Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

P.S. Dust also does not form itself from nothing anyway.

No, but dust don't transform into a living human being, and adult one too, which is utterly ridiculous as well as unnatural.

You don't seem to grasp that.

What do you think cells are made of?

Not dust. You would know that if you have even inking of basic biology.

The largest composition of organ matters (referring to molecules, not atoms) in a human body, is protein, about 20%, about 12% of the mass is lipid (eg body fat), RNA 1% and DNA 0.1%.

This composition is about organic molecules. Water make up about 65% of mass, but water is not organic.

What you should know that are no dust, no soil and no clay molecules in the body.

I know that Genesis speak of dust, but I am assuming it referring to soil, but in my days of studying civil engineering, I have learned there are 3 main types of soils:

1. clay
   
2. silt
   
3. sandy soil

Every single one of these types, originally come from minerals of rocks, like feldspar, mica and quartz, due to the weathering process (eg rain, hail, streams, waves, wind, etc are all forces that break down rocks). In clay and silt soils, the rock minerals are further broken down over time, to become soil, with clay being the less grainy of the soil.

Soil by themselves have no organic matters, unless some organisms have died and decomposed, thereby introducing organic matters into the soil. Or organic matter can be introduced into soil through sweat, urine and excrement from certain animals. It is these organic matter that have permeate the soil, that provide nutrient and fertilization in the soil.

The point is that soil don't become a human being, and you should know that, because every single human were born through the process of reproduction: sex, fertilisation of egg, cell-division, pregnancy and livebirth.

This similar reproduction have occurred among most mammals. I wrote "most", platypus being the exception, for instance, because they lay eggs, but they are mammals. (I am not biologist or zoologist, so I don't know if there are other egg-laying mammals out there. I only just know of the platypus, because I lived in Australia.)

Reptiles and birds lay their eggs on dry lands. Fishes and amphibians also lay their eggs too, but in water, not on dry lands.

All of these animals go through reproduction process.

The whole dust, soil and clay are just myths where ancient and medieval people don't really understand human biology. All you are doing, is making excuses about Adam's creation being a possibility, but we already know that humans are not made of clay or other soil types.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Spontaneous generation is not necessarily the way God created anything. If I were to make a bowl from clay, it doesn't spontaneously produce itself, does it?

It isn't an apt analogy. You have the creativity of humans, God and the logically impossible notion of something creating itself all rolled into one. There isn't really any way to answer your question.

If you were to make a bowl from clay, it has an obvious maker. It possesses features recognizable as something made. You discuss if you made it. That rules out the logical impossibility of a bowl spontaneously producing itself.

Do you think that the example of making a clay bowl is similar in some way to the notion that life could spontaneously form from non-living matter? Do you think that the clay or the bowl is alive after you make it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem I'm seeing now is that gorillas really do not look like humans.

Do they look like ducks? Dogs? Bacteria? What species do they most closely resemble? No one is saying that they are the same species as us or that the appearance of related organisms has to be perfect in order to use that appearance as evidence for a relationship. Children can have familial similarities without being clones of their parents or other relatives.

 

[metis]

"Mosaic evolution" is like saying anything goes and I don’t need a proof. It's nonsense.

I really can't care much less about whatever fantasies you choose to believe in, so I'm done with this "conversation". I used to be more like you on this back in my mid-teens by not believing in the basic ToE, but then I did the studying and eventually went into the field of anthropology.

So, as far as I'm concerned, you can believe in any fantasies that suit you.

 

[metis]

The mid-20th century Modern Synthesis (modern mainstream theory today) suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. Then all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis itself were proven wrong. No exception.

I didn't see this before my last post, so let me conclude with this: the above is not even remotely logical, and one doesn't even have to be even a scientist to know that.

 

[Astrophile]

LIIA said:
common sense should tell you that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.

If you’ve not explained the origin, you‘ve not explained anything that allegedly came from that origin. Why is that difficult to understand?

Would you say that you can't do chemistry if you haven't explained the origin of the elements, or that you can't explain meteorology or predict the weather if you haven't explained the origin of the Earth's atmosphere?

What scientific difference would it make if the first single-celled organisms were created by God and all other living things evolved from them?

 

[Astrophile]

Neanderthal and modern humans were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. Meaning, they were the same species same like all humans on earth today including the most remote isolated geographical areas. They are all same species.

June 2020, a study published on the Royal Society showed that Neanderthal and anatomically modern humans (AMH) were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

A mitochondrial genetic divergence proxy predicts the reproductive compatibility of mammalian hybrids | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Neanderthals were humans and most importantly they were not human ancestors.

If Neanderthals and modern humans bred and produced fertile offspring, the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. of those hybrid offspring were also descendants of Neanderthals, therefore Neanderthals must be the ancestors of at least some some modern humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do they look like ducks? Dogs? Bacteria? What species do they most closely resemble? No one is saying that they are the same species as us or that the appearance of related organisms has to be perfect in order to use that appearance as evidence for a relationship. Children can have familial similarities without being clones of their parents or other relatives.

Sorry but I have looked at pictures recently and realized they really do not look like humans. But not saying everyone sees things the same way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry but I have looked at pictures recently and realized they really do not look like humans. But not saying everyone sees things the same way.

They are very similar to humans. More than any other group of animals. I don't think anyone is saying that they look exactly the same as us or would pass for human if they were in clothing. We just share a lot of morphological characters.

 

[gnostic]

The mid-20th century Modern Synthesis (modern mainstream theory today) suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. Then all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis itself were proven wrong. No exception.

No it didn’t make Darwin’s assumptions wrong, the modern synthesis more like incorporated Mendelian Genetic (Mendelian Inheritance Law) into Natural Selection.

Darwin’s own explanation on genetics, lacked accuracy, but he wasn’t about population of species need to adapt and change, when the environments have changed.

Gregor Mendel was Darwin’s contemporary, but Darwin was unaware of Mendel’s experiments and writing. Plus, Mendel’s writings ere lost for a time, only to be rediscovered by 2 biologists in 1900.

Almost 50 years later, Julian Huxley published his work that use Mendel’s genetics with Darwin’s Natural Selection, hence the Modern Synthesis.

The Modern Synthesis didn’t refute or disprove Natural Selection, it expanded Natural Selection, updating Darwin’s original work.

That’s called progress, LIIA.

Sciences allowed for existing theory to expand, correct/modify and update.

Astronomy, for instance, have been one of continuous correcting and updating what were known back in Galileo’s and Newton’s days. In the 20th century, newer and more powerful telescopes were developed that correct all the astronomers works from early 17th century to 1919.

Why 1919?

1919 was the year when they constructed the largest telescope in the world at that time, the Hooker Telescope. When Edwin Hubble look at the sky with this telescope, he revolutionized astronomy as to what it is today.

Before 1919, astronomers thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe. The 18th century Charles Messier classified Andromeda and Triangulum as nebulas, not galaxies. Hubble’s observations corrected these mistakes, and he discovered that that were a lot more galaxies than previously thought.

Hubble’s discoveries led to changes in astronomy, astrophysics and physical cosmology. That’s progress, and progress continued after Hubble had passed away.

Newer technology led to more discoveries, and we are still learning new things about our Solar System, our galaxy and more things beyond the boundary of our galaxy.

If astronomy and astrophysics are allowed to progress and expand our knowledge, why are you and other creationists are so set in limiting Evolution of progressing, expanding and correcting-updating itself.

You seemed very determined in only focusing on Darwin’s limitations, and not see modern progress of Natural Selection that have gone beyond the original work.

You still don’t understand understand how sciences work.

 

[cladking]

You seemed very determined in only focusing on Darwin’s limitations, and not see modern progress of Natural Selection that have gone beyond the original work.

No one said the Theory of Evolution hasn't changed since Darwin. We are saying Darwin was wrong as is the current paradigm.

You can't understand astronomy without some understanding of distance and you can't understand change in species without understanding consciousness and why all observed change is sudden.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are very similar to humans. More than any other group of animals. I don't think anyone is saying that they look exactly the same as us or would pass for human if they were in clothing. We just share a lot of morphological characters.

Not saying no in that they have faces more similar to humans than let's say a duck. And of course, a treatise could be made as to the change from fish to mammals -- BUT -- there is no substantial real evidence that it must have been that mutations and interbreeding (?) caused these profound changes. All absolute conjecture. Now I know that there are arguments that evolution is the key, and as I was looking at a website from a respected source (the Smithsonian Institute), I have decided it's unsubstantiated, in other words--guesswork as to how it happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are very similar to humans. More than any other group of animals. I don't think anyone is saying that they look exactly the same as us or would pass for human if they were in clothing. We just share a lot of morphological characters.

I mean someone can tell me that like Haeckel's drawings that their backs got straighter due to evolution via "natural selection", they stopped jumping from limb to limb on trees and instead naturally developed different brains but at this point, it isn't going to sway me towards giving credence for the theory, because -- there is no backup for those ideas except, as they say, the theory. And the theory is not supported by fact.

 

[YoursTrue]

Would you say that you can't do chemistry if you haven't explained the origin of the elements, or that you can't explain meteorology or predict the weather if you haven't explained the origin of the Earth's atmosphere?

What scientific difference would it make if the first single-celled organisms were created by God and all other living things evolved from them?

That's an interesting question. The Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created by God. Does this mean that it is true? Using logic, if I built a house, did I build the trees used to make lumber?

 

[gnostic]

The Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created by God. Does this mean that it is true? Using logic, if I built a house, did I build the trees used to make lumber?

That's not using logic.

The question is just a pointless rhetoric.

Nothing in your example, illustrate or points to "God" existing in any way, to create anything.

You building a house using lumbers is one thing, claiming an imaginary God, have imaginary created heavens and Earth, is another thing, which you can demonstrate to be true.

You are comparing two different things that are completely unrelated, so making such claims about these two different things is not logical, but making ludicrous claims of their relationship.

Can you even provide examples that show some real logic?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I mean someone can tell me that like Haeckel's drawings that their backs got straighter due to evolution via "natural selection", they stopped jumping from limb to limb on trees and instead naturally developed different brains but at this point, it isn't going to sway me towards giving credence for the theory, because -- there is no backup for those ideas except, as they say, the theory. And the theory is not supported by fact.

The theory isn't the basis for concluding evolution. It is the conclusion based on the evidence. It is supported by facts. There really is no way for you to get around that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No one said the Theory of Evolution hasn't changed since Darwin. We are saying Darwin was wrong as is the current paradigm.

You can't understand astronomy without some understanding of distance and you can't understand change in species without understanding consciousness and why all observed change is sudden.

You have no idea. None at all regarding evolution. You do not have to understand consciousness to observe, describe or understand evolution and all observed change is not sudden.

You haven't given one sound reason or shown one piece of evidence to support either of those claims of consciousness or universal suddenness in change.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not saying no in that they have faces more similar to humans than let's say a duck. And of course, a treatise could be made as to the change from fish to mammals -- BUT -- there is no substantial real evidence that it must have been that mutations and interbreeding (?) caused these profound changes. All absolute conjecture. Now I know that there are arguments that evolution is the key, and as I was looking at a website from a respected source (the Smithsonian Institute), I have decided it's unsubstantiated, in other words--guesswork as to how it happened.

It is not conjecture. It is conclusion based on the evidence.

You find pieces of evidence and based on prior work, your own reason and that evidence you piece together a logical explanation. You test that explanation to see how well it fits. You apply it to other examples to see how well it fits the evidence. You keep doing this all the time. You incorporate new methods and advances of study. It fits every time. That is not conjecture.

You are free to argue another conclusion, but you need good reason and sound interpretation of the evidence supporting your argument. Simply claiming it to be conjecture is doing you no good.

I understand that you reject it all based on ideology. You have been clear on that repeated it often. I'm fine with that, but that pretty much is the limit of what you can say. Claiming that the science all falls apart, because there is no evidence, no "proof", or that it is all conjecture is reaching for straws that are not there.

 

[gnostic]

I mean someone can tell me that like Haeckel's drawings that their backs got straighter due to evolution via "natural selection", they stopped jumping from limb to limb on trees and instead naturally developed different brains but at this point, it isn't going to sway me towards giving credence for the theory, because -- there is no backup for those ideas except, as they say, the theory. And the theory is not supported by fact.

The theory isn't the basis for concluding evolution. It is the conclusion based on the evidence. It is supported by facts. There really is no way for you to get around that.

For someone who claimed to be good at science when younger, YoursTrue don't understand that evidence are what decide the conclusion.

Creationists like YoursTrue, think theory is something that people make up some assertions or assumptions, to reach the conclusion.

They ignore the vital part of scientific theory are based on empirical evidence, which is part of the requirements of Scientific Method and falsifiable model.

 

[cladking]

...and all observed change is not sudden.

I meant every single change in life that has ever been observed, not what is inferred by believers based on the "fossil record". Inference is no more observation that taxonomies and abstractions are reality.

You haven't given one sound reason or shown one piece of evidence to support either of those claims of consciousness...

It is quite obvious to every observer that consciousness is involved any time a fox catches a rabbit or fails. It is merely assumed that the strong survive and the weak perish. People want to reduce reality to something simple but it is impossible to reduce the complexity of whether a hunter catches its prey. All of the abilities and chance come into play as well as their weaknesses and their very natures. It is non sequitur to conclude that the strong eat the weak or that the strong, smart, or "lucky" have a better chance of survival. It is much more illogical to then conclude that this natural selection then somehow causes species to change.

I have shown ample evidence and it is handwaved. If anyone could be put upon to address these points I could type them all out yet again. Referring me to wiki is not an argument. The Theory of Evolution is merely a model to explain experiment but there exist other models that do so better.