Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

The point is the allegation that consciousness is not generated by the brain, no? Yet consciousness is helpless in the face of various kinds of brain damage, whether alcohol, drugs, trauma, disease, hypoxia, &c.

And only hypothesis, unsupported by good evidence, supports the idea that consciousness exists independently of the brain.

From a bird's eye view, the car makes rational decisions towards a destination; any damage to the car affects such ability. The car appears responsible for the decisions. Yes, the bird can never see the driver, but it doesn’t mean that there is no driver.

What is it, exactly, that exists outside of the brain and can interact with the brain? Where is there evidence in brain research of such an interaction?

Or am I right in asserting that nothing of the kind has ever been observed?

The spirit is the source of consciousness. We cannot see or experiment on the spirit (not physical). Only available facts are that research couldn’t establish any mechanism in the brain functions to generate “mind”, also NDE research proved the total independency of “mind” from the brain. “mind” continues to be functional at the time that the brain is totally non-functional and can also travel beyond the body to verified locations.

I know how it sounds to you, I suggest you get more familiar with NDE research and verify what I just told you.

The broadcast signals of TV and radio are parts of physics.

Therefore you need evidence from physics of what you're talking about. Otherwise the analogy is false and misleading.

The analogy is only concerned with the independency of “mind” (the broadcast) you cannot take it literal.

The amoeba dies. The ant dies. The grass seed dies. The sparrow (notoriously) dies. The family dog dies. But all of them have continued to exist, just not anywhere they can be detected, located, communicated with? Is that your claim?

I suggest you see the thread “What happens after we die” if you wish.

Here are some of my posts on the thread, it may help.

#60

(2) What happens after we die | Page 3 | Religious Forums

#66

(2) What happens after we die | Page 4 | Religious Forums

I have a friend whose cousin crashed his light aircraft at night, crawled clear, and had an NDE, so he said, and so it seems quite possible to me that such experiences occur.

It does. It’s an established fact through research. The facts have two categories.

First, Experiences within our physical realm (have been verified to be true trough research, yet the mechanism cannot be explained such as being in different physical location far from the body and reporting authentic details)

Second, Experiences beyond our physical realm that cannot be verified but the fact that the first category was proven to be true support the same about the second category.

What doesn't seem possible to me is that they signify anything.

It’ a subjective opinion that doesn’t really mean anything. Check the conclusions of NDE research.
Don’t you accept verified scientific evidence through research?

I see nothing mysterious about qualia. As humans our genetics provide each of us with much the same equipment; the attempts to turn that into woo don't impress me at all.

It is absolutely mysterious but only for those who understand its implications (scientists as well as philosophers of mind).

What you see, i.e., your subjective opinion doesn’t really mean anything.

You have no evidence of any such broadcast,

Yes, I do. Again, it’s the NDE research. Your lack of knowledge or understanding of its conclusions is not an argument against it. first, get yourself familiar with the conclusions of the research, then after you do, you may continue to deny it if so you wish but not before that.

Growth is pre-programmed. Learning to speak is pre-programmed. Adolescent is pre-programmed. Menopause is pre-programmed. Old age is pre-programmed. That's the frame the sense of a map is built on.

Was your response to me on this thread pre-programmed?

 

[blü 2]

Yes, self-editing occurs in the forebrain.

The forehead is a very common shorthand for the brain itself.

Life has a purpose otherwise “survival” itself would be meaningless, why should you or any living system struggle to survive, if survival has no purpose?

All animals have reflexes and instincts to aid their survival. Even flies scatter at an unrecognized movement. Humans are naturally afraid of death, because the alternative is unhelpful. Most human cultures are so afraid of death that they tell stories of living on after death in various forms, though why living forever is a good idea is never made clear ─ I certainly can't think of a reason.

You don’t get to the choose the beginning or end of your live, only between these two points, you get to exercise the free will that was given to you.

Your will is free to the extent that any particular decision is not forced on you by external circumstances. But no one can make personal decisions independently of their brain's decision-making processes, which are of course the product of their genes, influenced by their life-experiences, over which they did not and will not have control.

That is the purpose of life. The free will boils down to your choice to submit to God or deny God.

What real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'God' here? No one has been able to describe a real God to me ─ instead they use terms appropriate to imaginary beings, like omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, eternal &c &c.

Or do you agree that the only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain?

 

[blü 2]

The spirit is the source of consciousness.

No evidence supports that claim. Can you provide a definition of "spirit" appropriate to a real thing, or is it all done with imprecise or imaginary terms?

NDE research proved the total independency of “mind” from the brain.

You certainly use different news and science sources to me. Once again, what definition of "mind" are you using? As I said previously, it's a slippery, imprecise term.

“mind” continues to be functional at the time that the brain is totally non-functional and can also travel beyond the body to verified locations.

No, ever since the modern re-discovery of the diving reflex, we've known that absence of vital signs from the brain may sometimes not indicate the total cessation of brain-function.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usual, you make up some empty claims merely because you said so without any demonstration and try to confuse the uninformed reader.

But NO, “error” in the scientific context of DNA replication means a deviation from the specific original DNA sequence being replicated, specifically when the error or damage escapes the proofreading mechanisms of the cell.”

DNA repair | Enzymes, Pathways & Benefits | Britannica

View attachment 81701

When you don't understand your own sources I don't need any. Just admit that you did not understand and I will go into more detail.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These random mutations are DNA replication errors.

Yes, I know what mutations are, thank you.

Even if the impact of a single error is negligible with respect to the gene function (NEUTRAL) but the accumulation of these errors will be damaging to the function.

This is just wrong when stated like an absolute like that and I already explained why and how.
In one ear, out the other.

And once again: the mutation that makes that happen, is not a neutral mutation as it has an EFFECT.

Furthermore, saying it is "negligible" is ALSO WRONG when it concerns a NEUTRAL mutation.
A negligible effect is still an effect.

A neutral mutation has NO effect, "negligible" or otherwise.

Per the ToE, a beneficial change is not a single sudden change but rather the end result of accumulated random purposeless steps that take effect within an existing gene with an existing function.

This is also incorrect.
It can be both the end result of accumulation of neutral mutations and it can also be a single mutation.

You misrepresent the articles you quote.
Yes, mutations are "replication errors". You misrepresentation is that you use the word "error" and "damage" in that definition as if it automatically means that therefor it is "harmful" in phenotypical terms. This is simply not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s a naive generalization/oversimplification. It’s totally the other way around. The argument is way stronger when I quote prominent scientists from your side. You wouldn’t accept otherwise. Would you?

The real irony is when prominent scientists disprove all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis yet accept evolution but in this case such acceptance is not an acceptance of a scientific theory (which they disproved) but rather a hypothesis that was unduly elevated to the level of an axiom.

But you do not understand them. They are never saying what you claim that they are. You appear to have severe memory problems. I showed how you didn't understand the work that you linked but could only read the abstract of by quoting those that read the whole article and understood it. You keep demonstrating that you don't understand the sources that you cite. That makes your arguments backfire on you.

Yes, that can be a very convincing technique, if one can do it properly. You cannot do so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The pre-coded function (citrate transporter) did exist before the mutation, but it was silent. see the link.

Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature

It’s neither new nor randomly evolved info. It's not an accumulation of random change but rather a cell-mediated adaptive process (not merely DNA replication error) and most importantly the ability to consume citrate didn’t give rise to a new species, it was a variant of the same species which is exactly the case with the phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). I.e., a cell mediated adaptive process.

The problem here is your inability to understand the difference between random DNA replication error/damage and the cell mediated adaptive changes, which are neither random nor gradual. Gradual accumulation of errors doesn’t lead to new meaningful functions.

The notion that just because the trait is new, then it must be due to the accumulation of random errors, is totally false and illogical. There is no evidence for such nonsense. It’s totally against the new scientific finds (adaptive changes are neither random nor gradual), See # 1245. This is exactly why the Modern Synthesis is false.

Also “New traits” doesn’t equal “new species”. If you consider the new traits that give rise to variants of dogs, all of these different traits previously exist (pre-coded) in the DNA of the species, it’s not new traits that emerged due to random accumulation of DNA replication errors. That is why no matter how the variants are very very different, it will never be a new species. Do you understand?

I can only repeat myself.

The mutations were required for the activation of the function.
Without these mutations, there is no such function. Case in point: the other populations that don't have these mutations don't have this function.

Once again, you can only argue dishonestly with strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all. In essence, a gene is indeed a unique code for a function.

It is not.
Geneticists would wish that to be true as it would be far easier. But it isn't.
Reality is far more complex then that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s a naive generalization/oversimplification. It’s totally the other way around. The argument is way stronger when I quote prominent scientists from your side. You wouldn’t accept otherwise. Would you?

Not when you dishonestly misrepresent what they said and abuse the terminology they use to make it seem as if they say something else then what they actually say.

The real irony is when prominent scientists disprove all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis yet accept evolution but in this case such acceptance is not an acceptance of a scientific theory (which they disproved) but rather a hypothesis that was unduly elevated to the level of an axiom.

In your dishonest strawmanning opinion only

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, the theory assumes that all transformations of all kinds are not only possible

This is just false. So obviously so that I have problems taking such a statement seriously, even from someone like you.

but did take effect even the transformation of microorganisms into elephants, provided you give the process time, random changes and selection pressures.

A step-by-step progression that took some 4 billion years and where each step made sense in light of the snapshot of life existing at that time with the selection pressures at that moment.

There is absolutely no reason why humans would grow an extra set of limbs which will evolve into wings. None at all.

If the alleged transformation of LUCA (single-celled organism) into elephants is possible, then why not the human wings?

Because there are zero selection pressures to favor an extra set of limbs.

All what you need is a random replication changes in the arrangement of DNA that causes a gene to express itself differently, so simple, right?

Maybe in lala-land.

Just get stuck in traffic every day, wish for wings and leave the rest to random mutations and natural selection. Should the random advantageous change happens, selection would keep it. Right?

There are no magic beans in biology.

But if human wings appear so ridiculous (and it is), then let me ask you a simpler question. Monkeys may jump from tree to tree everyday all the time. Monkeys with some sort of membranes would glide longer and could jump farther, such adaptation would be advantageous, and it may even save their lives by giving them better chance to escape predators. Now, let's forget about humans, can monkeys grow wings and fly through an evolutionary process?

Colugo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Empty claims

What I wrote was, "Local spacetime began with the big bang. If there is more to reality than that, then our universe's space time began and proceeded at a time and place in a meta spacetime."

The statement is self-evidently correct. If our universe represents a local expansion in a preexisting substance, then T=0 in it corresponds to a non-zero spaciotemporal address in a meta-referential frame.

why is a conscious first cause is a problem to you.

It's not. It just goes at the bottom of my list of candidate hypotheses for the existence of our universe. Why? It's the least parsimonious explanation. Even if there were some kind of universal consciousness, where's the evidence that it has always existed, that it didn't evolve from an unconscious prior substance the way it apparently has in our universe?

I previously demonstrated how the "distinct source” is unique and why he must be conscious (his actions only depends on him in the sense that it’s not triggered by external influences beyond his being).

Your argument wasn't convincing. You can't know anything about any of this except what the logical possibilities you can imagine might be and order them according to parsimony. You can't go further than except to pick one and believe it by faith as you have. I won't follow you. All six candidate hypotheses remain logically possible for me until one can be ruled in or one or more ruled out.

Demonstrate your reasons for the contrary rather than a subjective inclination towards the hypothesis of multiverse that multiplies the same problem instead of providing answers.

I gave my reasons. They're intuitions and a belief in parsimony when hypothesizing. Intuitively, between the first substance coming into being uncaused or having always existed, I prefer the latter for reasons I can't give - the definition of a compelling intuition, which is a claim that the brain makes to a mind without showing its work, like the belief that a reality exists outside of the individual mind. My reason for preferring hypotheses that have the universe having a source is the fine-tuning argument and the Big Bang theory. My reason for preferring the unconscious multiverse as that source over a conscious god is parsimony again. In summary, the multiverse hypothesis is the one that most parsimoniously accounts for all relevant observation.

The fine-tuning argument deserve more attention, but not here and now. There are speculations about the universe tuning itself after T=0. And creationists who rely on it for their god-of-the-gaps arguments need to explain why an omnipotent god that allegedly created the laws of nature was constrained to specific values for physical constants. Why? What higher order of existence constrains it and needs to be discovered and accommodated even by a tri-omni deity?

You are the one who implies that the “existence of God” not worthy of consideration.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I don't find any value there any longer. I consider the question of gods unanswerable, and I'm content with that. I'm not one of those guys who spends his life searching for answers to the same questions, like somebody looking for his keys his whole life. Eventually, one should realize that he won't find them and move on.

I demonstrated the case for God. You didn’t demonstrate any case for multiverse.

Your case for God contains assumptions I don't share. Unshared premises lead to useless conclusions for one. And I've made my case for the multiverse hypothesis twice now, once a few lines up.

If science postulates that nothing physical exist beyond the Big Bang, on what basis you make a claim otherwise?

What claim is that? Are you understanding my argument to mean that I claim a multiverse exists? If so, you've misunderstood it. Also, science includes no such postulate.

Demonstrate why the source must be unconscious.

No such claim was made. I wrote, "I define multiverse as any unconscious source for our universe." That's a definition. Unconscious is more likely than conscious because it's more parsimonious.

Multiple universes only multiply the same problem. It doesn’t provide answers.

I didn't propose multiple universes, and they don't multiply the problem for either the multiverse or God hypotheses - just the hypotheses that the universe has always existed (eternally banging and crunching) or came into being uncaused.

Every universe needs a source

Says you.

Special pleading again. What's the source of a god? Doesn't need one, you say? If that's a good enough argument for you, then applying it to universes ought to be as well - unless you have a faith-based belief affecting how you process information, in which case you will differentially accept whatever you think supports it while rejecting whatever contradicts it (confirmation bias, Texas Sharpshooter fallacy).

The beginning must be a source that have existed infinitely/uncaused. A contingent entity with a specific beginning must be caused. An empty claim that contradicts science. God always exists, with no beginning. God is the cause for time itself to exist.

Says you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

multiverse is no more than some circular reasoning that doesn’t provide any root answers.

The multiverse hypothesis is preferred to the God hypothesis since it answers all of the same questions, but more parsimoniously.

For the sake of argument, if option 6 is true, you have put your eternal life on the line

Pascal's Wager? Do I need to refute that for you? OK:

So have you. If a god exists and consciousness survives death, none of us knows that or anything about it. If you've chosen the Abrahamic god, you've made a mistake. That god has been ruled out. There were no six days of creation or first two people (Adam and Eve; hopefully you recall the sorites paradox). So, if there's a deity or deities, it's not that one.

can you afford such a gamble?

It's one I can't escape. Neither can you. Whatever course one chooses, there is always the risk of aggravating some unseen god. You're taking the same gamble, but likely have long since forgotten that you might be wrong.

You can’t find “peace of mind” through materialistic means, if you think you do, I think you’re deceiving yourself.

Thanks, but I've got it covered.

You would always want more, you will always see others who got more than you, what you didn’t get will always be a source of dissatisfaction.

That's incorrect. I just posted this on another thread: "I consume exactly as much as I need and want, and no more. My tastes are simple and my lifestyle modest and well within my means. Nobody can make me consume more."

I really think anyone that claims that he got it all is lying or deceiving himself.

There's nothing more I want.

The various kinds of monism return all existing things to a single source that is distinct from them.

OK. Yes, that's what monism is and means.

NDE research did establish that consciousness is not dependent on the functions of the brain.

No, it didn't.

An empty claim. You make claims of what you don’t know. You try to impose your own limits on the absolute reality.

I wrote, "The signal you receive is the experience of physical reality whether that be of the external world or the body and brain." That's an empty claim to you? It's an irresistible intuition for most. And I am aware of the limits and potential fallibility of that intuition. Also from earlier today on another thread:

He: if we don't have free will, it's not like society suddenly changes, it's just the way things are.​

​

Me: Agreed, and that's an important insight. We often resist certain ideas because we don't want them to be true, but like you say, if we discover that the world was never like we thought it was, nothing changes.​

​

As an illustration, consider that it is literally true that you are in some matrix in some controlled mental state that you had always thought was your direct perception of a reality out there through the windows of the eyes and other senses, but you somehow suddenly learn that all of that is illusion. Now what? What do you do differently? Which of your rules for navigating your conscious experience need changing? Are you going to start doing what you previously thought was sticking an objectively real finger into an objectively real flame knowing that it hurt before? Probably not more than once. And you'll likely continue thinking in terms of objectively reality underlying the show playing in the theater of the mind. It's a heuristic now, but just as useful as before.​

​

So, if it's the case that free will is an illusion, so be it. If it is now, it always has been, and that been fine all along even if we didn't know what was what:​

​

"Appeal to consequences is a fallacy in which someone concludes that a statement, belief, or hypothesis must be true (or false) simply because it would lead to desirable (or undesirable) consequences if it were so."​

There is no physical process that gives rise to Qualia. Free will is a fact not an illusion. The spirit is the source of consciousness.

You don't know any of these to be correct.

 

[Audie]

No evidence supports that claim. Can you provide a definition of "spirit" appropriate to a real thing, or is it all done with imprecise or imaginary terms?


You certainly use different news and science sources to me. Once again, what definition of "mind" are you using? As I said previously, it's a slippery, imprecise term.


No, ever since the modern re-discovery of the diving reflex, we've known that absence of vital signs from the brain may sometimes not indicate the total cessation of brain-function.

Maybe clarify the distinction between
" different / new sources", and " just saying things"

 

[Audie]

The multiverse hypothesis is preferred to the God hypothesis since it answers all of the same questions, but more parsimoniously.

Pascal's Wager? Do I need to refute that for you? OK:

So have you. If a god exists and consciousness survives death, none of us knows that or anything about it. If you've chosen the Abrahamic god, you've made a mistake. That god has been ruled out. There were no six days of creation or first two people (Adam and Eve; hopefully you recall the sorites paradox). So, if there's a deity or deities, it's not that one.

It's one I can't escape. Neither can you. Whatever course one chooses, there is always the risk of aggravating some unseen god. You're taking the same gamble, but likely have long since forgotten that you might be wrong.

Thanks, but I've got it covered.

That's incorrect. I just posted this on another thread: "I consume exactly as much as I need and want, and no more. My tastes are simple and my lifestyle modest and well within my means. Nobody can make me consume more."

There's nothing more I want.

OK. Yes, that's what monism is and means.

No, it didn't.

I wrote, "The signal you receive is the experience of physical reality whether that be of the external world or the body and brain." That's an empty claim to you? It's an irresistible intuition for most. And I am aware of the limits and potential fallibility of that intuition. Also from earlier today on another thread:

He: if we don't have free will, it's not like society suddenly changes, it's just the way things are.​

​

Me: Agreed, and that's an important insight. We often resist certain ideas because we don't want them to be true, but like you say, if we discover that the world was never like we thought it was, nothing changes.​

​

As an illustration, consider that it is literally true that you are in some matrix in some controlled mental state that you had always thought was your direct perception of a reality out there through the windows of the eyes and other senses, but you somehow suddenly learn that all of that is illusion. Now what? What do you do differently? Which of your rules for navigating your conscious experience need changing? Are you going to start doing what you previously thought was sticking an objectively real finger into an objectively real flame knowing that it hurt before? Probably not more than once. And you'll likely continue thinking in terms of objectively reality underlying the show playing in the theater of the mind. It's a heuristic now, but just as useful as before.​

​

So, if it's the case that free will is an illusion, so be it. If it is now, it always has been, and that been fine all along even if we didn't know what was what:​

​

"Appeal to consequences is a fallacy in which someone concludes that a statement, belief, or hypothesis must be true (or false) simply because it would lead to desirable (or undesirable) consequences if it were so."​

You don't know any of these to be correct.

As elsewhere, it's " just saying things".

 

[YoursTrue]

The point is about fairness/justice/mercy.

Can you hold your 7-year-old kid responsible for the finances of your house? If you do and he fails, is that a surprise to you? Is that his fault? You cannot hold him accountable except for things within his capacity and when you do, (such as holding the kid responsible for washing his hands before eating or being nice to his siblings), you do it for his own benefit not for your direct benefit, and even when he sometimes makes a mistake, your are not eagerly waiting for this mistake to get revenge or kick him out of your house. You give him as many chances as he needs. And whenever he comes back to you and say “I’m sorry”. You absolutely forgive him.

If this is you, what are your thoughts of God?

I think I understand your question. In reference to my thoughts about God...He is the Almighty, the Originator of life. The Bible says parents must teach their children about God. It is interesting that God Almighty designated various festivals the nation of Israel were to observe on a regular basis. Since the topic is about Darwin, I will simply say, however, that beyond Adam and Eve, their offspring were born into imperfection. No matter what we do we have inherited sin. The only one that did not inherit sin is Jesus Christ because his lifeforce was transferred from heaven. So it's an interesting question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can only repeat myself.

The mutations were required for the activation of the function.
Without these mutations, there is no such function. Case in point: the other populations that don't have these mutations don't have this function.

Once again, you can only argue dishonestly with strawmen.

The Wiki article on the Long Term E. coli Experiment claims this. Do you know what source they used? They used the article that he linked but could not read. His link only has the abstract. It does not go into the details at all. It appears, I can't read it either but the people that wrote the Wiki article obviously could, that the details support exactly what you claim and not his shallow interpretation.

 

[LIIA]

The forehead is a very common shorthand for the brain itself.

In which language? Do you mean English?
This is not the case in the language of Quran, i.e., Arabic.

All animals have reflexes and instincts to aid their survival.

sure, they do. Survival is the highest priority for any living organism. The question is why? What is “instinct” as a mechanism that control behavior? If the organism doesn’t have such strong desire to survive, eat or mate, would it have any chance of survival? Survival is not only a function of availability of physical means/biological systems but more importantly the strong will of the organism to live. Such "will" is a component of the irreducible complexity of life as previously discussed.

why living forever is a good idea is never made clear ─ I certainly can't think of a reason.

Struggle forever is not a good idea, but Joy/happiness/ peace forever is.

But no one can make personal decisions independently of their brain's decision-making processes,

This is exactly the point, interactions of matter that adhere to natural laws necessarily leads to "determinism" not “free will".

The free will is a fact regardless of its claimed or perceived dependency on any means.

What real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'God' here?

A logical necessity/need for the (unique) non-contingent being to explain every contingent being, An entity beyond time, space and anything physical. i.e., the “Distinct Source”. Nothing is like him.

No evidence supports that claim. Can you provide a definition of "spirit" appropriate to a real thing, or is it all done with imprecise or imaginary terms?

What is “real thing”? Do you mean something within your limited domain of perception? Do you think such domain constitute a confinement to the absolute reality that is necessarily independent from the limitation of our perception?

You may see #7673 for the spirit from an Islamic perspective.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums

You certainly use different news and science sources to me. Once again, what definition of "mind" are you using? As I said previously, it's a slippery, imprecise term.

Sure, NDE research is a new field of research. Don’t just make assumptions about it. Get yourself familiar with it.

No, ever since the modern re-discovery of the diving reflex, we've known that absence of vital signs from the brain may sometimes not indicate the total cessation of brain-function.

A reflex is not a choice. Your answer to me is a choice not a reflex.

Reflex = materialistic “determinism".
Choice = non-materialistic “free will”.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, mutations are "replication errors"

Agreed, it is.

You misrepresentation is that you use the word "error" and "damage" in that definition as if it automatically means that therefor it is "harmful" in phenotypical terms. This is simply not true.

It’s true that the accumulation of random error/damage is "harmful". See # 8606 and # 8613

Darwin's Illusion | Page 431 | Religious Forums

Latest scientific finds proved that Beneficial changes are always due to a cell-mediated process (directed mutation) not simply accumulation of random errors.

See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

This is just wrong when stated like an absolute like that and I already explained why and how.
In one ear, out the other.

And once again: the mutation that makes that happen, is not a neutral mutation as it has an EFFECT.

Furthermore, saying it is "negligible" is ALSO WRONG when it concerns a NEUTRAL mutation.
A negligible effect is still an effect.

A neutral mutation has NO effect, "negligible" or otherwise.

Your double standard is totally illogical. You clearly contradict yourself.

Don’t you insist that the accumulation of neutral mutations finally leads to non-neutral/advantageous change? You already acknowledged random mutation as a replication error, Why is it difficult for you to understand that the accumulation of such neutral mutations (replication error) finally leads to loss of original function?

If natural changes cannot do anything at all (cannot have any effect), why do you insist that such accumulation leads to new functions? Do you understand the contradiction?

 

[LIIA]

you didn't understand the work that you linked

I did, you don’t or rather consciously play your usual games to support a false argument.

 

[LIIA]

I can only repeat myself.

The mutations were required for the activation of the function.
Without these mutations, there is no such function. Case in point: the other populations that don't have these mutations don't have this function.

Once again, you can only argue dishonestly with strawmen.

It’s a naive and illogical oversimplification. As explained before, not all changes are equal. Random replication error is not equal to cell-mediated adaptive process. see #1245