• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Darwin's Illusion

LIIA

Well-Known Member
@LIIA

I am no going to read and reply to every replies from you, because there are too many of them and they are too long.
You don’t have to; you may just focus on yours.

I do want to address a few vital points about genetics, after the next 3 paragraphs.

You really should keep up-to-date with reality of this world, not some past occurrences of what you believe it the theory of Evolution to be. Your bias and your knowledge about Evolution is antiquated, outdated.

It’s the other way around. I provide evidence. You provide meaningless opinion.

Nothing in the CURRENT theory of Evolution and that's including the Natural Selection mechanism, support racism, violence and war. Natural Selection isn't a political doctrine and it was never part of military strategy, and it wasn't even so, in Darwin's days.

Natural Selection and the rest of Evolution (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking) is purely biology, not politics or war, and it isn't even religion.

Deficient understanding as explained numerously. The influence of the evolutionary concept indeed extends way beyond biology to encompass social science, social psychology, philosophy and politics with respect of adapted ideology driven by the very evolutionary concept at the root. You may deny it as you wish, regardless, it’s a fact.

You can't imprint your DNA with any ideology, and pass the ideology into your descendants. Ideology is taught and nurtured, it doesn't transfer through, genetically.

There are limitations as to what the DNA and RNA can "SEQUENCE"!

DNA cannot sequence a person's belief, ideology, wisdom, intelligence, ambition, favorite color, favorite food, etc, and these won't ever reach descendants, because they cannot be passed on to other genetically.

That you think it does, show how little understanding you have, even with basic genetics.

Are you really that ignorance that you don't understand even basic genetics?

Ridiculous nonsense, I never agued that conceptual characteristics of a consciousness can be inherited or replicated. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Concepts that resides within a consciousness are neither physical nor may be inherited. Material doesn’t give rise to consciousness. We discussed that before. See #281

Regardless, how is that relevant in any way to my argument about the negative influence of the ToE especially with respect to racism? You’re just throwing in some irrelevant nonsense as usual.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Simple, variables at play in nature follow rigid natural laws. Mutations are directed as explained numerous times.

See #781.
Darwin's Illusion

If #781 is very long to read, then see this short YouTube video.

If you don’t trust a short video and want to see the entire lecture, here it is. See 7:09 about non-random mutations.



The claim of randomness is with respect to being functionally relevant. The modern synthesis assumes random changes with respect to physiological function. See 6: 21, 6:57 of the lecture below

2013 Birmingham, UK, Professor Denis Noble delivers the IUPS President's Lecture.
Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube

If you want the written version of the lecture, here is the link.
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134



Yes, it’s definitely religiously inspired but not mandated. With respect to evolutionary biology, I don’t provide opinions or claims; these are not my claims as numerously substantiated.

Again, a tactic could be a means of deception but why would I need that? If I don’t see the legitimacy of my argument, why would I bother to argue in the first place? On my end, I see widespread misinformation that needs to be cleared up.
Please note, Noble appears to have some evidence for his beliefs, but they are far from proven. He has not convinced very many biologists. And you are likely to be misinterpreting his work. What degrees in biology do you have?
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
Why would that have to be the case?

It could be beyond science ability to investigate - I don't know.
But you pretend like you do know. So how have you determined that it is?

Science can only deal with what can be observed or experiment with. If it’s beyond the ability to investigate, it’s necessarily beyond the jurisdictions of science.

A system has to exist before it can be experiment with. Science stops at the beginning of the universe at the Big Bang. similarly evolution stops at the last universal common ancestor or last universal cellular ancestor (LUCA).

You mean "ex nihilo"? Isn't that what creationists believe?

I simply mean that beyond the point when the physical realm/the universe came to existence, the causal influence for such event has to be non-physical. Being non-physical, then our approach to understand it has to be different than our typical approach to understand any other physical entity.

How have you determined this?
If a chemical process exists that results in viable self-replicating organic molecules, why would it be impossible for science to discover such?

These are serious claims you are making. But so far it's nothing but bare assertion.

Abiogenesis does not provide answers of how the first cell emerged other than wishful speculations. We agree that non-living matter cannot evolve, simply because it's neither alive nor can reproduce (can't pass gradual changes to offspring), there is no mechanism or route through which non-living matter can be transformed into a living cell.

Under abiotic conditions, there is no process to create the required biomolecules let alone assembling it. The argument that million of years allow the process to somehow take place is false. Time is an enemy of the process since the required chemicals will degrade/decompose in a relatively very short time. If some molecules somehow emerged through an unknown process, it will not wait millions of years to get the other essential molecules. It will simply decompose.

Science cannot demonstrate how nature fabricated the world's first digital single celled/information processor, let alone the impossible demonstration of how this extremely complex molecular hardware got to write its own extremely complex software?

The complex info encoded in DNA is an absolute prerequisite for the simplest single-celled form of life, natural selection didn’t play any role to develop the encoded info of the alleged first cell (LUCA) that emerged from nonliving matter. Nonliving matter can neither evolve nor adapt.

That is why scientists such as Richard Dawkins assume that the origin may be seeded from outer space. It is a ridiculous wishful thinking. It only shifts the problem to somewhere else. It’s not an answer.

You mean like "god did it"?

What are the logical reasons to exclude that option? Is it because we cannot experiment with God in a scientific lab? Is this our rational means to understand God? See # 1034

If observations show evidence of a causal influence as manifested in the intelligently guided process that controls the universe live and all variables in nature, why can’t we accept it.

Isaac Newton had the notion that the laws of nature are manifestation of constant spirit action that imposed upon matter the order that can be perceived by the scientists, which we can be described mathematically as laws of nature.

Isaac Newton said in his general scholium to the principia, "Though these bodies (the planets) may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

If scientists who identified the laws of nature had the understanding that these laws itself are evidence of higher influence that not only controls these laws but also allowed it to come to existence to begin with. All of these laws are contingent beings not a brute fact, its own existence and behavior is dependent on a cause. If that was the understanding of such scientist, then what is your logical reason to dismiss it? Is it only because you said so? State your reasons.

How is this a viable hypothesis?
How can it be tested and how can the premises / assumptions be shown to be correct (the biggest one being that there even is an intelligence in the first place to do said guiding)?

Simple all what we need is to find entities that exhibit intelligent design in nature. Which is actually everything, from the universe itself to a single atom or a single living cell. No exception.

A single living cell is the most complex designed system man has ever witnessed.

"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see is an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man"

Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube

DNA animations by wehi.tv for Science-Art exhibition - YouTube

False dichotomy.

Evolution (just like chemistry and physics) is neither "guided" nor random.
They might have random input, but the result is NOT random.

The circumstances by which O and H atoms meet each other might be random, but that the result is H2O is NOT.

No, logically any change can be driven by a random process or intentional non-random process.

The characterization of a process being random or not is not dependent on internal partial components but rather the overall process whether it emerged as a product of randomness or not.

Let me tell you, even randomness has conditions/prerequisites. A dice with six sides may settle on a specific side on a surface as driven by the influence of gravitational field and friction.

If you don’t have dice, surface, gravitational force or frictional resistance, what are the random options you have? Absolutely none.

If no physical material, natural laws, not even space or time existed before the Big Bang? What are the random options possible for the universe? None. There is no randomness involved in the process.

I agree. The problem is that no observations support such.

As explained, all observations do. We didn’t touch on the fine-tuning of the universe itself. I assume you would be familiar with it.

Evidence required.

If you haven’t seen previous posts about directed mutation, then you may focus on the example of (AMR).

(Copied multiple times from #781).

We all know that microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance till the 1000 fold resistance was achieved in 11 days.

See the link and YouTube video below (same video is included in the article).

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance

The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
Why are you whining about "social darwinism" when the topic is biological evolution?

The main argument is about the ToE being false but the negative influence of the theory on humanity came up as a side argument, some denied it and the argument continued.

Social Darwinism & Eugenics are both product of the evolutionary concept.

Social Darwinism & Eugenics itself are among the negative impacts of the evolutionary concept on humanity.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
No.

Evolution theory is just an explanation about how species develop over time. That's it.
Whatever "sociological" spin one wants to give that, has nothing to do with the mere facts of biology.

It's a theory that explains processes that all life is subject to.
It's not a theory that tries to tell us how to organize society.

The blame for "social darwinism" lies with the people who invented that nonsense.
Perhaps they were inspired by evolution theory, perhaps not. It doesn't matter.
Nothing in evolution theory says anything about "superiority" of races. That's all human racist ideology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with biology.

No, you have to differentiate between the original purpose of the theory and the actual influence/impact of the theory.

The influence of the evolutionary concept indeed extends beyond biology to encompass social science, social psychology, philosophy and politics with respect of adapted ideology driven by the very evolutionary concept at the root. It’s a fact that cannot be denied.

Actually, only a creationist with a religious agenda against mainstream biology would say such a thing.

It's yet another pathetic attempt to argue against a well-established theory that is perceived as a threat to their religion by trying to prey on emotion by blatantly lying about it and misrepresenting it.

Not true, the widespread influence of the ToE beyond biology is a fact beyond argument. You may search it and verify it for yourself or you may deny it if you wish.

Again, lying about means that I don’t believe it to be true, if this is the case, why should I advocate it? Why would it matter to get others to believe something that I don’t? That doesn’t make much sense.

Right, right, because before Darwin, there was no such thing as racism.

Evil existed before and after Darwin for a Varity of different reasons, how is that relevant to the influence of the ToE? You’re repeating same illogical argument of Gnostic. If X committed a crime, can X defend himself stating that Y committed another crime before? Would such statement make a viable defense?

Favored by the environment through natural selection. Not favored by Adolf or any other human or sentient being.

The point is that “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” is about the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. If Adolf Hitler adapted social darwinism/survival of the fittest, you can’t logically argue that such ideology has nothing to do with natural selection.

So what? They were wrong.

Evolution theory is concerned with the facts of biology.
Not with organizing society.

So we agreed on the negative influence of the ToE with respect to racism.
Yes they were wrong to adapt that influence.

You guys deny that influence thinking that I’m using it to disprove the ToE. I’m not. Your denial of the facts is driven by bias. I never claimed that the negative social influence of the theory is what disproves the theory with respect to biology. Did I?

I’m claiming the theory is false specifically because of the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology not because the negative social influence of the theory. See # 753 & # 781.

I'll tell you what.....
I'll just grant you for the sake of argument that Darwin was the most evil and immoral man to ever walk the face of the earth. Let's just say that he was a drunk, a rapist, a racist, a drug abuser, a drug dealer, a pedophile, a mass murderer, a thief, a robber and a mafia don who in his free time amused himself with torturing 5-year olds.

None of this matters to evolution theory and natural selection.

False, did I ever make such claim? In fact, I as far as I know Darwin was a moral person, humble, kind and gentle. You guys are illogical. I’m not concerned about his personality. the issue is his ideas.

He was spot on with natural selection, regardless of the man he was. Regardless of how the Nazi's perverted evolutionary biology.

The man he was is not my concern. You’re the ones who are concerning yourself with some irrelevant defense about him. How the Nazi's perverted evolutionary biology is indeed an influence/consequence of Darwin’s ideas whether that influence is intended by Darwin or not.

None of it matters. It's all strawmanning nonsense. A pathetic attempt at making an emotional plea against one of the best established theories in all of science.

It's a ridiculous argument.

You’re confused. You don’t understand what the argument is about.

Neither gradualism is supported by evidence in the fossil record nor variants we see in real life support punctuation with a massive sudden appearance of genetic info. Both models are false.

Why none of the alleged human intermediate species exist today. Why they all went extinct with no exception? Again, especially in isolated geographical areas.

I definitely agree with the adaptation ability of living organisms as it interacts with the environment. But the idea that a species would transform to totally different species is the most ridiculous theory in the history of mankind.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
@LIIA after reading through your latest posts, I'm wondering about a few things.

You cite Denis Noble a lot, which makes me wonder...do you agree with him that evolution occurs, universal common ancestry is true, and humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates?

You quote S.J. Gould as saying that there are no transitional fossils, which makes me wonder....have you ever run across this quote of his?

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."---“Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History”, p.260,

As I said before, I’m quoting these scientists not only because they are scientists of the highest caliber but also because they are all evolutionists without any bias to my side of the argument.

I’m quoting them for their specific solid scientific arguments such as the evidence of molecular biology against the assumptions of the modern synthesis or the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. This is an exact science but I don’t agree with claims such as universal common ancestry because such claims of evolutionary biology don’t belong to the exact science but rather to the Geisteswissenschaften as clarified in Ernst Walter Mayr book “What Makes Biology Unique?”. See #331.

Darwin's Illusion

See the link below for Ernst Walter Mayr book “What Makes Biology Unique?”.

https://camscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/what-makes-biology-uniqu1.pdf

Gould’s punctuation was disputed by the proponents of gradualism, which in turn was disputed, by the proponents of punctuation. See#160, but the fact remains that neither gradualism is supported by evidence in the fossil record nor variants we see in real life support punctuation with a massive sudden appearance of genetic info. Both models are false.

You've been harping on the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were motivated by Darwinism, which leads to a few questions. First, are you aware that the works of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany? Also, are you aware the Hitler justified his atrocities by appealing to Christianity and building on the pervious anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther? And is it your argument that the validity/accuracy of an idea is based on the what it's used to justify? If not, what exactly is your point?

The Holocaust Encyclopedia shows beyond doubt how the racial ideology of Nazi Germany was influenced by social Darwinism, which is itself a product or an influence of the evolutionary concept. See the link below.

Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Regardless, I never claimed that the social negative impact on humanity is a refutation of the theory with respect to biology. This is what some proponents of the ToE assumed which triggered their defensive denial of the facts. It was a side argument that came up and continued mainly because of that nonsensical denial.

The refutation of the central assumptions of the modern synthesis is through the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology not the social influence of the theory with respect to racism. See# 753 and 781.
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
Your are not serious, are you?

You not have only just show us you not being rational...you also have absolutely no idea, what “falsifiability” mean.

Falsifiable means a model is “testable”, that would mean the model qualify being a hypothesis.

The only qualification for an idea, concept or model of being “hypothesis”, is being “falsifiable”.

Now, “unfalsifiable” mean the model is “untestable”. Unfalsifiable would disqualify the model from becoming a “hypothesis”.

So a hypothesis cannot be unfalsifiable. There is no such thing as “unfalsifiable hypothesis”, because what you wrote is an oxymoron.

What I think you got wrong, is that you are thinking that a “refuted hypothesis” is the same as being an unfalsifiable one. If you do think that, then you would be dead wrong, and showed that you are clueless as to what falsifiable and unfalsifiable mean.

Let’s say that you are in the lab, wanting to test your hypothesis, by performing experiments. The fact that you can even perform even one experiment, mean the hypothesis is testable, regardless if the experiment support or don’t support the hypothesis.

So if say you perform 100 different experiments, and every results refute your hypothesis. Then you can conclude you have successfully test the hypothesis and shown that the hypothesis is improbable, a failed or “refuted” hypothesis, but it is still a falsifiable hypothesis.

My example showed that a falsifiable hypothesis has been refuted.

A refuted hypothesis don’t mean the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Falsifiability mean having “the ability to test” a model...even if the evidence don’t support the hypothesis.

Sure, but the point is that a single option on the table as the only viable option necessarily establishes a priori or an axiom that impacts perceived relationships by the observer, bias becomes inevitable. Which drives all interpretations of all observations in the sense that all interpretations have to fit this only possible option. No other way is acceptable.

As a result, a hypothesis can be falsifiable in principle but if the observer adapts such mindset that gives an axiomatic status to a hypothesis without any possibility for other viable explanation, then the interpretations will always be made to fit that hypothesis, which renders the hypothesis as unfalsifiable.

Now, let’s say that you cannot perform any test whatsoever. So in a lab, you have zero experiments, then your model or concept is unfalsifiable.

Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable because it have zero evidence, there have never been any evidence.

Again, why unfalsifiable? Can’t we test whether a system shows evidence of intelligent design? We absolutely can. But as I said before, the dogmatic control wouldn’t allow publishing such evidence as the example of the study of the human hand that was published in on January 5, 2016 in “Plos One”, the researchers mentioned the “Creator” three times as follows:

- “The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristics of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulation is the proper design by the creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way"

- “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the creator's invention”

- “In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions “

The team was under vicious attack, they defended themselves claiming it was a translation error but regardless, “PLOS ONE” retracted the article and stated “the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.”

Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living | PLOS ONE

Nature wrote “Researchers who wrote, “design by the Creator” in a paper about the function of the human hand have triggered a debate over the quality of editing and peer review at the journal that published it — and ultimately retracted it.”

Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern | Nature

See # 202.

Even Michael Behe, a strong supporter of ID, have admitted when being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005):

I have highlighted Behe’s answer in red to the 3rd question.

He admitted there were never were any experiments or calculations to support Intelligent Design...meaning there were never any evidence for Intelligent Design. And that’s what make Intelligent Design “unfalsifiable”, because it is “untestable”.

Source:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1

peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design do exist but not allowed to be published in mainstream journals as clarified above. Such articles are published by Discovery Institute.

Regardless, you can see articles or debates on intelligent design in mainstream journals without explicitly stating or accepting that these observations or studies are evidence of intelligent design. Such as the case with fine-tuning the universe.

Fine-tuning the Universe | Nature

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

See the article below by Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, “How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome”
Copied from # 1035 as an example of intelligent design in molecular biology.

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

See # 252 about evidence of intelligent design in the living cell.
A single living cell is the most complex designed system man has ever witnessed.

"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see is an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man"

Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube

DNA animations by wehi.tv for Science-Art exhibition - YouTube
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
There is no reason to conclude that divinely created life could not evolve by existing natural means. You have an opinion, but that doesn't rate as evidence.
If you accept that divine creation is involved in the process, then we have nothing to argue about.

Are you talking about fine tuning? Why the crypsis? Are you thinking it won't pass the smell test?

#490 was not about fine-tuning of the universe but indeed its one of the most important examples of intelligent design.

Fine-tuning the Universe | Nature

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
There is a lot of handwaving buried in your responses. You hand wave a relevant point about the impact of religious texts that is much more significant on society than the theory of evolution. Not only that, the purpose of those writings is intended to have an impact. I saw no false dichotomy in his words. Things like that lead me to doubt your stated position.

I have spoken my mind. Why do you think I haven't? Are you implying something? You imply a lot. Of course there is so much thrown at us that it easily gets overlooked. Is that something you intend?

Appeals to authority aside, there are top evolutionary biologists that don't agree we need to revamp the theory or that it has been disproved. What about them? You aren't giving them any time. Why is that do you think? You just drop the same names and then declare it is dead.

My favorite thing of all is that you are advocating a purely naturalistic revamping that would not alter the moral impact on society if any. Thus rendering your entire argument along that line as moot. Totally irrelevant to the theory as it stands or as you propose. It is like you are inventing reasons to get rid of the current theory. Perhaps you really have doubts about the viability of this EES that you "stand behind".

If religious texts impacted humanity in one way or another, how is that relevant to the impact of the ToE? You’re bringing the fourth grader argument “ you did bad so I can”

Again, I’m not advocating any naturalistic revamping. Its not my concern. Its your imagination, I’m only declaring the status of the modern synthesis today based on latest finds of Molecular biology
 

LIIA

Well-Known Member
If that was true, then you could say the Bible have inspired people to murder their siblings (eg Cain and Abel), to sacrifice their children (eg Abraham and Isaac), to commit gang rape (eg the Levite and concubine in Judges), to commit adultery (eg David and Bathsheba), massacre people (eg again the Levite, Jericho in Joshua and the Amalekites in 1 Samuel).

Why should Darwin be blame for something he didn't do simply because of inspiration, and make exception with the Abrahamic stories have inspiring been inspiring Muslims and Christians committing horrible events occurred like all the wars, crimes and tortures, throughout their respective histories.

You’re again bringing the fourth grader argument “ you did bad so I can”

Religious texts inspired humanity in one way or another, how is that relevant to the negative impact of the ToE?

One important aspect to consider is whether the inspiration is driven by true or false interpretation of the specific influence at play.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
In the context of evolutionary biology, transformation takes place gradually through speciation. If speciation happens, the ability of interbreeding with original species is lost.

Depends on how you define "species". There are plenty of populations out there that we address as being different species which CAN interbreed, but simply don't.

But sure, with such population, if there is no interbreeding then it's a matter of time before they diverge so much that they become physically unable to interbreed.

I'll also point out that at this point, the "original" species no longer exists. Latin evolved into spanish and french. Latin as a spoken language didn't exist anymore. It was only really kept alive artificially.

Just like today we have chimps and humans. The original common ancestral species, doesn't exist any longer. Because it evolved in us and chimps.


Yes, in the context of evolutionary biology, distinct species is characterized by the inability of interbreeding with other different species

Not necessarily. Again, it depends from which angle one is coming from.
It can also refer to populations that could (still) interbreed, but simply don't or very very little.


Otherwise the alleged speciation as the mechanism through which one species gradually transforms into another, would be false.

No. And speciation is not "the mechanism". The mechanism is reproduction with variation followed by selection. Speciation is the rather inevitable result of that. Speciation is a very gradual process.
At no point in history, for example, did a Homo Erectus ever give birth to a Homo Sapiens.

Every creature ever born, was of the same species as its parents.
There is no line where you can say "HERE! NOW it's a different species".

If there is no speciation as characterized by the inability of interbreeding, then there is no mechanism of transformation, there is no evolution.

False.

Yes, The ToE doesn’t provide a coherent explanatory framework but rather contradictory concepts.

This contradiction only exists in your misrepresentation of the matter.
In actual evolution theory, ring species are not only explained, they are EXPECTED.

Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160 & #753


So, stating the obvious then.
Selection obviously has no innovative capacity.
It merely selects. It doesn't create, add, remove, substitute,...
Mutation does that. Selection is the filter that follows.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Simple, variables at play in nature follow rigid natural laws. Mutations are directed as explained numerous times.

See #781.
Darwin's Illusion

If #781 is very long to read, then see this short YouTube video.

If you don’t trust a short video and want to see the entire lecture, here it is. See 7:09 about non-random mutations.

I'm not interested in argument by youtube.
Secondly, what you talk about in #781 is known as NGE (natural genetic engineering). This has received quite some critics, one of which is that he misrepresents the modern synthesis and is rather loose with words like "random". He also ignores the fact that the role of certain mutagens were already known.

The claim of randomness is with respect to being functionally relevant. The modern synthesis assumes random changes with respect to physiological function

Which Shapiro / NGE never falsified.

Yes, it’s definitely religiously inspired but not mandated. With respect to evolutionary biology, I don’t provide opinions or claims; these are not my claims as numerously substantiated.

Indeed, they are the claims of the likes of Shapiro. But you don't seem very interested in the scientific community's response to these claims.

Again, a tactic could be a means of deception

Like ignoring the response of the scientific community to the claims of Shapiro and NGE?

:rolleyes:

but why would I need that?

Because arguing against mainstream evolution theory is perceived by you, and others like you, as a religious necessity and duty.

BTW: did you know that Shapiro explicitly distanced himself from the likes of "intelligent design" and stuff and repeated time and again that the processes he was talking about are natural?

If I don’t see the legitimacy of my argument, why would I bother to argue in the first place? On my end, I see widespread misinformation that needs to be cleared up.

"Widespread" - I take it you mean that this includes the scientific community.
Do you think you will make a dent in scientific consensus by repeating these claims on this religious forum?
Shapiro didn't succeed through the proper channels. What makes you think you can do it through this forum?
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
If religious texts impacted humanity in one way or another, how is that relevant to the impact of the ToE? You’re bringing the fourth grader argument “ you did bad so I can”

Again, I’m not advocating any naturalistic revamping. Its not my concern. Its your imagination, I’m only declaring the status of the modern synthesis today based on latest finds of Molecular biology
I am meeting a fourth grader argument with facts.

You are declaring your opinion of the position of science. Not passing on revealed truth.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I already cited many recent studies confirming that mutations do not occur randomly

I love how you reply this to a quote where it literally says differently and you just walk over it as if it wasn't there.

If they aren't random, why did it take 35.000 generations to happen?
And why did it happen in only 1 population and not all 12?
If they weren't random, and there was something "pushing" it, then why didn't it happen much sooner and why didn't it happen in all 12 populations?

Clearly something isn't adding up here at all.
You are obviously being extremely selective in your "examples" and "evidence", for no other apparent reason then it being devastating to your case if you wouldn't...


We all know that microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.

Do you know how this occurs?
BILLIONS of those bacteria etc DIE because they don't have said resistance. Out of the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS, a few happen to have won that lottery ticket. They get to live and reproduce.

Very fast, the entire population is replaced by individuals that DO have the resistance.
It's not correct to say that "bacteria develop resistance".
It's far more correct to say "only those that happen to have resistance, survive"

Imagine a population of colors.
There's many reds, blues, organes, yellows, greens, etc.
Every new generation, they mix and generate variations of colors.
We spray an all-purpose anti-color fluid which works against most colors except a specific tint of purple.

How long will it take do you think before the population consists of only that tint of purple?
I can tell you: not long.

Did the colors "develop" that purple trait?
Or is it more a matter of all the other colors simply going the way of the dodo, opening up the habitat for the specific tint of purple to take over?

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold.

Yes. Bacteria reproduce like crazy and every reproduction event brings mutations.
And what happens in that experiment is pretty much the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium.
The rate of evolution going hand in hand with the rate of change in the environment.
Increasing selection pressure will do that....

Nothing new under the sun. Just really a confirmation of what we pretty much already knew.

Non-random directed mutation is a fact whether you like it or not.

So, assuming that to be a "fact":
1. why did it take 35.000 generations for e.coli to evolve the ability to grow on citrate?
2. why didn't the other 11 populations evolve the same trait?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Science can only deal with what can be observed or experiment with. If it’s beyond the ability to investigate, it’s necessarily beyond the jurisdictions of science.

Yes, you've said that already.

I asked you how you determined that the current unknowns in physics are "beyond science".
I guess you have no answer and just would like to run with your bare assertions without being challenged on it.

A system has to exist before it can be experiment with. Science stops at the beginning of the universe at the Big Bang.

Because you say so?


I simply mean that beyond the point when the physical realm/the universe came to existence, the causal influence for such event has to be non-physical.

Why? Because you say so? Or because your religion needs / prefers it to be so?
Why? Why must it be "non-physical"? How have you determined this?


Abiogenesis does not provide answers of how the first cell emerged other than wishful speculations.

Because it's a work in progress. Duh.


We agree that non-living matter cannot evolve

If by "evolve" you mean biological evolution - sure. Since those are processes that living things are subject to.

, simply because it's neither alive nor can reproduce (can't pass gradual changes to offspring), there is no mechanism or route through which non-living matter can be transformed into a living cell.

There is no KNOWN mechanism.
You keep ignoring that abiogenesis is a work in progress.
Just because it's an open question today doesn't mean it won't be answered tomorrow.

Under abiotic conditions, there is no process to create the required biomolecules let alone assembling it. The argument that million of years allow the process to somehow take place is false. Time is an enemy of the process since the required chemicals will degrade/decompose in a relatively very short time. If some molecules somehow emerged through an unknown process, it will not wait millions of years to get the other essential molecules. It will simply decompose.

Science cannot demonstrate how nature fabricated the world's first digital single celled/information processor, let alone the impossible demonstration of how this extremely complex molecular hardware got to write its own extremely complex software?

The complex info encoded in DNA is an absolute prerequisite for the simplest single-celled form of life, natural selection didn’t play any role to develop the encoded info of the alleged first cell (LUCA) that emerged from nonliving matter. Nonliving matter can neither evolve nor adapt.

All bare assertions, with some fallacious sauce on top like argument from ignorance, argument from awe, argument from incredulity.....

Quite embarrassing for a person who wishes to come across as scientifically literate.

That is why scientists such as Richard Dawkins assume that the origin may be seeded from outer space.

Did Ben Stein tell you that? :rolleyes:


I'm skipping the rest.
That last line showed your true colors.

I'm done.



EDIT: fixed a quoting problem
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The main argument is about the ToE being false but the negative influence of the theory on humanity came up as a side argument, some denied it and the argument continued.

Social Darwinism & Eugenics are both product of the evolutionary concept.

Social Darwinism & Eugenics itself are among the negative impacts of the evolutionary concept on humanity.

I can only repeat myself.

Neither has anything to do with evolutionary biology.

They are only related insofar as the one raping and misrepresenting the other to advance ideological and racist worldviews.


Oh well...

Go back to watching your Ben Stein "documentaries."
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
So you agree with the observation!!?!

Good! That's a start.

Now all we need is some kind of evidence that change in species is gradual. Whatcha got?
You state an observation that leads to the conclusion. Why is it so difficult for you to share that observation? What is holding you back? Why repeat a claim to infinity and beyond, but withhold the evidence that people are clamoring for?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
If you are claimant to alternative model (eg theory, or hypothesis) to the current knowledge of science, eg Evolution, then as claimant you would need to present your evidence & data, to show that your model actually work.

I didn't need to sleep on this for 20,000,o00 years to see what's wrong here.

You have fallen for Darwin's beliefs and your belief in science. You believe so strongly that you are right because Peers say they are right that you now believe they are right until I prove them wrong.

Your belief that you are right by definition couldn't be more wrong or more illogical.

I have not reject or dismiss any evidence you have, because you have not shown and not demonstrated that you have evidence.

Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It’s the other way around. I provide evidence. You provide meaningless opinion.
Saying “God did it” or “Allah did it” or the “Creator did it” or the “Designer did it”, don’t count as evidence, LIIA.

Either statements are unsubstantiated assertions, personal opinions or personal belief.

Also not evidence are these:
Sure, divinely created life is necessarily a manifestation of extreme intelligence and must have the intrinsic capability to adapt and respond intelligently to the variables within an environment. But again, if the origin is divinely created, then everything that emerges from it is necessarily created. Acceptance of the principle of divine creation would be a total change of the mindset.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
We all know that microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.
One small detail I think you need to rethink.

Viruses can replicate, and have nucleic acid (DNA, RNA), and covered by protein and lipids, viruses aren't microorganisms.

They are infectious agent, capable of infecting living cells of organisms, including being able to infect microorganisms of Bacteria species or of Archaea species.

What differed viruses and microorganisms, bacteria and archaea have cells, therefore they have cell structures.

Whereas viruses and virions (a virion is an agent that haven’t yet infected a host cell) have no cells of their own, no cell structure, and therefore viruses not microorganisms.

Some people often confuse virus with bacteria, but bacteria is a living organism, where as a virus or a virion isn’t a living organism.
 
Top