I wrote, "Still vague as to how much change constitutes new and meaningful." Your new answer is equally vague. What's a new function? Recall that I invoked the sorites paradox involving gradual transitions between imprecisely defined states, such as from unconscious to conscious or night to day. There is no sharp dividing line allow us to say precisely when one becomes the other. Your answer above doesn't address that. When according to YOUR definition of a new gene does it become new. For me, it's with any change. How about you?
This is what you fail to understand, the analogy of something gradually changing (while maintaining its intrinsic nature) doesn’t apply to the functionality of a gene.
The functionality is not measured as an amount that keeps changing. The code is either functional or not. Random alterations to the code don’t mean that the function is gradually growing. The accumulated damage to original code would first lead to loss of original function (the gene becomes a “pseudogene”). Second, considering the impact on fitness due the loss of function, the process will not have the chance to continue indefinitely to warrant a meaningful change.
In conclusion,
the process is necessarily long and slow, the accumulated change to the code cannot continue to be without impact on original function, selection will not accommodate the impact and wait for the alleged end product to emerge at some point in the distant future.
I asked "why introduce "random junk" into the discussion?" not who invented the term
Junk is the very definition of a “pseudogene” that lost its functionality due to the accumulation of random changes.
The accumulation of the “non-beneficial” is a damaging alteration to original function.
Try to avoid nonstandard abbreviations if you wish to be understood. I Googled it and got Engineering Equation Solver, European Evaluation Society, Entry-Exit Systems and a few more, but nothing related to evolution.
EES means the extended evolutionary synthesis. We discussed the EES numerous times.
Nature, or reality, is the set of entities and processes interacting in space and time.
Manifestations within spacetime is not equal to an entity within spacetime.
See above.
Multiverse is not a leap of faith.
It is. You can neither prove it nor falsify it.
You contradict yourself. Didn’t you say, “Nature, or reality, is the set of entities and processes interacting in space and time.” Why do you invoke some reality beyond spacetime?
Spacetime is an intrinsic aspect of our universe. By your definition, if it’s outside spacetime, it’s not natural. Right?
I guess that leaps of faith aren't really a problem for you after all. What does "God" mean to you?
The logical necessary first cause, the district source, the only non-contingent being, the absolute reference that gives meaning to every relative.
With all due respect, your opinions don't have the weight with me you seem to assume.
I assume nothing. I only stated the fact that is evident in your reasoning. Your reasoning/assumption of multiverse as a "good candidate for the supersubstance from which our universe may have arisen" is a mix of leap of faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning (a universe arises or has its roots in another universe).
I don't agree. Learning what one doesn't know is knowledge.
learning has nothing to be with it. your awareness that you don’t know is not knowledge.
Yes, I do get to "set the rules." They're my beliefs and opinions.
No, you get to believe whatever you want but you do not get to “set the rules" of what is true or false.
So what? It appears that you didn't understand what I wrote, which was, "it is reasonable to assume that other apparently wakeful beings are conscious as well, but only to the extent that these beings are organic, developed through a gestation process from a fertilized egg" Did you want to address what I wrote there? Do you disagree with it? If so, where and why?
so, your reasoning is all over the place. You postulate that mind is a physical product of materialistic interactions yet physical processes don’t imply consciousness, conscious is an aspect of organic beings, but robots may be conscious. It’s fair enough to say that you don’t know. Hence, you don’t get to defend what you don’t know.
You deny that you don’t know but you really don’t. Let it settle.
Sure there is. Most evidence suggest that mind is dependent on brain. As far as I know, the only evidence suggesting otherwise are near death experience reports, which isn't convincing.
This is just you stating what you wish. This is not the opinion of scientists. We discussed that before and I provided the source.
Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)
Yes, we know that that there is a relationship between mental processes and brain processes, and that different brain regions are responsible for different functions, but scientists never established any physical mechanisms that explain or prove that mental consciousness could be a product of physical processes in the brain.
Whatever you see on your TV was not originated from within your TV but merely a manifestation of external entities that don’t reside within your TV. Sure, different TV functions affect the experience in different ways, but it doesn’t mean that the TV generates the experience; it’s merely a manifestation of an external influence.
Here is another article titled “Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body”
Scientists say your “mind" isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body (qz.com)
Sure it does. It has to do with how I view reality and why I give you the answers I do. I wrote, "My perspective doesn't include calling ultimate reality God. I don't name it and I don't imagine it's like a person aware of our existence.
Reality is not dependent on your perspective or what you may need or not. Again, you can believe whatever you want but your relative belief/view cannot be used as a justification for the validity of an argument.
Sorry that I can't join you in your belief in gods or the supernatural, but I don't need either of those concepts to understand and navigate reality.
Why sorry? You don’t have to join my belief.
Sure, I would be happy if you do but it’s your call and you are free.
From the Islamic perspective, No soul shall bear the burden of another. Yes, I have an obligation to convey the message to the best of my ability but at this point my role ends. I’m not responsible for the decisions/actions of others. I’m only responsible for mine.
“Say, Should I seek a lord other than Allah while He is the Lord of everything? Each soul earns only on its own account, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." [Al-An'am, 164]