Darwin's Illusion

[Valjean]

Every believer for 4000 years has known everything. Every shaman, every priest, and every scientific zealot sees everything in terms of what he believes and his models.

Models? What models? Folklore?

No! Scientific people are all individuals and we are supposed to be skeptical but very few are now days. Repeatability, predictability, and testing are obviously necessary but Peer review is irrelevant.

Doesn't peer review tend to minimize individual biases and misinterpretation? Isn't it useful in discovering errors in testing and individual interpretations?

I'm sure you're right but might be closer than anyone else. More accurately I believe I'm the first homo omnisciencis to understand the formatting of our brain and how this compares to homo sapien formatting. Animal brains operate in three dimensions and ours is effectively one.

Please inform the neurological community.

 

[Valjean]

I'm just reviewing this now after unblocking you for a while. Meantime, did you read the article I referenced? What proof do scientists have about the emergence (evolution) of man from any primate? Anything? Nothing. To elaborate, not only is there no proof, there is nothing showing any evolution from one species of primate to another. Nothing. Zilch. You want to argue with that? (Go ahead...)

There is overwhelming, consilient evidence. How you avoided learning about this, even from high school, I have no idea.
Did you attend a religious school?

 

[Valjean]

I said: ↑

There are still those who believe in spontaneous generation and 'magic poofing'. Here in the US they're most numerous among the evangelical Christians.

Not exactly sure what you mean here,

You believed humans, and all other animals, "poofed" into existence, fully formed, "by the hand/finger/will of God."

Magic is effect without mechanism. In religion, no mechanism is adduced; no steps, no chemistry, no physics. Hence: Magic.
God, by the way, is not a mechanism, he's an agent.

You believe in magic, and believe magic is a reasonable, alternative "explanation."
Magic is not a mechanism, or an alternative, or reasonable.

...but as I continue to examine the subject of -- evolution -- here's what I came across in reference to men and PRIMATES -- from a respected publication of the Smithsonian Institute --
"Scientists have identified dozens of early primates, based on teeth, but still have a hard time assessing how these mammals relate to modern primates" OK, DOZENS of early primates based on teeth, but can't figure (still have a hard time assessing) how these primates relate to "modern primates." (LOL...)Five Early Primates You Should Know | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
(Still can't figure -- because -- no proof. )

Again, these are many steps removed from current primate forms. Of course the intervening steps are obscure. The article doesn't attempt to show any relationship of these to modern "men and PRIMATES," The evolution of hominids is a whole, different subject.

"No proof?!" STOP IT! Stop it with this "proof" nonsense. There is no 'proof' the Earth is round, or that germs cause disease. We have evidence -- lots of it; consilient evidence. What evidence do you have for your magic poofing?

 

[cladking]

Models? What models? Folklore?

"Models" and "beliefs" are the exact same thing. "Models" are no more real and no more tangible than a "belief". Homo omnisciencis behaves solely on beliefs/ models. But "model" is a far nicer word to describe a belief built on experience, experiment, or any hard won knowledge than "belief" so I often divide "beliefs" in two (models and beliefs). There are differences such as "models" are far more likely to be based on empirical evidence and deduction.

Doesn't peer review tend to minimize individual biases and misinterpretation?

I'm not suggesting peer review serves no function. It is necessary to translate charlatans and bad experiment into terms laymen can understand. But it serves no function of any kind as science. It can also serve to weed out garbage that would waste the time of experts. All science exists independently of groups or committees whether they are fools or Peers.

Isn't it useful in discovering errors in ... individual interpretations?

Sometimes.

Errors in interpretation are often more applicable to the peers than those they are reviewing and they can not see this. Only individuals think and interpret.

That last sentence is the most important concept that few people seem to ever understand.

We've created a society that is touchy feely and ignores metaphysics and in this kumbaya world Peers rule all.

Please inform the neurological community.

The "neurological community" doesn't even have a working definition for "consciousness" so they are collectively and individually incapable of understanding. They would collectively and individually turn a deaf ear when I try to show the numerous experiments and observations that show my hypotheses are workable. Neurobiology isn't even in its infancy yet and isn't due for quite some time. A tool defines what work it can do and the tool they are using is very very poor to come to understand the nature of consciousness. They might someday actually be able to understand every part of the brain and build working ones yet still not understand consciousness. I believe you have to come at this from another direction and certainly the effects of consciousness on change in species is one of them that might work. I believe it does.

 

[cladking]

We've created a society that is touchy feely and ignores metaphysics and in this kumbaya world Peers rule all.

All hail our equality and kiss the feet of Peers, CEO's, or anyone with a load of money and garbage to sell.

 

[LIIA]

None of that has anything to do with science. You may not understand what science is. The Nazis were for the most part Christians. Very few were scientists.

Why the dishonest denial? The Nazis racist ideology was scientifically driven.

The Nazi designated specific people with no right to live to be targeted for murder by the state, including people with serious medical problems, and people with cognitive and physical disabilities, deaf, blind, etc. such label as diagnosed by a doctor was the basis for forced sterilization or murder. The Nazi designated these people as "life unworthy of life". They tried to accelerate the cleansing process of natural selection by faster elimination of the unfit.

Life unworthy of life - Wikipedia

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia

If you say that abiogenesis cannot be tested that is a "positive claim".

I’m not saying abiogenesis cannot be tested? I’m saying abiogenesis was not tested/falsified.

If you don’t agree, demonstrate how is the hypothesis that life arose on its own from non-living matter was falsified.

I can name a prediction of abiogenesis, how it was tested, and how it was confirmed.

Go ahead, show us all how was abiogenesis confirmed or stop your nonsense.

Again, the prediction of the theory is the emergence of life on its own from non-living matter, not merely the emergence of some non-living organic compounds from non-living inorganic matter.

Abiogenesis is an incomplete hypothesis. There is not a complete answer yet.

An incomplete hypothesis, yet you claim it was confirmed. Do you even understand what you are saying?

First, it should get completed and falsified before it can be confirmed. Your claim that parts of it were answered is nothing but a ridiculous trial to impose some nonsense as a fact.

Do you think UV exists everywhere?

No its not, its only one of many things that can cause disruption/disintegration of the structure of the alleged floating RNA strand without any protection.

And you did not "explain". You made another unevidenced claim. Please show that the early RNA would proposed by biologists studying this topic that understand it far better than you ever will would be destroyed. You will need something from a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. Good luck.

Its a very well known fact that the protected RNA strand of a virus would get disrupted very easily outside the host cell, that is why it only stay infectious for a very short time. We shouldn’t argue about this.

Simply without any protection, the disruption of the RNA structure would be much easier and faster. As I said, the alleged floating strand of RNA couldn’t wait millions of years till it somehow come across some floating nucleotides, which is another impossibility.

It’s nothing but multiple layers of impossibilities and ignorance driven by extreme bias to prove some impossible nonsense.

 

[LIIA]

That is not a change of position at all. Your claims were dependent upon "all". My claims were always based on " some". All life has not survived. Most species have died out. That is why we don't see all of the countless intermediate forms. In your earlier claim you again used "all". But that time you used it in the opposite direction. My claim was still " some". The Flip Flop was yours.

False, I said many times in my posts that,” species do not go extinct just because a variant emerged.” and you came up with your ridiculous percentage that 99% go extinct. Support your 99% claim or stop the nonsense.

Even if your percentage is correct, where are the surviving 80 million of human transitional species? why did they all go extinct?

Again, If the alleged human transformation from LCA to Homo sapiens ever happened through speciation / transitional forms, then, we should see different human species today especially in isolated geographical areas. THEY CANNOT ALL GO EXTINCT. All living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species. The alleged speciation of humans never happened.

 

[LIIA]

What do know that you don’t have a clue as to what Abiogenesis is, and you are confusing Abiogenesis with spontaneous generation.

As usual, you’re wrong and confused yet you think you know.

Didn’t I already explain to you in #1351 that both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are related in the sense that both assumed that life may arose on its own from nonliving matter?

In fact, both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation share the same roots. abiogenesis itself as a term initially used to refer to spontaneous generation but this older understanding of abiogenesis was replaced by the modern hypothesis that relatively simpler, earliest forms of life arose from non-living matter.

The term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) to refer to the process of spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter whereas the term biogenesis, to refer to the process where life arises from similar life. See the link below.

Abiogenesis

Didn’t I show you that Evolutionary biologists believed that a kind of spontaneous generation must have worked for the emergence of life?

Here it is again
Primordial soup - Wikipedia

These evidence in Abiogenesis, is what make a falsifiable hypothesis. While Abiogenesis isn’t a scientific theory, it has the potential of being one, if biochemists discover more evidence.

False, you have no clue what are you talking about, do you? Spontaneous generation was considered as a scientific theory/fact for a long time till it was finally falsified/disproved.

On the other hand, Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory but rather a field of study that aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life. How abiogenesis may have occurred is still an unknown mystery (see screenshot above with red highlight), hence it’s not a scientific theory, it was neither proved nor falsified. It’s just a felid of study based on the wishful thinking that answers will be found in the future. It would never happen, yet many ignorants claim that abiogenesis is a confirmed theory.

Spontaneous generation, however, has never been falsifiable, hence it was never a scientific theory, and don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”.

Again, spontaneous generation was a scientific theory that got superseded/discredited.

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

Even if there are some areas that sciences don’t cover or cannot answer or explain, don’t make religious teachings, religious texts or religious beliefs provide the correct answers and explanations.

Yes, there are some areas that sciences don’t cover or cannot answer or explain. Once this understanding settles, then alternative means are necessary to get a better grasp of these areas.

We are relative beings, our capacity of understanding stays within the domain of relative entities. The absolute is off limits for us. Absolute understanding of reality is beyond our capacity. Logic, philosophy, religion and science are all means towards the understanding of reality.

No where in the BB theory does it say or propose that the universe came into existence from “nothing”.

Why do all you creationists believe this same ignorant claim that you have just made? Did you even bother to read and research on the BB theory?

Because if you did, you wouldn’t this false claim on something that was never a explanation, nor prediction of “nothingness”.

Seriously?

Refer to Lawrence Krauss book “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”

The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself”

Per Lawrence Krauss science suggests that the universe came from nothing. No particles, no radiation, no space, no time, no laws, nothing.

Lawrence Krauss is an atheist. For him, what matters is “How” not “Why”. His logic is that we don’t need to imply a need for a cause but rather only focus on how things unfold. If things happen in a specific way, then this is what it is; we don’t need to ask why. That’s his logic but does “How” really eliminate the need for “Why”? I don’t agree. In our realm of existence, things don’t just happen, they are caused. No exception.

A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

All the bb say, that the universe at that stage was infinitely hot and very dense. It never say there was nothing before the Big Bang

The initial singularity is a term to identify an unknown state. It’s assumed to be a point of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe.

Before the BB event, space and time did not exist. Mass as we understand it has to exist within spacetime. With no space, time, particles or physical laws, what is mass? Does it really have any meaning?

Singularity doesn’t represent something physical. It appears in mathematics and means that all our theories of physics are breaking down.

Again, singularity is a term to identify an unknown state. BB stops at the Planck epoch. singularity is a hypothetical state that is neither known nor understood and has nothing to do with any law of nature as we know it.

.IN FACT, it never postulate of anything there before the Big Bang, because the BB cosmologists don’t know if there are any “before”.

“never postulate of anything there before the Big Bang” is equal to “nothing was there before the Big Bang”!! Isn’t it?

It’s amazing how you typically refute yourself in the same post!!

And there’s where some theoretical astrophysicists attempt at other models outside of the Big Bang scopes or limits, eg the oscillating universe model (endless cycles of Big Bang and Big Crunch, hence it is sometimes called the “Big Bounce”), the various Multiverse models, the String or Brane Cosmology, etc.

cyclical event that combines both the Big Bang and the Big Crunch as part of an oscillating model has a logical challenge of how/when was the cycle itself initiated? In addition, the probability of an oscillating model is negligible because measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation show that the Universe will continue on expanding and the speed of the expansion is accelerating.

Multiverse model is a wistful speculation, it can neither be tested or falsified. String Cosmology is relatively new and has not been matured.

 

[LIIA]

You criticize the BB as "something from nothing." Doesn't your "goddidit!"
explanation posit exactly this; magically poofing things into existence?; a universe from nothing?

It’s totally the other way around.

Science postulates that the universe arose from nothing, which is illogical because the existence of the universe as contingent entity (didn’t always exist) is necessarily dependent on a cause. The cause must logically exist.

It may appear, as a conflict between science and logic but it’s not. Science works only within a limited domain, science is not wrong to say "from nothing" because the domain of science is limited to physical entities (which are subject to physical laws). The cause of the universe is non-physical, meaning, the cause is beyond the scientific domain. Nonetheless the cause must exist.

The universe is neither a brute fact (a steady state) nor arose on its own from nothing. Beyond the beginning of the universe, nothing physical existed, but it doesn’t mean there is no cause. It only means that the cause is of a different nature (non-physical), which is not subject to any physical law (physical laws didn’t exist beyond the beginning of the universe).

Einstein understood the problem of God to be "most difficult in the world”, the problem is not Gods existence (the existence is a necessity) but rather the problem is the nature of God, which is necessarily non-physical, not subject to any physical law, hence cannot be understood or directly observed. Only God’s attributes can be understood through the manifestations of his being in the physical realm. See #1273

Here is the religious perspective of God and the Universe in Islam,

Islam teaches that God is the first, the eternal. We may only understand his attributes but not his being because nothing in our realm of existence is like him. Whatever we may imagine about his being is not him. He is the reason and creator for everything in existence.

Islam teaches that at the beginning, heaven and earth were a single entity (Singularity) that God broke it apart and the heavens are continuously expanding. God is the first cause that always exists without a beginning or an end, the one with absolutely no associates and there is absolutely nothing like him.

That Islamic perspective of God is consistent with the logical necessity/need for the first absolute cause and scientific understanding of the universe. Even so science has to stop at the physical limit of the first effect (Big Bang) but logic can take us further beyond.

“Nothing is of his likeness; and he is the all-hearer, the all-seer” [Ash-Shura: 11]

“Say, "He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal; He begot no one nor was He begotten; and there is not any one comparable to Him" [Al-Ikhlas: 1-4]

“Have not the deniers known that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We tore them apart?” [Al-Anbiya: 30]

“And the universe—We constructed it with might, and We are surely expanding it.” [Adh-Dhariyat: 47]
The religious perspective of God and the Universe in Islam resolves the conflict and provides a view consistent with both the scientific observation and the logical reasoning.

To summarize:

-Science suggests that the universe arose from nothing. From a scientific perspective, nothing physical existed beyond the BB.

-Logic demands a cause for the instantiation of the universe (contingent entity) in reality. The cause cannot be "nothing".

-Religion (Islam) teaches that the cause of the instantiation of the universe in reality (God) is of unknown nature/non-physical (different from anything we know or can imagine), which is consistent with both scientific observations (nothing physical existed beyond the BB) and Logic (the cause must exist. It’s a logical necessity).

"Goddidit"is not a mechanism, it's a claim of magic.
You seem to think magic is more reasonable than natural mechanism.

Absolutely not, the understanding of magic is concerned with witnessed end results without causes, which is a false understanding. There is no such thing as uncaused entity within our realm. Even if it appears to us as uncaused, the cause must exist but, in this case, the cause is unknown, or the nature of the cause is not understood.

In that sense, science is claiming that the universe arose from nothing (magic poofing). On the other hand, religion (Islam) teaches that the universe is caused by a non-physical cause (which is consistent with both science and logic).

God is not another caused entity in an infinitely regressed chain of caused entities; God is the necessary first absolute cause. Without the first cause, the entire cause/effect chain cannot exist. Every relative has to be grounded in the absolute.

See the argument below about the understanding of what is magic? (Copied from #914)

We identify unknown causes for observed end results, as magic but there is no such thing as magic. The observed end results prove that a cause is necessary. The nature of the cause may be unknown or not understood but it doesn’t mean that there is no cause.

Magic is simply a category of causes that are unknown, but these causes must exist as evident by the existence of the witnessed end results itself. The point is, there is no magic but there are causes beyond our knowledge or understanding.

We understand that the entire universe appeared out of nothing. You may call that magic in the sense that the cause is unknown or beyond the limit of human knowledge, but it’s not magic. There is no magic. It’s a cause of an unknown nature (beyond our capacity to observe or comprehend).

In our realm of existence, there is no such thing as magic/uncaused entity but beyond our realm of existence a causeless first cause must exist. This is a separate discussion, you may See#132 on page 7 of the thread (Necessary Being: Exists?)

Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists | Page 7 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Sheesh, did you even bother to read what you allegedly are replying to? To repeat: Earlier you were trying to quote Gould as saying there are no transitional fossils at all, but now you've moved to him saying that a "degree of gradualism" isn't present in the fossil record. Those are two very different things.

Again, all these quotes are by Eldredge and Gould and all of it are concerning the same fact that the fossil record offers no support for gradual change.

Actually, both are observed in the fossil record.

Gradualism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Science cannot achieve absolute certainty, statistical proof plays an important role to support the likelihood of a hypothesis, if the theory predicts numerous transitional forms (gradualism) for every single species alive or ever lived on earth, but hardly any was found and with significant challenges. Then the theory has to be discredited. Gradualism is absent in the fossil record. Challenged exception do not prove a rule. Statistical evidence of the real world are against the theory.

Your own source, S.J. Gould, said transitional fossils are "abundant" and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either doing so out of stupidity or deceit.

Are you now disagreeing with your own source on the very topic in which you cite him as an expert?

Stasis, Gaps, lack of transitional forms and non-existence of the alleged gradualism in the fossil record are all facts. You may verify for yourself, or you may stay in denial. It’s up to you.

See above. We do have examples of gradualism in the fossil record.

You didn’t get it; you can’t ignore the statistical significance of evidence to support the likelihood of a theory. EXAMPLES don’t help if the prediction is NUMEROUS transitional forms that must exist for every single species ever lived and more importantly, we should find not only the numerous transitional forms of those gradual advantageous mutations that passed the test of selection, but also for every single one of the successful transitional forms, we should find endless other random live forms that didn’t pass the test and got filtered out by selection. We don’t see that in nature. It’s beyond ridiculous.

Those are interesting claims. Let's see your calculations.

It’s not my claim see the YouTube video below 27:48

(114) Music of Life Lecture - Denis Noble - YouTube

“There wouldn't be enough material in the whole universe for nature to tried out all the possible interactions, even over the long period of billions of years of the evolutionary process.” It’s a mathematical impossibility.

Possible random interactions are simply the calculated number of permutations based on the number of genes in a genome and possible random combination. You may search it and verify it for yourself. The numbers are beyond unimaginable. It’s simply a mathematical impossibility for nature to try out all these random combinations. There are not enough material or time in the entire universe for the alleged random process.

Um....all you're doing is ignoring what I posted and repeating your original false claim. As I showed, Mayr was criticizing categorizing evolution as Geisteswissenschaften.

Please try and debate ethically.

Mayr proposed that evolutionary biology is “unique” / “Autonomous” and as such is allowed set its own rules. He beyond doubt acknowledged the reliance of evolutionary biology on historical narrative to fill the voids where actual evidence neither exist nor possible to find. Didn’t he?

Sorry, but none of those posts support your claims. The fact remains, organisms such as bacteria evolve resistance to our antibiotics, and understanding how they do so is extremely important in medicine. You're just trying to unilaterally relabel evolution as "adaptation" and hope others go along with it.

You are certainly no authority to do that sort of thing.

You don’t get it. The experiment is not concerned with either random or directed mutation; it’s about documenting an observed mutational behavior of the bacteria (as it responds to a threat to its survival). Nothing about this observed behavior is random. It’s a directed adaptation behavior.

Um....what? You're actually arguing that PE, which was proposed as way to explain the patterns in the fossil record, doesn't explain the fossil record?

Again, you certainly are not qualified to make that sort of claim and expect others to go along with it.

Its not my claim, Critics such as Scott, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett did.

Dawkins criticized PE and argued that evolution must have happened gradually elsewhere. Regardless, no evidence was ever found to prove his “elsewhere” assumption.

See the link under criticism

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

Again, things are not so simply because you say so.

No, gradualism is a fundamental assumption of the theory, if such gradualism is proved to be **NONEXISTENT** in the fossil record, the theory is false. Gradualism didn’t simply happen “elsewhere”. It’s a ridiculous fairytale not science.

See #1256 and the link below

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

So just as the Nazis misappropriated evolution to justify their atrocities, they misappropriated religion to justify their atrocities. Pol Pot misappropriated agrarianism to justify his atrocities. ISIS and Al Qaeda misappropriated Islam to justify their atrocities.

Perhaps this is a news flash for you, but people misappropriate all sorts of things to justify their actions all the time.

So you acknowledged the negative impact of the ToE on humanity (agreed) but you attribute it to misinterpretation (false). Except that it was not misinterpretation. This is directly what the selection of the fittest entails if you apply it on humans.

The Nazi embraced the course of nature to eliminate the unfit. The Nazi designated these people as "life unworthy of life".

Life unworthy of life - Wikipedia

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia

The question now is, are you simply unable to understand how the argument you're trying to make against evolution also applies to Islam, or is it that you understand but are trying to wave it away.

Not at all, Islam was misinterpreted but the Nazi’s racist ideology was a direct application of the very ideas/principles of the theory on humans.

The point was about the negative consequences/influence of the ToE, which we already agreed on. Whether this influence is due to misinterpretation as you claimed or not, is a separate issue. In any case, I said many times that this negative influence is not a refutation of the theory. I never said the theory is false from a scientific perspective because of its negative impact on humanity.

It looks like you're trying to wave it away. The fact that the same argument you're trying to make against evolution also applies to Islam is pretty inconvenient for you, isn't it? So rather than deal with it directly, just wave it away and hope it disappears.

The problem for you is, it isn't going away.

What argument? And how does it relate to Islam? Islam was misinterpreted by some. The ToE was not.

Even if you claim it was, the damage was done and was indeed influenced by the theory.

What you fail to understand is that the damaging influence being driven by true or false interpretations has nothing to do with my argument concerning the reasons that discredit the theory from a scientific perspective. Similarly, misinterpretations of Islam have nothing to do with the message of Islam.

LOL....if all you have as a rebuttal is "Nuh uh", I'll just let that speak for itself. Would you like to see a specific example of how relative evolutionary relatedness directly helped with discerning genetic function?

This help or benefit has nothing to do with evolution but rather the advancement of other fields. Actually, the scientific advancement of molecular biology is what disproved the MS. See #753 and #781

It's important to differentiate between “Micro Adaptation” which is evident through observations as a function of directed mutation and “Macro Evolution” which is nothing, but an imaginary historical narrative (fairytale) based on ridiculously endless number of random mutations that would have easily filled the universe with some malformed junk. We don’t see any of this nonsense.

Every form of live that is successfully capable of growing/reproducing is perfection. We see perfection everywhere and in every single form of life whether alive or extinct (see # 424). We don’t see such ridiculous chaos as assumed by the ToE.

We've been over this and you're just ignoring what we covered and repeating yourself.

False, evolution is supposed to be random, very slow/gradual. Nothing about the adaptation of bacteria (as seen in the experiment of Harvard university) is random or gradual. If the behavior is random, we wouldn’t be able to predict how the bacteria will behave. The fact is quite the opposite. Not only we can predict the behavior but also the timeframe for the directed mutation process to take place. It’s totally non-random.

 

[LIIA]

And by the same reasoning, so is Islam.

I don’t deny misinterpretation of Islam but misinterpretation / misinformation about Islam has nothing to do with what Islam is or means for those who know Islam.

Islam was the driving force that established the basis of the new scientific method. Are you even aware that the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers? Can you Imagine how would our world today look like without it?

Fibonacci’s work made the Arabic numerals known in Europe. European trade, books, and colonialism helped popularize the adoption of Arabic numerals around the world. See the link

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia

(Below is a copy from #332)

The Islamic Civilization was the first Civilization where it’s citizens were religiously obligated to learn to read, write and disseminate knowledge which led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” that established the basis of the modern scientific method.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science wrote "Perhaps the main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages, was the creation of the experimental spirit ... This was primarily due to Muslims down to the end of the twelfth century”

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)

Again, things are not so simply because you say they are.

Was I the one who simply said so? Is it my claim/personal view or its the latest 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology as stated by top scientists in the felid? See #753 and #781.

I never claimed things are because I say so, you typically do. Go back and read your posts to see who is making empty arguments without any basis other than because he said so.

 

[LIIA]

It's not a question of credibility. You claimed that those advocating for EES are in the majority, yet you've offered zero support for the claim. If you don't have any, then your claim can be dismissed.

You forgot that it's not my claim. You don’t even question the credibility of those who made the claim, so what is your problem then?

These are articles and lectures published in your mainstream respectful scientific journals, why do you think it was allowed to be published? Your bias clouds your reasoning. You are not logical. it's not my claim.

And?

And its not Random

Another empty assertion.

Is that merely because you say so or wish it to be?

It's not my claim not even my words, it's all quoted from articles/lectures published in mainstream journals.

See #1245

Yes, we're aware of Noble's claims. We're also aware that they have have largely been rejected by evolutionary biologists and the paradigm remains that mutations occur randomly. We've been over this already.

Nobel as the president of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), he was presenting the latest in the felid. It’s neither his claim nor a personal view. The fact that Noble was the president of IUPS and that the lecture is published by the Physiological Society should give you a hint about its credibility.

Latest scientific finds would eventually change the paradigm, but the process takes time specifically considering the dogmatic resistance that insists to claim that “all is good”. See #911.

Your empty denial is meaningless. Science is ever changing. see the link.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

Except it's what we see occur.

What? This is not an answer. How is that relevant to the mathematical impossibility of alleged random interactions which entails ridiculously enormous number of combinations/mutations beyond belief and beyond all available matter in the entire universe?

The predictions entailed by such randomness are ridiculous, we don’t see this nonsense in nature.

Except it's what we see occur.

You're merely repeating yourself. We've been over this.

No, we’re not. It’s your wishful thinking. Whether you don’t understand or simply in denial, It’s a mathematical impossibility. The claim of randomness and what it really entails, is beyond ridiculous.

Sigh....once again you cite an article that doesn't say what you claim. There's not one thing in there about mutations occurring non-randomly.

Are you doing this on purpose, hoping others won't bother to check your sources, or are you not even bothering to read your own sources?

You don’t get it. The article is not concerned with random or directed mutation; the article is about documenting an observation of a behavior. Nothing about this very behavior is random. Is that clear?

I'm curious....do you believe a god is directing mutations? Do you believe a god is deliberately providing bacteria the means to avoid our antibiotics?

I believe nothing in the observed behavior of bacteria is random, the bacteria are intelligently designed to function and behave in a very specific manner that has nothing to do with alleged randomness.

LOL...no, it's a fact. You keep claiming that EES is a majority view among evolutionary biologists, but not one of the sources you cite support that claim. If you disagree, then show where they do (i.e., by quoting from them).

LOL, how much credit you give to your mainstream scientific journals. If none as it appears, then we don’t really have much to argue about.

Sure, these journals have some credibility with respect to what they publish; yet I’m not asking anyone to follow it blindly. Verify the facts for yourself.

 

[LIIA]

Science is a skeptical, investigative modality that insists on repeatability, predictability, testing and peer review. The system's designed to exclude personal interpretations and belief-bias.

If we are not cognizant of the domain of science (its limits/boundaries). If we try to apply the scientific method within the wrong domain, if we adapt the illogical axiom that whatever beyond our ability to see cannot exist, if we deny the logical necessity that all relative entities must be grounded in the absolute, then this biased mindset inevitably distorts our understanding of reality, especially if we are not even cognizant that we’re being under the influence of such cognitive bias.

No, you don't seem to know how it works. It's a method of eliminating human error, psychological quirks, bias, and ambiguity.

How can you avoid bias, if you start with a biased axiom and build on it? Nothing that follows from a biased axiom can be considered unbiased.

If your axiom is that the scientific domain has no boundaries or no existence is possible beyond our capacity to observe/comprehend, then the basis that you’re building on to understand the structure of reality is false.

Our inquiry into the structure of reality should utilize appropriate means/approach relative to the specific domain of our search.

There is no logical basis to deny God (the absolute). Also, there is no scientific refutation for the existence of God, yes, there is indeed scientific inability to understand the NATURE of God but that cannot be used as the basis to deny his existence.

Einstein believed in the need for God as the lawgiver for every law that exists, he said, “I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver" (see #1273). He acknowledged that the nature of God is the most difficult problem. He said, “But how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified”. He said, "I am not an Atheist…. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.”.

We can only understand the attributes of God through the manifestations of his being in the physical realm, but we cannot understand God's nature, simply because God’s nature is neither physical nor subject to any natural law. See #490 and #1450

 

[LIIA]

Magic is effect without mechanism.

False, if the effect did take place, then the cause must exist. Magic is simply a category of causes/mechanisms that are not known/understood but nonetheless must exist.

The notion that what is beyond the domain of science (physical realm) cannot exist is illogical. It’s not logical to insist to search for an explanation in the wrong domain merely because you cannot search anywhere else.

The domain of science ends at the first physical effect (BB). Beyond the BB, nothing physical has any meaning. We cannot insist to search for a physical explanation beyond the physical domain. it’s illogical. Yet a cause of an unknown nature/unknown mechanism (non-physical) must exist simply because the universe itself is a contingent entity.

The fact is neither the initial singularity is physical nor the cause of the instantiation of the universe in reality is physical. Being non-physical, the cause is necessarily beyond the domain of science.

It reminds me of an old story of a guy who kept searching his front yard for a missing item. After some time, his neighbors started to offer help. They asked, “where did you miss your item”, he said, “inside the house”, they said,” why are you searching in your front yard”, he said, “it’s dark inside the house, I cannot search in the dark”.

The utilization of the wrong means in the wrong domain is illogical (cannot provide any logical explanation). Different domains necessitate different means/approach of search. See #1450

 

[cladking]

“There wouldn't be enough material in the whole universe for nature to tried out all the possible interactions, even over the long period of billions of years of the evolutionary process.” It’s a mathematical impossibility.

This is exactly the reason I never believed in evolution. There were many things I never believed in but I had some idea of how many permutations there were to reality at a very young age and the concept that reality could arrange itself such that creatures "evolved" struck me as nonsense. It wouldn't be impossible but it was obvious to me that all life was autonomous. Hitting the dog had a similar effect to hitting a brother. Something was driving all individuals and it was no more apparent what was driving me than what was driving the dog or the brother. How could all life be so very similar if change were random or caused by a single process that didn't even apply to one single individual? How could any change be gradual when all observable change was sudden?

Darwin is, was, and will forever remain so much bunk.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Claims that a scientific theory is the basis of evil in the world or possessing some intrinsic state that encourages evil have all the characteristics of claims that can be dismissed as hogwash. In my view, the position doesn't rise to the level as the basis of a rational argument and ignores the reality that it is people that use these things in support of their evil and not the other way round.

Atrocities of extraordinary magnitude have been cared out under claims of the inspiration of Christianity, Islam or other religions. If the irrational notion that the misapplication of ideals, ideologies, theories and objects in the commission evil acts signifies some evil inherent in those things, then all of those things can be viewed as a source of evil and should be rejected on that basis. Singling out a theory that makes some uncomfortable due to ideology or ignorance while ignoring the wider application of that notion reveals the extent of hypocrisy in such a claim as I see it.

Dismissing that fact of this wider application with hand waving, swamping and demeaning comments claiming a juvenile level of understanding by those that have already pointed this out is an object lesson in how ideas without inherent evil can be twisted to the purposes of people for whatever underlying agenda they promote.

There is no wording in the theory of evolution that commands others to act with good or evil intent. There is no evidence that the theory of evolution has intrinsic properties supporting evil or good. It is an explanation of the evidence of change seen in experiments and observations of the natural world.

 

[cladking]

Claims that a scientific theory is the basis of evil in the world or possessing some intrinsic state that encourages evil have all the characteristics of claims that can be dismissed as hogwash. In my view, the position doesn't rise to the level as the basis of a rational argument and ignores the reality that it is people that use these things in support of their evil and not the other way round.

The ToE isn't so much the source of evil as it is the source of beliefs that manifest as evil. To a large extent people are inclined toward evil not because there's anything wrong with us as that we each know everything which is caused by the fact that we choose beliefs and then experience reality in terms of those beliefs. we each think we experience ALL of reality and this experience is unaffected by we ourselves. Bad beliefs lead to bad behavior and "survival of the fittest" is a very bad belief. Mind you if it were true then it would be natural and we would be meant to kill the weak but it is not true and other species don't much do this.

I always tell children to be very careful of what they choose to believe because they will become those beliefs. I tell them not to accept things at face value and to run them over in their minds until they make sense. I tell people to sleep on it.

Darwin wasn't trying to be evil any more than he was trying to be wrong. He promoted the former and achieved the latter. It wasn't his fault. He was a product of his place and time and just trying to do right.

Because we understand so very much of reality it is very natural to think we understand more than we really do and this is why everyone is wrong even though most all of us are trying to do right.

 

[gnostic]

I always tell children to be very careful of what they choose to believe because they will become those beliefs. I tell them not to accept things at face value and to run them over in their minds until they make sense. I tell people to sleep on it.

You don’t see the irony that you don’t follow your own advice.

Your whole concept of 40,000 year old single language and science based on your interpretations of some cave symbols are just that - personal belief.

There are no history or science in your concepts, and yet you parade it around as if they were facts.

Your interpretations are your belief. There are no science in your belief.

You are the only one around here, and elsewhere, follow your belief.

 

[cladking]

You don’t see the irony that you don’t follow your own advice.

No. The irony is I'm the only one who knows he's a product of his beliefs.

It was my belief that everyone is a product of his time and place and everyone makes perfect sense ALL THE TIME in terms of his premises that allowed me to see the literal meaning in Ancient Language and to solve it. Everything springs from this since ancient people who invented agriculture through changing species didn't believe in Evolution either. They, like myself, believe that species change as the result of behavior at bottlenecks. It's all a nice tight little package and the cave drawings that show there was a single worldwide language even 40,000 years ago is just icing on the cake.

All the experiment, all the evidence, and every observation for 40,000 years agree that Darwin was wrong.

Even though I was always very careful what i believe this has been a real eye opener for me. Some of my beliefs were wholly wrong. For instance I believed ALL scientists including ALL Egyptologists were primarily interested in the truth and could recognize it when they saw it. I could not have been more wrong. Egyptologists don't care about ancient reality, our realities, or truth. They wouldn't even recognize "evidence" if it bit them on the backside.