can bring a real argument to the table at the risk of learning something that might fracture their ideology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This does not address the question of randomness in genetics. The mutations themselves are neutral to the question of 'natural selection. 'natural selection' is a response to the relationship between the populations' diversity in the gene pool and environmental factors. The question of randomness in mutations is whether the how, why, and when are truly random any mutations in terms of the physiology of life forms take place in and of themselves.

The different types of mutations in and of themselves can only take place within a range of possible ranges of outcomes determined by the nature of genetics and actually show a fractal relationship over time.

Again the only thing that is random in mutations is the timing of the individual mutation.


You are roughly correct here. The question of an external causal relationship outside the nature of our physical existence is a philosophical/theological question, and such claims are often a misuse of science The property of 'directed mutations' in DNA is a result of natural selection over time that results in a selective benefit to the population and has a natural explanation in genetics.

I'm still having trouble seeing how mutations are not random where it counts. If we cannot predict them and the organisms are not anticipating selection and causing them, they remain absent as evidence of the action of an agency.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Biblically the 'Creator' did a lot of tinkering to cover up mistakes. This represents an ancient world view of a 'Source' some all Gods.

That is a good point. According to scripture, things were not going as planned so the board was washed away to start again. Now here we are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Same evidence, different interpretation"
SEDI

Aka intellectual dishonesty

Yes, those different interpretations, as indicated by the evidence, easily explained away, make little if any sense or are laughable in terms of what even the creationists acknowledge are facts.