Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

Yes, I believe it was " could have arisen from inorganic compounds during Earth’s prebiotic phase. ". I find interesting that it was under extreme control, with the elimination of any other variable that could affect it and that "Scientists have also considered the possibility that meteors brought the first organic molecules"

Miller-Urey experiment | Description, Purpose, Results, & Facts | Britannica

Miller-Urey experiment, experimental simulation conducted in 1953 that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiogenically, that is, formed from chemical reactions occurring between inorganic molecules thought

www.britannica.com

But I am not asking for very controlled Intelligent Designed possibilities that include "could have" and "possibility"...

I am asking for empirical and verifiable evidence.

Amino acids are found to occur on comets.

Will that do ? " empirically" verified erc.

I dont think you know what an organic molecule is.

 

[gnostic]

Oh... what you are saying is that the "possibility" - "could be" - and "maybe it came from the heavens in the form of a meteor" is your religious "by faith" stance on how it all began because you have no empirical and verifiable evidence and then you sluff it off as "very complex" - like the Spaghetti Monster?

In other words, the religious stance you have is sooo complex at the very beginning when there was so little to be complex about, that all of a sudden "POOF" - life began replicating RNA and DNA - and your very empirical and verifiable evidence is a VERY controlled Intelligent Designed laboratory trying to create the PERFECT conditions for your Spaghetti Monster to create life sending meteorite that your god created.

You are very religious.

I didn’t think anyone was more absurdly science illiterate than other creationists around here…I am wrong after reading this reply.

 

[LIIA]

Except when it isn't.

In this case, it wouldn’t be a replication error. I explained the cell mediated /directed mutations many times and provided multiple sources. All what you do is deny as if your mere denial has any value. It doesn’t.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

This is false and pointing to your own claims to "prove your point" is not proper use of citation.

It's not my claims, #1245 includes many scientific sources that confirm directed mutations. I don’t make empty assertions like you guys.

That F achieves whatever effect it has as a direct result of the combination of mutations A to F, doesn't change anything about the fact that A to E were neutral mutations when they occured.

You cannot counterargue by providing an explanation that confirms everything I said. Really, What is wrong with you guys?

Per your explanation, the accumulation of neutral mutations (A to E) is what created the potential for future change that was finally unlocked by mutation F (which would also be neutral in the sense that it cannot have an effect is isolation of Mutations A to E). individual mutations A to F didn’t create the effect, the combination of the accumulated mutations A to F did. Mutations A to F could have happened in different random order and the last one whatever it is also unlocked the effect.

Meaning, the accumulation of neutral mutations is what eventually caused the change. Even if you want to claim the last one F as non-neutral (which is merely semantics) but still the potential for change was mainly created by the accumulation of neutral mutations.

Again, accumulation of neutral mutations (replication errors) can eventually cause the loss of function even if all individual mutations are neutral. At some point of the accumulation, when the last one triggers the change; the combined effect wouldn’t be neutral. If you want to call the last one "non-neutral", it doesn’t really matter.

Accumulation of errors would eventfully lead to loss of function, even for the sake of argument if the accumulation gives rise to a new function (which is false), then original function is also lost in this case, which would have an impact on fitness.

The only way the negative impact on fitness wouldn’t happen, is in the case when original function gets improved not lost, meaning no new function replaced it, but in this case, the existing function wouldn’t help towards the alleged gradual transformation to a new body plan of a new species as assumed by the theory.

Regardless, new traits no matter what the cause was don't equal new species.

 

[LIIA]

The other 11 population do not have the mutations and thus they do not have the new function.
The one population does have the mutations and thus the new function.

What is the point? Do you mean that the change happened only in one population then it must be a random change? Not necessarily, maybe the conditions (environmental pressures) were slightly different. The living cells have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur depending on need based on environmental pressures. See the link.

The origin of mutants | Nature

But regardless, Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) happens all the time and every time, how can you call such change random? And more importantly, the change is merely new traits not new species.

 

[LIIA]

As usual, your implications are ridiculous. As if a single gene duplication is going to give humans wings.
Your single statement was made in a specific context and didn't stand on its own.
In that context, it is just incorrect.

Not at all, I never said or implied that for the ToE to be true then a single gene function should effect a major change. I’m talking about advantages gradual changes towards a new body plan that supports wings, use as much time as needed, random mutation and natural selection as postulated by the ToE.

The Korowai tribe lives in 140-foot-high tree houses; the selection pressure is there, what are the chances to grow some membrane to help gliding between trees or fly like bats? If from single celled organism to human is possible, why not gradual transformation to a new body plan that supports wings? Will it ever happen? Is random mutation + selection enough to effect such change?

Your idea of selection pressures and evolution are so absurd, it's not even funny.

You are making a fool of yourself with these silly "arguments".

Not at all. I’m not making the absurd claims. it’s the ToE. Can you see now how foolish are these assumptions? The problem is evolutionists think that long time is enough to explain any transformation/formation of observed body plans even the transformation from a single celled organism to elephants. It’s simply not enough. Regardless of how much time or any random replication mess, it's still not possible.

We are talking now about a much simpler target compared to what was allegedly achieved through the same hypothetical means of the ToE, simply the new goal is the gradual transformation to a new body plan that support wings. If you think that no evolutionary process can ever achieve such target, then I absolutely agree.

 

[LIIA]

The universe is uncaused.
Causality is a phenomenon of the physics of the universe (and not even universal at that, as it gets rather spooky at the quantum level)
No universe = no physics of the universe = no causality

No, the universe is the sum of causally dependent constituents, i.e., contingent entities. The sum of contingent entities doesn’t constitute a non-contingent.

For example, your car includes numerous components, each component is caused. The sum of these components, i.e., the car must also be caused. The sum of individually caused entities cannot constitute an uncaused entity.

The universe didn’t always exist. it has a beginning. The universe is a change that happened at a specific point, i.e., a contingent entity that must depend on a cause.

Your error is the inability to draw the line between two different realities:

FIRST, Universe = the Big Bang and everything that followed. The laws/physics of the universe apply to everything within that domain including the Big Bang.

Second, No universe = the domain of reality beyond the Big Bang. The laws/physics of the universe is irrelevant to that domain. That is why the first absolute cause/distinct source is causeless (always exist without a beginning)

False dichotomy while ignoring physics.

How is that a false dichotomy? Do you even understand what you are talking about? I'm not saying either or, I'm saying both “infinite regress" and “circular reasoning" are logically false.

 

[LIIA]

Not all calling themselves Christian agree--that is quite clear from some posts here as well as life itself, with various groups and teachings among the churches. Jesus was (is) the son of God. Your questions do not cause me discomfort. You have been respectful and thoughtful. There are some things hard to explain. And some things are beyond human or scientific explanations. Since Mary’s child was to be a true descendant of her ancestors Abraham, Judah, and David, as God had promised, her ovum had to contribute toward her pregnancy. Please see Genesis 22:15, 18, Genesis 49:10 and 2 Samuel 7:8 and 16. God's holy spirit or invisible active force was used in transferring the perfect life of His Son, causing the conception. (Matt. 1:18) Logically considered, it would be understood that this canceled out any imperfection existing in Mary’s ovum and from the very start protected the developing embryo from anything hurtful. This, of course, would not be impossible with God, especially since the Bible explains Jesus came from heaven.

Thank you for your response. If the target is the truth, then forgive me for being candid. It doesn’t work otherwise.

First, if God is capable of canceling out any existing imperfection and had protected the developing embryo of Jesus from anything hurtful due to the inheritance from Mary, shouldn’t God have the ability to do the same for all humans? Is it beyond God’s ability? If you believe in God, then nothing is beyond God’s ability. God should be able to protect all of us from inheriting imperfections/sin if so, He wills.

But the real question is why would God create the law of inheritance that allows imperfections to pass from parents to offspring to begin with?

I'm not clear on your perspective regarding the fact that God is the creator of the law of inheritance that control how traits are passed from parents to offspring. Adam has nothing to do with the creation of that law.

If sin or imperfections passed from Adam to us, then the very cause of our pain/suffering is definitely that law of inheritance not because Adam committed a sin. If that law were created differently, we wouldn’t have inherited the imperfections.

The point is that the concept of the “inherited original sin" is no fault of Adam. If this concept were true, then God (the creator) would have been the one to blame not Adam. That is why the concept cannot be true.

Second, a word of any language is a code than conveys a specific meaning. When you say “son” of God. I have no idea what the word “son” means in this specific context. Let me explain.

If you believe in God, then you believe that God created the system of breeding for humans that involves a pair of male and female to mate and as a result they may have offspring which is basically a new creation by God. If this new creation is "a human male offspring" then it’s called a “son”.

To the parents (the pair of humans who followed the God created system), the offspring is a “son”. But to God, a “son” is just another human creation.

Any “son” is simply another human creation by God. The parent (father) is never the creator. The creator is always God.

IOW, the meaning of the word “son” always involves 3 parties. First, God the creator, Second, the human parents (father and mother), Third, the male offspring, i.e., the “son”.

The “son” is always another human who was created by God. That is meaning of the word “son”.

That said, when you say son of God, what does it mean, how the word “son” applies in this specific context? Is God the parent? If God is the parent, who is the creator (a parent is not the creator)? If God is the creator such as the case with any other human son, then how is Jesus different? Isn’t Jesus just another human creation of God? What does “son” of God mean? What is the meaning of the word “son” in this context?

Jesus was a human male who was created without a father. Adam was a human male who was created without a father or mother. If you believe in God, then the means don’t limit the ability of God to create. God create the means itself. God is the only creator; nothing is beyond his capacity and there is nothing like him.

Sorry if the question is too wordy but I just want to make sure the meaning is clear. I hope it was. I would appreciate if you explain your perspective of the meaning of "son" of God, how the word “son" applies and why this specific word was used/selected to convey the meaning?

I understand that this thread is not about such discussion. It’s up to you whether you want to provide an answer.

Thank you.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, like what? ...like with Aladdin's genie or the Twilight Zone?

Yes, just like that. Aladdin's genie, the Twilight Zone, LUCA and the dancing elephants, etc.

 

[LIIA]

And that is just the work of Denis Noble. He does not appear to be taken very seriously in the world of biology.

Again, it’s not just Denis Noble and No, Noble’s work is taken very seriously. There is no credible scientific criticism of his work. Your opinion means nothing. Stop the empty assertions without any justification other than because you said so.

If you don’t agree, provide a credible scientific source to support your claim. But if you can’t, and we all know that you can’t since you never did after 8500 posts on the thread, then it’s better for you to stay quite rather than coming up with some nonsense/empty claims to support a false argument.

By the way, even if he was right

He is right and you already failed to demonstrate that he is not.

By referring to him you are admitting that you are an ape.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t acknowledge such nonsensical assumptions of the ToE. On the other hand, you do admit that you are a fish that transformed to an ape. Or maybe a microbe that transformed to a fish, whatever makes you happy. Sweet dreams.

 

[LIIA]

That is probably because when it came to miracles he would have been a fraud.

I’m sorry but your subjective opinion is no more than worthless empty claims.

Historical science draws its data from records of past events. It utilizes specific verification methodology such as comparing primary and secondary sources as well as several independent witnesses.

In the case of the miracles of Jesus, there is way more historical evidence (several sources/ independent witnesses) than typical accepted historical events.

Your denial based on your wishful thinking has no value with respect to the authenticity of historical events.

 

[LIIA]

laryngeal nerve. It is bad enough in humans, crazy in giraffes, and bat**** crazy in whales. It would be nice if we could go back and evolve a direction route, but that is set too deeply in our genome.

Oh, and evidence like that tells us that we are the product of evolution. Evolution works on "good enough"

The laryngeal nerve again? As if we didn’t already discuss it long time ago? It’s not that you can’t understand, you really don’t want to understand. Anyways, you are free.

Here is the previous discussion of the laryngeal nerve. See #3163

Darwin's Illusion | Page 159 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, it’s not just Denis Noble and No, Noble’s work is taken very seriously. There is no credible scientific criticism of his work. Your opinion means nothing. Stop the empty assertions without any justification other than because you said so.

If you don’t agree, provide a credible scientific source to support your claim. But if you can’t, and we all know that you can’t since you never did after 8500 posts on the thread, then it’s better for you to stay quite rather than coming up with some nonsense/empty claims to support a false argument.

He is right and you already failed to demonstrate that he is not.


Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t acknowledge such nonsensical assumptions of the ToE. On the other hand, you do admit that you are a fish that transformed to an ape. Or maybe a microbe that transformed to a fish, whatever makes you happy. Sweet dreams.

I do not see people clamoring to Denis Noble's claims. Nor does anyone else here. I think that ignorant creationists desperate to grasp the slightest of straws may take him seriously, but they don't even to do that.

And no, I do not need to find a scientific source that refutes unsupported claims. You need to show that he is well accepted. You keep getting the burden of proof backwards, but people that are wrong usually do so.

I know, it sucks being wrong all of the time. Are you ready to learn the basics of science yet so this will not happen at least ten times very night that you post here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m sorry but your subjective opinion is no more than worthless empty claims.

Historical science draws its data from records of past events. It utilizes specific verification methodology such as comparing primary and secondary sources as well as several independent witnesses.

In the case of the miracles of Jesus, there is way more historical evidence (several sources/ independent witnesses) than typical accepted historical events.

Your denial based on your wishful thinking has no value with respect to the authenticity of historical events.

Objective, but then you do not understand that either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The laryngeal nerve again? As if we didn’t already discuss it long time ago? It’s not that you can’t understand, you really don’t want to understand. Anyways, you are free.

Here is the previous discussion of the laryngeal nerve. See #3163

Darwin's Illusion | Page 159 | Religious Forums

And thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

We need to keep track of all of the concepts that you do not understand. I may not have enough memory for that.

 

[LIIA]

Are you not familiar with the Miller Urey experiment? It showed that this simple step was possible.

The Miller Urey experiment again? Didn’t I explain it was false because the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) don’t match the conditions of early Earth?

When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo of gases in 1983, he failed to repeat original results of his experiment on 1953. see the link.

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

 

[LIIA]

And thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

We need to keep track of all of the concepts that you do not understand. I may not have enough memory for that.

you don't have enough memory for anything. you run in circles all the time and repeat your error all the time. you don't learn and do not want to learn. you are not serious. anyways it's up to you. you are free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Miller Urey experiment again? Didn’t I explain it was false because the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) don’t match the conditions of early Earth?

When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo of gases in 1983, he failed to repeat original results of his experiment on 1953. see the link.

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

You really love to shoot yourself in the foot, don't you? Once again you quite reading too early. They looked at the experiment and figured out how they did not match the prebiotic biome:

"Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago."

So it was not only a success. It was an even greater success. You make this too easy when your link includes the info that refutes your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you don't have enough memory for anything. you run in circles all the time and repeat your error all the time. you don't learn and do not want to learn. you are not serious. anyways it's up to you. you are free.

LMAO! You are only describing yourself. Look at how I refuted your last nonsense using the article that you provided.

Once again, you make this too easy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you for your response. If the target is the truth, then forgive me for being candid. It doesn’t work otherwise.

First, if God is capable of canceling out any existing imperfection and had protected the developing embryo of Jesus from anything hurtful due to the inheritance from Mary, shouldn’t God have the ability to do the same for all humans? Is it beyond God’s ability? If you believe in God, then nothing is beyond God’s ability. God should be able to protect all of us from inheriting imperfections/sin if so, He wills.

But the real question is why would God create the law of inheritance that allows imperfections to pass from parents to offspring to begin with?

I'm not clear on your perspective regarding the fact that God is the creator of the law of inheritance that control how traits are passed from parents to offspring. Adam has nothing to do with the creation of that law.

If sin or imperfections passed from Adam to us, then the very cause of our pain/suffering is definitely that law of inheritance not because Adam committed a sin. If that law were created differently, we wouldn’t have inherited the imperfections.

The point is that the concept of the “inherited original sin" is no fault of Adam. If this concept were true, then God (the creator) would have been the one to blame not Adam. That is why the concept cannot be true.

Second, a word of any language is a code than conveys a specific meaning. When you say “son” of God. I have no idea what the word “son” means in this specific context. Let me explain.

If you believe in God, then you believe that God created the system of breeding for humans that involves a pair of male and female to mate and as a result they may have offspring which is basically a new creation by God. If this new creation is "a human male offspring" then it’s called a “son”.

To the parents (the pair of humans who followed the God created system), the offspring is a “son”. But to God, a “son” is just another human creation.

Any “son” is simply another human creation by God. The parent (father) is never the creator. The creator is always God.

IOW, the meaning of the word “son” always involves 3 parties. First, God the creator, Second, the human parents (father and mother), Third, the male offspring, i.e., the “son”.

The “son” is always another human who was created by God. That is meaning of the word “son”.

That said, when you say son of God, what does it mean, how the word “son” applies in this specific context? Is God the parent? If God is the parent, who is the creator (a parent is not the creator)? If God is the creator such as the case with any other human son, then how is Jesus different? Isn’t Jesus just another human creation of God? What does “son” of God mean? What is the meaning of the word “son” in this context?

Jesus was a human male who was created without a father. Adam was a human male who was created without a father or mother. If you believe in God, then the means don’t limit the ability of God to create. God create the means itself. God is the only creator; nothing is beyond his capacity and there is nothing like him.

Sorry if the question is too wordy but I just want to make sure the meaning is clear. I hope it was. I would appreciate if you explain your perspective of the meaning of "son" of God, how the word “son" applies and why this specific word was used/selected to convey the meaning?

I understand that this thread is not about such discussion. It’s up to you whether you want to provide an answer.

Thank you.

Jesus was in heaven according to the Bible before he came to the earth. His perfect life was transferred from heaven. He did not become imperfect when he was in Mary's womb. He did not inherit imperfection since God his heavenly Father protected His Son from being affected by imperfect genes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus was in heaven according to the Bible before he came to the earth. His perfect life was transferred from heaven. He did not become imperfect when he was in Mary's womb. He did not inherit imperfection since God his heavenly Father protected His Son from being affected by imperfect genes.

Where does the Bible say that? John implies it but that was written long long after the Gospel of John (which was not written by John).