Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

That seems reasonable as long as it's properly understood.

Science with evolution as elsewhere works constantly with examinable evidence, tests and retests its hypotheses, new insights, old conclusions. Thus while "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" are hard to pinpoint in time, it's possible to derive from the evidence a likely-not-later-than-A and a likely-not-earlier-than-B in each case. Hence further examinable evidence may affirm, refute or confuse aspects of them, but not the fact that they existed, perhaps 50,000 years apart, in human history.

Operational science deals with the present and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena. Events of the past are not repeatable. Conclusions are made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions of past events. Interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior experience, background, and beliefs. after all. no man was there at the beginning to record or witness the true events. Investigations of past events fall more within the scope of historical science, which has its own verification methodology for past events but regardless, the fact remain that both operational science and historical science have limits and cannot apply to draw conclusions beyond these limits. Beyond these limits the only method that remain is logic.

Alternatives to science rely on magic

If you make claims of "magic", you first need to understand what "magic" is.

“Magic" is not an effect without a cause. "Magic" is an effect with a cause that is not known/understood. In that sense, all of our knowledge of the physical world is “magic”.

Time from no time is magic, space from no space is magic, universe from nothing is magic, dark energy controlling entire galaxies is magic, strong nuclear force controlling the fundamental subatomic particles is magic. Even gravity and electromagnetic forces are magic.

You think you have good explanations, but you really have none. A good explanation is only the explanation that is not in need for another explanation, i.e., God. God is the “Distinct Source", (the only non-contingent at the very top of the causality chain of contingent entities) that is not in need or dependent on another explanation. God is the only good explaination.

 

[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.

Please do try to understand that I usually do not follow a long answer, so forgive me. I will try to read more of your post later, since it's getting late. And I, as a human being, am tired now. However I will try to answer another thought.
Adam was a perfect son of God until he sinned. Then his genealogical substance changed since death was at that point operative biologically in Adam's body. Jesus was very much like Adam in that his perfect life was transferred from heaven to Mary's womb. Unlike Adam, Jesus was born as an infant and remained a perfect son of God without blemish or sin.

 

[LIIA]

Please do try to understand that I usually do not follow a long answer, so forgive me. I will try to read more of your post later, since it's getting late. And I, as a human being, am tired now. However I will try to answer another thought.

I appreciate it. sorry for the long post. I know I have this habit of wordy long posts which can be annoying.

thank you. have a good night.

 

[LIIA]

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.

The Miller Urey experiment was found to be false more than half a century ago, yet it’s still used by evolutionists as an achievement, even so, if you evaluate the result, you will see that some amino acids are extremely far from the complexity of the simplest living system or even the simplest organic macromolecules. Whether they got amino acids or not the achievement is really pathetic and didn’t really improve much through the decades of research in the field of abiogenesis.

The fact of the matter is that Abiogenesis is not and will never be a scientific theory. If you want to know the status of the “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis”, See the link below

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

 

[LIIA]

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.

The only one who got the burden of proof backwards is you. I provided the sources, and you provided empty assertions yet, you want me to proof that your empty assertions are wrong! What are you talking about? Guess what? The original sources do just that, and till you provide your credible sources and we all know that you never will, then you have absolutely failed to demonstrate any rational reasons for your disagreement. You may disagree as you wish but you are still wrong.

Regardless, here is a post by a knowledgeable, rational and honest evolutionist. I know, I know, hard to believe, right? You have to see it to believe.

See # 2266

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

 

[blü 2]

If you make claims of "magic", you first need to understand what "magic" is.

“Magic" is not an effect without a cause.

Magic is where you alter reality independently of the rules of reality.

Gods are said to be able to do this. Gods are also said to occasionally oblige the requests of their favored followers in this manner. Superman can do some magical things but not others.

Out here in reality there are, as I said, zero authenticated cases.

"Magic" is an effect with a cause that is not known/understood. In that sense, all of our knowledge of the physical world is “magic”.

No, we encounter such things every day, as puzzles, mysteries, complications. People win lotteries against odds of millions, maybe billions, to one. We don't assume anything magical happened. Take 'dark matter' as an example ─ it's the name of a problem in physics, not of a thing.

And as you know, 'God did it' explains nothing unless we're told the method God employed to accomplish it ─ which unfortunately we never are.

I find it very odd is that religions don't have research departments where their best and brightest devote themselves to working out how miracles are done. I also find it odd that no country I'm aware of has any provision in its defense budget to repel (or to mount) a supernatural attack. If one believes these things are for real, why does one not follow through on the very obvious consequences of such a belief?

Time from no time is magic, space from no space is magic, universe from nothing is magic, dark energy controlling entire galaxies is magic, strong nuclear force controlling the fundamental subatomic particles is magic. Even gravity and electromagnetic forces are magic.

If God doesn't need a cause in order to exist, why should the universe need one?

God is the only good explaination.

You can't even tell me what real entity you intend to denote when you say 'God'. God never appears, never says, never does ─ humans do all [his] talking and all [his] doing. God is found nowhere in reality (by which I mean the world external to the self).

On all the present evidence, the only manner in which God exists, and gods exist, is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Wow.

The presences of organic matters that you mentioned in some meteorites, and some experiments that you yourself mentioned (eg the Miller-Urey experiment where some inorganic molecules reacted into organic compounds (eg amino acids in the M-U experiment), and you are still demanding for “empirical and verifiable evidence”!

how dumb is that demand.

those were some of the evidence, @Kenny .

Clearly you don’t know what “evidence” means, and you don’t know what it mean by “empirical” and “verifiable”.

Evidence are physical objects that can be OBSERVED, Kenny.

And from those observations, you can acquire a number of “information” about the evidence. These information are what we called DATA. And data are parts of evidence and part of the observations.

Just look at Miller-Urey experiments as an example of physical evidence.

They started with 4 physical evidence - the inorganic chemicals: hydrogen (H2), water (H2O), ammonia (NH3) & methane (CH4).​

​

The electrodes are used, to cause electricity to start chemical reaction. Other method of starting chemical reaction is applying heat to the chemicals, but in this experiment, they used both heat and electricity.​

​

There are actually over 500 different types of amino acids. But using these 4 inorganic chemicals, Miller and Urey didn’t just make only 1 type of amino acid, the chemical reaction resulted in identifying 9 types of amino acids, back in 1952. That’s 9 evidence, not 1.​

​

The chemicals were stored away in sealed vials until Stanley Miller passed away. When vials were examined in 2007, another 11 types of amino acids on top of the original 9 of 1952, hence 20 evidence that inorganic molecules can chemically alter into organic compounds.​

​

The reasons why amino acids are important, because we know that amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Of the 500 different types of amino acids, only 22 types are naturally occurring in proteins and the only ones that appear in genetic coding of all life.​

​

The word “empirical” means have “multiple” evidence.

Having empirical evidence is important to physical & natural sciences, because it allows for comparisons between one evidence against the other evidence. The comparisons and tests will show if they have the “same”, “similar” or “different” properties.

Because you have 20 identified types of amino acids, you therefore have 20 empirical evidence.

But you can also Miller-Urey test results against experiments by other scientists using different inorganic chemicals.

As the Earth early atmosphere would have no free oxygen, but plenty of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, plus the frequencies of volcanic activities would have expelled other gases in the atmosphere, like sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), these produce even more types of amino acids.

Joan Oró did his experimen in 1961, using water, ammonia and hydrogen cyanide (HCN). It not only produced amino acids, but also one of the 5 nitrogenous bases found nucleotide of DNA & of RNA - adenine.

So multiple different types of experiments were capable of producing amino acids. And 22 of those amino acids are capable of being chained together to form different types of protein molecules.

Proteins are essential, as they are found in every different types of cells, and many of the tissues are mainly made of proteins, eg muscles, connective tissues, skins, organs, nerve tissues, etc. Proteins can also be found in enzymes, important chemical that accelerate chemical reaction, such as those in metabolism.

Anyway, these experiments verified the importance of amino acids as organic compounds that are building blocks of proteins. And as proteins are found in every cells, proteins are one of 4 essential biological macromolecules. Those other essential molecules are nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA), carbohydrates, & lipids.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In this case, it wouldn’t be a replication error.

False.
Every mutation is a replication error.
A "replication error" just means that during replication a change occurs.

With this comment, you have once again shown that you don't know what you are talking about and insist on being wrong.


I'm skipping the rest because only bs is going to follow this baffling error.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the point?

I just told you.

The point is that the mutation were required for activation of the function.
Without the mutations, there is no such active function.

Derp.

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.

For crying out loud...............................................

Selection pressures do not cause changes.
Selection pressures act upon changes.

Mutations occur always. Selection pressures determine what changes are retained, discarded or ignored.
There is no causal link between the pressures and the changes.
There is only a causal link between the pressures and what happens to the changes after they occurred.

Evolution 101.

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.

Mutation is random in relation to fitness.
Speciation is a gradual process. Mutation is not going to produce a new species overnight.
There is no hard line between a parent species and descendent sub-species.

Every creature ever born was of the same species as its parents.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It sounds like you are making a teleological type fallacy. As if wings to fly were some kind of "goal". This is wrong.

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?

No.

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.

It's not from single celled to elephants. Your reduction ad absurdum is fallacious.
It's rather from single celled to simple multi-celled.
From simple multi-celled to a bit more complex.
etc

Until, after billions of years, you end up with elephants and all other modern species.
It's a gradual process.

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.

Your mistake is that you are not thinking gradually.

Just because you can imagine today that a creature without wings could have a good use for wings... that's not how it works.
It sounds like you make the silly creationist mistake of thinking one needs to go through the stage of a useless "half a wing" to end up with functional wings.

Your idea of how evolution works is just wrong.
It's not just the "plans" of the what-would-become wings that change, it's also the function thereof.


Your entire case rests on nothing but strawmen and misunderstandings.
Same old, same old

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Second, No universe = the domain of reality beyond the Big Bang. The laws/physics of the universe is irrelevant to that domain.

Correct. And that's exactly the reason why causality, which is a phenomenon that depends on the laws / physics of the universe, is irrelevant to that "domain".
It does not apply. You can't invoke the physics of the universe, in a context where said univese does not exist.

That is why the first absolute cause/distinct source is causeless (always exist without a beginning)

And that would be the first moment of the universe. T = 0.
The very start of the space-time continuum. Uncaused.
The universe is thus uncaused.

How is that a false dichotomy?

Because you are ignoring everything we know about physics.

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

Depends what you mean with that.
Do I understand the theoretical physics theories and equations that deal with T = 0? No. Physicists themselves barely do... so I certainly don't.
Do I understand conceptually that it makes no sense to invoke phenomenon of the universe in a context where the universe doesn't exist? Yes.

I'm not saying either or, I'm saying both “infinite regress" and “circular reasoning" are logically false.

Actually you said "other options are..." and limited it to those options only as if you have already determined there can be no other options.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Even if true, it matters not.
What matters is that it showed that there is at least one way in which this chemistry can occur.
That one way is enough to dismiss the claim that "it is impossible therefor god".

Clearly it IS possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact of the matter is that Abiogenesis is not and will never be a scientific theory.

I didn't know you had a crystal ball in which you can see the future.

 

[blü 2]

In which language? Do you mean English?

Oddly, yes. Apologies for taking you by surprise.

This is not the case in the language of Quran, i.e., Arabic.

So in the Arabic of the Qur'an, the concept of the forehead is never confused with the brain generally? So if I tap my forehead in an Islamic context, the gesture will not be associated with anything I might be thinking, but taken to mean I'm literally and only referring to my forebrain?

I didn't know that. Does the forebrain as such have such a distinct strict identity in general Islamic society?

Survival is the highest priority for any living organism. The question is why?

The test is very simple. Flies who flee when they detect particular kinds of movement get killed less often by their hunters than the flies who don't. So over time, the descendants of the fleers will outnumber the descendants of the stayers, and the fleeing behavior will become general. It's one of the usual forms of natural selection.

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.

You've heard the expression, "Dead as a dodo" perhaps? The dodos lived on an island with no natural predators. When sailors walked up to them, they had no instinct to fear ill so they did nothing so they got killed and eaten. And then there were no more dodos.

It's the same principle as with flies ─ advantageous tendencies of conduct that can be passed on genetically. Indeed, it doesn't have to be conduct ─ you may have seen images of moths whose coloration almost perfectly camouflages them against their favorite trees. That's because the moths with contrasting coloration were more easily detected by predators, were consumed, and thus didn't get to breed.

Such "will" is a component of the irreducible complexity of life as previously discussed.

There is no extant example of "irreducible complexity". I refer you to the judgment in Kitzmiller v Dover (2005) where the matter was fully argued. (Spoiler alert) All the purported examples ─ the flagellum, the immune system, blood clotting ─ were shown to be examples of exaptation.

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

Peace forever is much less boring, much less burdensome, and no less purposeful, if you're simply dead. Or as Woody Allen is said to have said, "Eternity is very long, especially towards the end."

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

In what sense is your will free of your brain's evolved decision-making processes? Please spell it out for me

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.

God is a him? What are God's breeding habits? Where is the female god?

What is “real thing”? Do you mean something within your limited domain of perception?

I mean something I don't have to imagine for myself, I mean not some acculturated concept.

EITHER God has objective existence OR God exists only as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain. You say God has objective existence, so show me. A photo would be a fair start.

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

I keep a layman's eye on brain research. My wife was for many years head of pediatric speech therapy/pathology at a major hospital and a member of the brain injury team. But the overwhelming datum with NDEs (and OBEs) is that no subject ever returns from the experience with new remote knowledge of reality. The inference is clear, and the obvious one ─ the subjective event is entirely mental.

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

The alternative to determinism is randomness.

So please talk me through how a non-deterministic brain makes a decision independently of its evolved decision-making processes? I take it you're aware that such matters have been the subject of many studies, especially since the 1990s when better tools for studying the brain in action became available?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Miller Urey experiment was found to be false more than half a century ago, yet it’s still used by evolutionists as an achievement, even so, if you evaluate the result, you will see that some amino acids are extremely far from the complexity of the simplest living system or even the simplest organic macromolecules. Whether they got amino acids or not the achievement is really pathetic and didn’t really improve much through the decades of research in the field of abiogenesis.

The fact of the matter is that Abiogenesis is not and will never be a scientific theory. If you want to know the status of the “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis”, See the link below

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

No, it was never "found to be false". The first version still confirmed what was hypothesized, that the building blocks of life could form naturally. As a science denier you probably didn't even know what they were trying to show. Now the original modeled prebiotic atmosphere may have been wrong so they reran it and reran it with different atmospheres and kept getting positive results as the example that you provided showed. Once again, thank you so much for providing the article that refuted your own claim.

Now will there ever be a " theory of abiogenesis " where every step is explained? Probably nor. But not for the reasons that you think. No, not because it is possible. But rather because it is very possible. You see there are some steps that could have happened in more than one way. We will not understand the exact path taken, but they will be able to show how the whole trip was possible.

Of course you have conceded the evolution argument because you tried to move the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis. Thank you so much for admitting that you were wrong about evolution.

 

[Audie]

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

You could make yourself read the
whole thing?

 

[Kenny]

You should understand scientific language by now.


And just because you are scientifically illiterate that does not mean that others are religious. Right now you are not being honest enough to be able to demand anything.


If you apologize for your false statements perhaps we can have a discussion. but right now you, like others,, only merit corrections.

WOW - that's the best you can do? I might as well believe in your Spaghetti Monster or Unicorn since you can't offer empirical and verifiable evidence - Science 101 - Did you take science in High School?

 

[Kenny]

Amino acids are found to occur on comets.

Will that do ? " empirically" verified erc.

I dont think you know what an organic molecule is.

And how did those amino acids start?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nonsense. Miller Urey experiment proved that testtubes and electricity were needed. Baloney.

Using that logic, freezers proved that artificial cooling was needed for ice to form at the poles.