Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Of course you won't, you never do yet you demand "proofs" from everyone else. I've met hundreds of people like you throughout my life "I'm right and you must believe me".

I have explained as best as I can what I believe. I am not asking you to believe that God is involved with the process of life, but it makes more sense to me than the posits of scientists and others as if they know or guess about the answers. Yes, I prefer the Bible's explanation as to how life started. Life on earth, that is.

 

[YoursTrue]

One is too many, I think.

You'd prefer those here only who do not believe that God had a hand in life, is that it? Just asking based on your funny comments...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There seems to have been a plague of them join the forum the last few weeks. Thankfully after a flurry of threads they seem to disappear.

I've noticed that. Do you think it is seasonal like migration or mushrooms?

 

[John53]

I've noticed that. Do you think it is seasonal like migration or mushrooms?

I sometimes wonder if it's the one person.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I sometimes wonder if it's the one person.

That's interesting. I've had that same thought.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I sometimes wonder if it's the one person.

The possibility of having a communal account occurred to me years ago on a forum far, far away.

 

[John53]

That's interesting. I've had that same thought.

Mr ID may have worked out cloning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mr ID may have worked out cloning.

A clone, clone perhaps.

 

[Valjean]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

He did not "explain life." He postulated a mechanism of change. He did not base his theory of natural selection on spontaneous generation. That had been challenged long ago, and and finally put to bed by Pasteur.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

Natural selection is a mechanism of change. I don't understand what's meant by a "mechanism of organic life."

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?

Nothing. It remains an elegantly simple idea, as well as the primary mechanism of speciation. It's just better evidenced and understood now.

Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

The usage of "proof" casts the whole article into question. Natural selection is at lest as well evidenced as the germ theory or heliocentrism. There are whole libraries of confirmatory evidence. People had been successfully using this mechanism for thousands of years before it was realized that Nature was doing the same thing completely automatically. It is acclaimed by science because it's so easily tested and demonstrated, and has such a clear and obvious effect.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

Endosymbiosis: Lynn Margulis

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[gnostic]

I have explained as best as I can what I believe. I am not asking you to believe that God is involved with the process of life, but it makes more sense to me than the posits of scientists and others as if they know or guess about the answers. Yes, I prefer the Bible's explanation as to how life started. Life on earth, that is.

The Bible explains nothing about life.

explanation require details that the Genesis never have, as it show knowledge of biology. Not the biology of plants, and not the biology of any animals. And certainly no explanation on human biology.

The Genesis saying god created fishes and other marine life in the seas. That’s not explanation, even people who fished before they could write, already know simplistic descriptions. It show no understanding of how they live underwater, how they breed, and so on. If genesis had any real information about marine creatures, it would explain the different anatomy of those living their life how they can, from fishes, to marine mammals, and all the varieties of marine invertebrates.

Explanation would show real information which the Bible clearly don’t have life at seas.

likewise, birds having wings and could fly, are also not explanations, because everyone who seen birds would know that already. If Genesis had real information then it would offer far more details, as required from any actual explanations. It ignored other animals that can fly, such bats and some winged insects.

no details about the various land animals, other than that some can walk and some can crawl. That‘s hardly show insight and details on how they can walk or crawl, no details about the anatomy, nor of their physiology, that enable to do these things, locomotively.

And dust of the ground or soil, cannot turn into living humans, especially not one they are fully-grown. This is just fairytale of something completely impossible. Nothing to explain how soil can magically turn into hundreds of different tissues that are made of different cells. Soil cannot transform into something as complex as human brains.

as I can telling you, the creation of Adam is nothing more than fairytale. But as you usually do, you always ignored the impossibility of miracle creation…the miracle that can never happen.

Just like water cannot turn into wine. That another miracle that can never happened naturally, as wine required grapes to be fermented for a period of time. You cannot make wine from water alone…because all you get is just water. Jesus’ water-to-wine miracle is nothing more than fairytale.

The problem with believing in miracles such as those described in the Bible, showed the authors have no understanding of natural reality, and therefore there are no explanations of any information about nature. And that’s why the Bible narratives are so vague and superficial in their descriptions.

 

[Audie]

I have explained as best as I can what I believe. I am not asking you to believe that God is involved with the process of life, but it makes more sense to me than the posits of scientists and others as if they know or guess about the answers. Yes, I prefer the Bible's explanation as to how life started. Life on earth, that is.

What makes sense is that
the uneducated prefer the explanation
they can understand.
Those disinclined to learn anything
may simply be lazy, lack the capacity to
learn, or be inhibited by other things.


Those other things can include social
pressure, pride *, or fear, as of having their
world of illusions shattered.

Those considerations, while nfortunate, do make sense, psychologically.

They've nothing whatever to do with whether
"Goddidit" ( see angry god erupt volcano
etc) actually makes sense.


Let alone more sense than that which has
been meticulously studied by thousands of
people for many years- employing actual
hard facts, not "what I decided to think
an old collection of myths proves".


*pride often makes scam victims very reluctant
to admit even to themselves that they've been duped

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible explains nothing about life.

explanation require details that the Genesis never have, as it show knowledge of biology. Not the biology of plants, and not the biology of any animals. And certainly no explanation on human biology.

The Genesis saying god created fishes and other marine life in the seas. That’s not explanation, even people who fished before they could write, already know simplistic descriptions. It show no understanding of how they live underwater, how they breed, and so on. If genesis had any real information about marine creatures, it would explain the different anatomy of those living their life how they can, from fishes, to marine mammals, and all the varieties of marine invertebrates.

Explanation would show real information which the Bible clearly don’t have life at seas.

likewise, birds having wings and could fly, are also not explanations, because everyone who seen birds would know that already. If Genesis had real information then it would offer far more details, as required from any actual explanations. It ignored other animals that can fly, such bats and some winged insects.

no details about the various land animals, other than that some can walk and some can crawl. That‘s hardly show insight and details on how they can walk or crawl, no details about the anatomy, nor of their physiology, that enable to do these things, locomotively.

And dust of the ground or soil, cannot turn into living humans, especially not one they are fully-grown. This is just fairytale of something completely impossible. Nothing to explain how soil can magically turn into hundreds of different tissues that are made of different cells. Soil cannot transform into something as complex as human brains.

as I can telling you, the creation of Adam is nothing more than fairytale. But as you usually do, you always ignored the impossibility of miracle creation…the miracle that can never happen.

Just like water cannot turn into wine. That another miracle that can never happened naturally, as wine required grapes to be fermented for a period of time.

The problem with believing in miracles such as those described in the Bible, showed the authors have no understanding of natural reality, and therefore there are no explanations of any information about nature. And that’s why the Bible narratives are so vague and superficial in their descriptions.

Life explains itself. And it didn't come from nothing, no matter how you look at it.

 

[cladking]

What makes sense is that
the uneducated prefer the explanation
they can understand.

Indeed! Abiogenesis is certainly one of these. Life mustta come out of a pond.

All of reality mustta been blown out of a point.

Life mustta been evolving for billions of years because only the fit survive.

Simple is even better than understandable. God is not really understandable. Then when you try parsing the one source believed in by the most people it is almost impossible to understand literally.

Nobody wants complexity because that's far more difficult than rocket surgery.

 

[YoursTrue]

Indeed! Abiogenesis is certainly one of these. Life mustta come out of a pond.

All of reality mustta been blown out of a point.

Life mustta been evolving for billions of years because only the fit survive.

Simple is even better than understandable. God is not really understandable. Then when you try parsing the one source believed in by the most people it is almost impossible to understand literally.

Nobody wants complexity because that's far more difficult than rocket surgery.

Wasn't it a pond or ... something else?* I just read about it and, of course, they think maybe... Then it supposedly evolved to get to the human point.
*Oh yes, maybe a volcano...if I remember correctly.

 

[The Hammer]

Wasn't it a pond or ... something else?* I just read about it and, of course, they think maybe... Then it supposedly evolved to get to the human point.
*Oh yes, maybe a volcano...if I remember correctly.

Probably an underwater thermal vent.

"Hydrothermal Origins

The unique environment of hydrothermal vents allows for some natural chemical reactions that can produce molecules that may have played a role in the formation of the first living cells on Earth."

 

[cladking]

Wasn't it a pond or ... something else?* I just read about it and, of course, they think maybe... Then it supposedly evolved to get to the human point.
*Oh yes, maybe a volcano...if I remember correctly.

Ya' just gotta believe.

It's not so much the belief I mind since it is "plausible" but how sanctimonious believers in it are.

People like brief and simple answers and due to our nature and the nature of consciousness to see patterns we always rush toward them.

I believe there are no simple answers and a belief in God is no more or less absurd than the belief we can extrapolate existing experiment to understand much of anything at all. Nobody wants to provide simple explanations for why things are as they are because there are no simple explanations for anything; only facile and simplistic ones. No explanations are more facile than Darwin's. No explanations are more facile for the invention of human, beaver, or termite agriculture than "trial and error" or "instinct". Sure, and trial and error got us to the moon and back too!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wasn't it a pond or ... something else?* I just read about it and, of course, they think maybe... Then it supposedly evolved to get to the human point.
*Oh yes, maybe a volcano...if I remember correctly.

We know that the first life on earth was single cell organisms that lived in water. I have no idea if it was a pond or not, but I still like joking that we are all pond scum

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ya' just gotta believe.

It's not so much the belief I mind since it is "plausible" but how sanctimonious believers in it are.

People like brief and simple answers and due to our nature and the nature of consciousness to see patterns we always rush toward them.

I believe there are no simple answers and a belief in God is no more or less absurd than the belief we can extrapolate existing experiment to understand much of anything at all. Nobody wants to provide simple explanations for why things are as they are because there are no simple explanations for anything; only facile and simplistic ones. No explanations are more facile than Darwin's. No explanations are more facile for the invention of human, beaver, or termite agriculture than "trial and error" or "instinct". Sure, and trial and error got us to the moon and back too!

No, scientists use testable models. You should really try to learn how science is done some day.

 

[gnostic]

Life explains itself. And it didn't come from nothing, no matter how you look at it.

Bible still explains nothing about life.

As I keep telling you, explanations required detailed information, otherwise (A) they are just matter of opinions, or (B) they are useless descriptions.

it is B for the Bible, and from your interpretation of the Bible, it is both A & B.

 

[Audie]

We know that the first life on earth was single cell organisms that lived in water. I have no idea if it was a pond or not, but I still like joking that we are all pond scum

You sure it was cellular?