LIIA
Well-Known Member
I would enjoy an ethical debate even if we disagree. It would save time. Otherwise, it’s not fun.because you get no enjoyment out of this.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I would enjoy an ethical debate even if we disagree. It would save time. Otherwise, it’s not fun.because you get no enjoyment out of this.
Nonsense, the context here is the current status of the “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis”. What model are you talking about? Read the article.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.
Nonsense, if you use evolution to refute ring species then you must accept that at least one of them is not true. A true theory cannot invalidate a true observation (a truth cannot invalidate another truth). So, either one is false, or both are false. Pick one if you wish.Ironically you can only "refute" it by assuming that evolution is true
I doubt that you could produce an example of a demonstrably irreducibly complex biological system, but seem to assume that such things exist.
Seriously?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.
The argument about God has nothing to do with the Modern Synthesis being disproved on scientific bases.yet again to accommodate that knew knowledge. Gods still aren't necessary in that narrative.
Again, all populations of a ring species complex are typically considered/identified as subspecies (not different species) mainly because the concept assumes continual gene flow from end to end. (The concept being false or without examples is another issue that I previously clarified. see #7680 )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.
Stay on track; the context here is the ring species concept in addition to the delineation of species and whether the inability of interbreeding is enough delineation. Per the example of Great Danes and Chihuahua, the inability of interbreeding is NOT enough delineation of species. Both are the same species, there are not even subspecies. You already got the point, didn’t you? Why argue?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.
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.
It’s a subjective opinion without any scientific evidence to support that brain cells or connections of brain cells could produce your thoughts, mind or consciousness. There has never been a plausible biological mechanism proposed to account for this. See the article below.No. I have no reason to believe that consciousness (and thought) is not a physical epiphenomenon of brains.
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.
It occurs consciously.
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?
No, we are not on the same page. Let me explain.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.
Mutations are not random.
It only demonstrates that one does not understand evolution when they have to use misleading terms.Yes there is. It’s called the ToE.
Don’t you know that per the ToE, Tiktaalik is considered the transitional ancestor form fish to four-legged creature (tetrapods) including elephants, giraffe and also humans? Yes, the ToE assumes that fish transformed into elephants.
View attachment 80174
No, I’m a Muslim
If you acknowledge that the article explained why these examples are not perfect versions of ring species, then why do disagree with my statement in #7048 “ring species is an over a century old concept with no good examples in the classic sense today”?
Again, it’s an idea/concept without good examples as clearly stated by the article. Same as above, which part of what I said that you disagree with?
But we have examples. The examples still demonstrate the concept very well, even if you do not understand it.My point was the lack of examples not the validity but if your concern is the validity, then sure the concept itself is invalid and without evidence/examples.
The concept necessitates a continuous uninterrupted “gene flow” end to end to establish the specific relationship between the ends (which can’t interbreed). Without the continual gene flow, the assumed relationship between the ends is false. Even if you want to argue that any of these intermediate sporadic isolated populations would constitute the second end of the ring, it wouldn’t qualify sense the continual gene flow relationship with the opposite end is not there.
The entire concept of ring species collapses without the continual gene flow all the way (end to end) since the hypothesized relationship between the ends becomes nonexistent and without examples in nature. Do you understand?
Once again, articles that you do not understand do not help you. Approach with a more humble mien and people will try to explain to you your errors.No, “Ensatina eschscholtzii" is neither a good nor perfect example.
Again, studies on the molecular data concluded that the data do not support the ring species hypothesis.
Is Ensatina eschscholtzii a Ring-Species? on JSTOR
The same article titled “There are no ring species” specifically said,
“What about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii? Or seagulls in the genus Larus? Aren’t those good ring species?” My answer was that those had been shown not to be ring species in the classic sense”
There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True
You are not that ignorant; you intentionally twist the facts to win a false argument. You know I don’t buy such nonsense, so what is your goal? Is it to get the uninformed readers confused? But before you confuse them, you confuse yourself, See #7523 by @ shunyadragon. I appreciate his ethical debate. Try to learn from him.
I provide sources such as George Sarton, Robert Briffault, and Collins Dictionary and you provide empty assertions as if your personal nonsense has a higher credibility than these sources. It’s really pathetic.
Yes, the Chinese were at the forefront before the Muslims but how is that relevant to the fact the Muslims acquired the knowledge of older civilizations, made unprecedented scientific advancements and conveyed the knowledge to the whole world?
Yes, the concept of the decimal system is Indian but how is that relevant to the fact the Muslims advanced mathematics to an entirely new level not known to older civilizations and conveyed the knowledge to the world?
And no, it was not the Arabs it was the "Islamic Golden Age" including scientists from the “Islamic Empire" both Arab and non-Arab scientists.
Technically they were not "scientists". At least not in the modern sense of the word. Learned men, no doubt. Did they make important discoveries? Yes they did. You are merely grasping at straws instead of trying to find out how Islam failed.List of scientists in medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia
Those who are interested may refer to the book below.
“The Genius of Islam: How Muslims Made the Modern World” by Bryn Barnard (Author)
Amazon.com: The Genius of Islam: How Muslims Made the Modern World: 9780375840722: Barnard, Bryn: Books
I do but you don’t have the capacity to understand it. It’s not even an argument. It’s the fact that latest scientific finds disproved the central assumption of the Modern Synthesis. See # 4087
Not all Islam makes the error of creationism as you do. She never said or implied that Islam is creationism. It is just your flawed version that definitely follows creationism.Forget about my “defrctive thinking”. Demonstrate how Islam is not creationism!
The problem is that there really is no "debate" about this topic. The basics are settled. You seem to disagree with those for some odd reason. Have you ever tried to have an ethical debate with a Flat Earther?I would enjoy an ethical debate even if we disagree. It would save time. Otherwise, it’s not fun.
Yes, the context is there but you misinterpret such articles far to often.Nonsense, the context here is the current status of the “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis”. What model are you talking about? Read the article.
Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)
Nope. That is a complete non sequitur. A ring species is a general concept. In the real world we do not have perfect continual slight changes in biological niches that exist continually. It could be determined that at points in time with the ensatina salamander that there was isolation.Nonsense, if you use evolution to refute ring species then you must accept that at least one of them is not true. A true theory cannot invalidate a true observation (a truth cannot invalidate another truth). So, either one is false, or both are false. Pick one if you wish.
Ah I see. You sounded like a JW, that’s all.Yes there is. It’s called the ToE.
Don’t you know that per the ToE, Tiktaalik is considered the transitional ancestor form fish to four-legged creature (tetrapods) including elephants, giraffe and also humans? Yes, the ToE assumes that fish transformed into elephants.
View attachment 80174
No, I’m a Muslim
Of course not all Muslims are fundamentlists. But some clearly are. What is odd is that he keeps extolling the advances that Islam the Arabic countries had, he calls it "the Golden Age of Islam". And it is true. At one point they did pretty much lead the world in that sense. And then their religion was overtaken by fundamentalists. If anything they went backwards. They definitely stagnated. He does not like the fact that the scientific method as we know it was developed in Christian countries.Ah I see. You sounded like a JW, that’s all.
But this does not show a “transformation” of fish into elephants. it shows evolution.
You would not say you are ”transformed” into your grandson. You would say your grandson is “descended” from you. So it is with fish and elephants.
It's a bit off-topic but I'm not sure you are entirely right about the rise of islamic fundamentalism being key to the shift in intellectual dynamism. My understanding is that islamic fundamentalism is a phenomenon arising in the c.20th. Whereas the scientific and mathematical baton passed from islamic countries (basically the Ottoman Empire) to Europe after the Renaissance. The printing press had a lot to do with it, as did the Protestant Reformation. So I agree with you about the open sharing of ideas being crucial, certainly. But not that fundamentalism had shut that down in the muslim countries. I think it had more to do with the priorities and systems of thought in the Ottoman Empire. (Possibly too the printing press may have had a later impact there, due to Arabic script, but that's just an ad-hoc speculation of mine.)Of course not all Muslims are fundamentlists. But some clearly are. What is odd is that he keeps extolling the advances that Islam the Arabic countries had, he calls it "the Golden Age of Islam". And it is true. At one point they did pretty much lead the world in that sense. And then their religion was overtaken by fundamentalists. If anything they went backwards. They definitely stagnated. He does not like the fact that the scientific method as we know it was developed in Christian countries.
And since he did not want to know what important step that the Europeans added I figure I might go off a bit on it myself. One of the most important parts of the scientific method is communication. Open communication of findings and techniques allows others to check and verify or refute ideas. It also guarantees the widespread availability of that knowledge. That was one of the key steps never developed in Islam before fundamentalism shut down new thought.
Yes, Mutations are not random, but your focus is on outcomes being controlled by Natural Laws and processes (which I don’t disagree with) yet, we cannot ignore the true range of possible outcomes and its significance as it relates to real world observations.
For example, if you throw a single dice then, the size/shape, throwing force, gravity, surface friction, etc. would be the controlling Natural Laws and processes. The outcomes are limited to 1 to 6. If you throw two dice, possible outcomes under the same Natural Laws become 36, 3 dice yield 216, 4 dice yield 1296, and very soon the number of possible outcomes under the same Natural Laws becomes enormous beyond imagination and the probability of a specific combination to emerge becomes extremely low.
The human genome includes 30,000 genes; the number of possible interactions gets to be astronomically unimaginable (ten to seventy thousand). Imagine the number of possible interactions for every single species on the planet.
Even when we consider that the great majority of the conceivable interactions cannot occur or that some components never interact directly with each other and reduce the number of genes involved in each function, we still end up with astronomic numbers as large as the estimated number of elementary particles in the entire universe.
See #7380
Darwin's Illusion | Page 369 | Religious Forums
The point is even if we acknowledge the controlling processes but the possible numbers of interactions regardless of all attempts of reductions is still a mathematical impossibility. As the article stated, “Computational biology has serious difficulties with the problem of combinatorial explosion even when we deal with just 100 elements, let alone tens of thousands.”
View attachment 80180
See the link for “The Music of life Sourcebook” page 62, 63 & 7
The Music of Life-sourcebook.pdf