Darwin's Illusion

[John53]

I don't know that there is a language issue. I think @YoursTrue is born citizen of the US. She can correct me if I am wrong. I think the issue is more of understanding of what the theory explains.

Thanks. Seems I was wrong all round, he's a she and English is her native tongue. So either I'm poor at reading or her sentence construction is not understandable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks. Seems I was wrong all round, he's a she and English is her native tongue. So either I'm poor at reading or her sentence construction is not understandable.

I have noticed that many people that do not understand the science and reject it solely for ideological reasons have difficulty articulating relevant or cogent objections on the basis of facts.

 

[LIIA]

There are lot more to Natural Selection

Selection can only deduct from a system; the system and all its variants must exist first before selection may play any role. Selection can only select from what already exists, it’s not a creative force.

If you think selection is an essential player and you logically know that first living system and its variants were not influenced by selection, then how did it emerge without such essential player playing any role?

abiogenesis is not only an unevidenced hypothesis (see #1850, item B) but also constitutes an illogical circular reasoning. You want to believe that some evolutionary process gave rise to live (first live), then live allowed another evolutionary process to emerge (which is “mutation+selection" as hypothesized by the MS). In other words, evolution created live and live created evolution.

It's like the chicken or the egg causality dilemma "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" all chickens hatch from eggs and all chicken eggs are laid by chickens.

Without a chicken there are no eggs, the chicken must have come first, if you think the egg came first, then you should know that without both the chicken and the rooster, the egg can never hatch.

The point is, without life there is neither mutation nor selection. Without life there is no evolution.

In principle, the essence of evolution is based on the ability of a living system to persist; the system must survive and pass changes to offspring. Such persistence is only possible if the system is alive, all other nonliving organic systems will necessarily decompose/disintegrate before it gets any chance of further development. Without life that can persist, time becomes the absolute enemy of any evolutionary process of any kind. The organic molecules will not pass any gradual change to offspring; it will disintegrate in no time. Without life there is no “survival of the fittest” but rather “decay of the dead molecules”.

Evolution can never create live, live creates evolution (adaptation).

Organisms don’t develop millions of random irrelevant changes to be purified by selection but rather develop specific purposeful/directed changes to address the specific variables within its environment. It’s a purposeful adaptation process.

If the process is random as claimed, then a very small fraction of the variants may be advantageous changes; the vast majority of variants should be errors, harmful mutation, deformations, and problems of all kind, A BIG RANDOM MESS. Selection would be always extremely busy cleaning the mess caused by random mutations. We never see that in nature, neither in living animals nor in the fossil record.

 

[LIIA]

The question is why are you so fixated in trying to prove Darwin's wrong, when he is only a pioneer.

You are being so blinded by what he might Darwin's original ideas, that you forget that today's theory is quite solid

Yes, Darwin was wrong, but I’m not concerned that Darwin was wrong, I’m concerned that all assumptions of the latest theory of evolution "Modern Synthesis" is disproved. See # 781

and based on large numbers of evidence that support Natural Selection, including modern knowledge (eg genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, cell biology, molecular biology, modern medicine, pathology, etc) all of which support Natural Selection and other mechanisms of Evolution. Then there are modern procedures and techniques, a number of different types of DNA testings (eg genome testing, nuclear DNA (nDNA), mitochondrial DNA, plastid DNA testing of plants, algae and bacteria, protein testings, etc).

There are more to Evolution than just paleontology and fossils.

Understanding Evolution is also important in bacterial diseases and viral diseases (although technically, viruses and virions are not organisms, as they do not have cells; they are infection agents that can infect all known eukaryotic organisms).

If you really want to debunk Evolution, then try debunking the modern updated theory, and not Darwin.

Darwin's original concept is old news, and it seemed to be stupid trying to blame things that Darwin didn't know about in the 19th century.

I don't see creationists focusing on the 19th century works of Faraday and Maxwell on electromagnetic fields. While there are still applications using their equations, EM fields have also been modified, refined and updated in the 20th & 21st centuries, particularly in the area of Quantum Electrodynamics.

I just find creationists are desperate and weak in faith when they only focused on the past (eg on Darwin) and not the present theories. And they are absurd to the point of stupidity when they associate Evolution with religion or with atheism. Desperate and stupid is what I see among YEC creationists (eg some Protestants sects, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islamic literalists, etc) and ID creationists (eg Discovery Institute).

I clarified so many times, why is it too difficult for you to understand?

Again, the damaging influence that did happen was generally driven by the theory and specifically by Darwin’s ideas of its application on humans per his book “The Descent of Man”

The refutation of all fundamental assumptions of the latest theory the “Modern Synthesis” has absolutely nothing to do with the damaging influence as I repeated so many times. It has everything to do with 21st century finds of physiology, microbiology, cell biology, molecular biology.

“Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”. See # 781

You do live in the 21st century, don't you? Do you see biologists today, ditching Evolution?

Again, latest ToE today is the “Modern Synthesis” and the answer is YES, the top scientists do, the leaders not the average followers. See #753, #781 and #1864, item #8

Suzan Mazur book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.” is presenting evidence by major scientists from a dozen countries for a paradigm shift that is underway replacing neo-Darwinism.

Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, Frantisek Baluska, Ricardo Flores, Nigel Goldenfeld, Eugene Koonin, Kalevi Kull, Eviatar Nevo, Peter Saunders, Stuart Newman, Luis P Villarreal, Carl Richard Woese and others.

 

[LIIA]

However it's entirely possible that the further we go back in time the smaller the dominos become. It is possible that there is a "natural" explanation. While "God" is the most apparent explanation there is still some probability that reality could have emerged from unseen, unknown, and/ or unconsidered forces.

The absolute origin is not about the first domino of one observable system or another, not even the first domino of observable existence but rather the causal influence behind the fall of the first domino (effect) of known existence. As we go back in time, Reality never ceases to exist, only the domino pieces/probabilities, all fade away and cease to exist tell we get to the point where all what is there is nothing but the absolute reality, the ground from which everything originated.

Beliefs come to define not only how we think but who we are

Absolutely, Belief is a choice, a reflection of a freewill exercised by an individual according to his or her own disposition. What we choose to believe, indeed defines who we are. We define our facts. Facts don’t define our beliefs.

 

[LIIA]

There is much that we do not know. That is the basis of inquiry. But what I see claimed here is just what others believe fills the gaps of the unknown. And without any benefit of evidence that their imaginary views are reality. It distills down to a god of the gaps argument by bias, deluge and failed claims.

As we attempt to understand reality, we may think that our explanation of causality has solids and voids and the question is merely how to fill the voids, this is not the case, not at all. The entire thing is a void, without a root cause we don’t have any explanation of any kind.

You want to exclude what you consider as non-naturalistic. But the real question is “what is naturalistic?” What are the criteria that identify the “non-naturalistic”? Is it being unknown, unseen, or being of a nature that cannot be understood? Isn’t this exactly the case with all natural forces? How is it different from the so-called “supernatural”? Is there such thing as “supernatural”? Or is it simply another “unknown”?

Inquiry is essential to naturalism, but the essence of naturalism is the principle that naturalism is intended/promoted as a “posteriori” view. It's not/should not be a commitment in advance to certain ontology.

Naturalism a not an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.

Actual application of naturalism failed to honor this “posteriori” principle. The real application became a prior commitment to the so-called materialism (As if a materialism concept is an absolute rather than a provisional relative). A commitment that mandates a priori adherence to material causes that must produce the so-called material explanations no matter how counter-intuitive or mystifying to the uninitiated.

In principle, there is no such thing as materialistic or not, there is only data pointing to conclusions, that’s all there is. The classification of something as natural or not is a conception or rather a misconception but not by any means an intrinsic nature.

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such conclusion is typically excluded because it is considered non-naturalistic. But what is “naturalistic”? Why “intelligent design” is not “naturalistic”?

In principle, Naturalism as a posteriori view should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be. No assumption of any kind should be established as a priori tell the data is first examined. That is exactly the logical error that can be seen in actual application of naturalism, which is the strict adherence to unjustified false priori without any data to support it.

The problem is not naturalism per se as an approach but rather the miss application of naturalism. Assessment of data should be driven from a neutral view not an unevidenced priori of any kind. What supports the naturalistic priori that rejects any possibility that a causal influence (God) may purposefully and consciously influence matter if every observation points to it?

Order, rules, purpose, control are all exhibited in every observation in the cosmos, life, even at the atomic and subatomic level. But we either fail to see it or simply attribute it to unseen forces that we don’t know what it is, but logic necessitates its existence, which we call “the natural laws”.

“The unknown/unseen force (natural law) did it” is not an explanation; it’s not even a mechanism. It’s only an observed influence that is exerted through unknown means. How/why the natural forces exert such influence? What is the mechanism through which it exerts its controlling influence over matter? It’s nothing but a mystery, yet we fool ourselves that we have got a satisfactory explanation.

Here is an example to explain the illogical “naturalistic” approach to explain reality. assume you put an empty box overnight outside your front door to find it full of apples every morning, same is true for everyone else who does the same. A scientist conducts some extermination and confirms the observation, then concludes that the phenomenon is a natural law and calls it “the law of overnight apples”. It’s a confirmed fact, whenever someone asks why this happens? The ready answer is always; it’s because of “the law of overnight apples”.

Is that really an explanation? It’s definitely not. Yet this is our exact approach with respect to the so-called “natural laws”. What it is? How it does what it does? Why it exists? We don’t care. It’s just the way it is. A mere norm. Just leave the box overnight and you’ll get apples. End of story, it happens every day, why worry for an explanation?

It's never about an entity following a rule, it’s about why the rule itself exist and how it does what it does. The question about the behavior of the processes cannot be simply dismissed on the basis that “it's just the norm”.

When it comes to the universe in its entirety or life, it’s always about the processes that control the input not the input itself. The input can never create an output on its own. Without the processes controlling subatomic particles, there is no matter, without the processes controlling the genes, there is no life.

The fact is neither the processes nor the outcome is random. But our familiarity with the norm eliminates the wonder. Regardless of how peculiar the norm may be, simply if its usual, it's not peculiar, we still perceive it as a mere norm, we imagine that being a norm is itself a sufficient explanation but it’s not.

Antony Flew, one of the world's preeminent atheists who wrote, "Theology and Falsification", which is considered as one of the most popular atheistic papers. In 2006, he co-wrote a book titled, " There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind".

He stated that his rule of life had always been to follow the evidence where it leads. And he said he followed that evidence, and it led him to the conclusion that God exists.

He said, "when I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains..'We must follow the argument wherever it leads'.” (There is No A God. p 89)

If we logically follow the evidence (wherever it leads), it only leads to God.

God is not a relative explanation to an individual system; God is the absolute explanation to the relative existence in its entirety. The absolute is the only explanation that must exist to give rise to every probable. See #1851

 

[LIIA]

Go back and look at the article (post #1406). The example I posted contains cases of anagenic speciation. Heck, it's even right there in the title, "Biological Radiations and Speciation"!

You've not shown any challenges to the examples I provided.

There is nothing special at all about your gastropod example.

It's not about one assumed evolutionary mode or another, whatever the alleged mode is, evolution is essentially a gradual mindless random process. A goal-oriented gradual process indeed entails numerous steps/variants, but the random gradual process entails astronomical number of variants that must exist for every single species ever lived. Every single good step forward is not intentional but rather filtered out from millions of bad steps. We don’t see that nonsense in nature. Real world observation of the fossil record disproved that prediction. If the prediction contradicts the observation, the theory is false.

It means evolutionary biologists have debates over modes of speciation and which one predominates. So?

You hold false priori that all routes lead to same destination. It doesn’t but you missed the point. Criticism is an opinion of a critic; it’s an open-ended debate, it doesn’t settle any issue similar to the criticism exchanged between proponents of gradualism and punctuation. It doesn’t mean much.

You never provided your credible criticism yet but even if you do, So what?

LOL...so basically you're doing exactly what I said....cherry picking from your chosen expert. When he claims mutations aren't random, he's a world-renowned expert who everyone should listen to, but when he says evolution is the central story of biology, that can be waved away.

If you don't see the issue there, I can't help you.

Seriously?

The world-renowned expert who everyone should listen to is telling you that evolution “IS ACTUALLY A STORY AS A HISTORY” he doesn’t acknowledge it as a theory but as a story. Central or not, a story is not equal to a theory, do you understand? If you don't see the issue there, I can't help you.

In # 1597 I said, “I’m quoting Noble for the refutation of all the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. That is what matters. Beyond that whatever is left is nothing more than a meaningless story (historical narrative)”

In # 1683 you claimed that I’m cherry picking since I don’t accept Nobles acknowledgment of evolution and common ancestry as a fact. In #1866 I proved to you that I’m not cherry picking since Noble himself acknowledges evolution as a story/historical narrative not a fact.

Is anyone arguing that every mutation that's ever been possible has occurred?

If randomness for a single species is a mathematical impossibility (There wouldn't be enough material in the whole universe not just planet earth for nature to try out all the possible interactions), how about randomness for every single species ever lived? Is that possible or logical?

If only an extremely small fraction of possible interactions is mathematically possible, then the process is not random. If the process is not random, then it’s a product of an intelligent design not a ridiculous random mess.

Again you're doing exactly what I said...trying to have it both ways. You want to argue that in declaring Jews and others "unfit" and mass murdering them, the Nazis were accurately applying Darwinian concepts, but you also want to say that Jews and others weren't actually less fit.

If you don't see the issue there, I can't help you.

Not sure why is the confusion, Nazis were accurately applying Darwinian concepts in principle with respect to the necessity/need to exterminate the “unfit”. The principle itself is wrong regardless of what criteria they used to determine the “unfit”. Both the principle and the criteria were rubbish.

So we can dispense with the notion that the EES is a majority position within evolutionary biology.

"Widespread"

That's it? Funny how neutral theory found its way into mainstream evolutionary biology, despite this "dogmatic resistance". I wonder what's so special about the EES that triggered this "dogmatic resistance" that neutral theory lacked?

Per Gerd B. Müller, it’s rather DOGMATIC HOSTILITY. It's not my claim, read the article. See # 911.

Um....that's not what the EES is. From the Wiki page you've linked to....

"The extended evolutionary synthesis revisits the relative importance of different factors at play, examining several assumptions of the earlier synthesis, and augmenting it with additional causative factors.[1][2] It includes multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, evolvability, and several concepts from evolutionary developmental biology."
All of that seems relatively uncontroversial; it's just a reevaluation of the relative roles of known mechanisms and adding in a few more, which is why the Wiki page also states that some evolutionary biologists have questioned the need for a formal EES and argue that they can just modify the existing framework.

So again, I have to wonder what your point is. Some evolutionary biologists argue that there's a need for a brand new "EES" that reshuffles the roles of some mechanisms by which evolution occurs and adds other mechanisms to the mix. Other evolutionary biologists generally agree with the reshuffling and new mechanisms, but feel all that can be accomplished by merely tweaking the existing framework.

So what?

I’m not concerned what the EES is; my point is that all the central assumptions of the modern synthesis (neo-darwinism) are disproved. Again, you cannot disprove all fundamental assumptions of a theory and claim that the theory still stands. it doesn't.

See # 781 & 1864

Yes it is. CLICK HERE for one example. CLICK HERE for another.

A disclaimer? Seriously? Is that your example?

A disclaimer is merely intended to minimize exposure to legal liability, it doesn’t mean that the journal doesn’t conduct a peer review or doesn’t strictly control what is allowed to be published.

But you know that, don’t you? Get real.

See the example below

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

 

[LIIA]

What does Islam say about God creating organisms specifically to cause human death and suffering?

A) Your question is a part of the typical bigger question, “if God is all good, why there is evil”. To answer this question, we need to understand some basic concepts from an Islamic perspective.

Our life on earth is a short transitional state that must end. Our real life doesn’t end. Death is not an unfortunate event that happens to some, death is a fact for all. Death may happen for different reasons but must happen.

The central concept of Islam is the “freedom of choice”. It’s a concept that explains who we are as humans? Why we’re here on earth? Why there is good and evil?

But what is “freedom of choice”? Why is it important? What it entails? What are the consequences?

If you are to exercise the “freedom of choice”, you must be given choices. I can’t give you an empty jar and tell you "You are free to choose any marble", the jar must be full of marbles. On the other hand, if you are given a jar filled with white marbles. You may be free to pick any marble, yet you’re always forced to choose white; the choice is made for you. To be granted freedom, all other colors must be available in the jar, no exception, including black. Only then you would be free to make your choice that reflects who you really are. A multiple-choice test wouldn’t be a test if all choices were correct. Wrong choices must be included.

Per the Islamic view, absolute “freedom of choice” is a characteristic limited to God. Most created entities are given only white marbles in their jars, even if they choose, they don’t have the “freedom of choice". They submit to God simply because everything in their realm is white. There is no reason for them not to submit, they neither have any doubt about who God is nor have any need other than submitting to his will.

Humans are unique in the sense that we’re given the “freedom of choice” in our domain “Earth”. It’s a characteristic of God himself. That is why Islam defines humans as God’s vicegerents on Earth. Earth is a transitional settlement for humans where they’re allowed to exercise their freedom to choose any color from a wide spectrum of colors no matter what it is. They’re free within their domain. But this freedom will come to an end and all accounts shall be settled. We’re responsible for our choices and there shall be consequences.

We may choose or reject God if we want to. It’s totally up to us, but to have such freedom, the reality of God relative to our perception is designed in a way that allows such freedom. even so evident and clear but Its neither evident in a compelling manner that takes away our freedom to reject God nor inevident in a manner that makes the rejection of God justifiable but rather have a very delicate balance that any of us may freely choose to tilt to whatever side he wishes. If you choose to tilt the scale to one side or another, it’s not an indication of what side is true or false, but rather it’s an indication/reflection of who you are.

The Islamic view tells us that God created humans so they may know him and submit to him willingly, not because there is no other way (such as the case with other created entities). Such freedom is what gives us our very unique status. Our domain on earth is designed to grant us such freedom. If we choose God, it's because we want to, not because we have to. Similarly, if we reject God is because we want to and we have the freedom to do so. Life is only a short test, our freedom brings about who we really are and what we really want but it will come to an end by the end of our life itself, then all facts will be known, and all accounts shall be settled. All choices right or wrong will have consequences.

B) With respect to health/life, all humans live a short life and must die. Illness is one of the causes of death, but death is a fact for all. Health is the rule. illness is the exception. Without the exception, we cannot know or appreciate the rule.

Illness is one of the colors included in the jar, it's a part of the test, we need food, shelter, wealth to feel good and stay healthy, we must have needs/desires, there must be difficulty/shortage, otherwise, there is no test. All gray and dark colors must be in the jar, without it, there is neither a choice nor a test. The question must be asked; the choices must include both the right and wrong answers, but a test is always very short relative to what comes after, yes, it can be difficult and stressful, you may keep trying as long as the test didn’t end but once you pass, your success is yours to keep, what you achieved can never be taken away from you and what you missed is gone.

The Islamic view tells us that God created everything for us and created us for himself so we may know him, choose him and submit to him willingly not because we don’t have the choice.

Some may say how can such huge cosmos is made for the tiny human? they miss the fact that size is irrelevant and always relative. If God’s power is limitless then the size of the cosmos or our size is only a relative matter. Our size being larger or smaller is not what gives us our status/identity as humans. Some may think humans are so tiny/insignificant but from an Islamic perspective, the size of the cosmos relative to us is an indication of how significant we are not the other way around. It’s also an indication of the magnitude of God’s absolute/unlimited power as He is the absolute cause/origin of everything in existence.

The point is, the test of choice must have a wide spectrum of colors, the test has its time and its space, but it shall come to an end and there shall be consequences.

“As for the disbelievers, their deeds are like a mirage in a desert, which the thirsty perceive as water, but when he approaches it, he finds it to be nothing. Instead, he finds Allah there who gets his account in full settled. And Allah is swift in reckoning." An-Nur 39

 

[LIIA]

There has been nothing dishonest in my posts. The fact that English is not your first language may be causing you some problems in understanding responses. There have not been any "dishonest tricks" by me.




Once again you demonstrate complete ignorance of the topic being discussed. There are multiple hypothesis of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a complex topic and scientists often break up complex topics in order to solve them more easily. The first experiment in abiogenesis was that of Miller Urey. That particular hypothesis was confirmed. I already told you that that did not 'prove' abiogenesis. There have been many other hypotheses that have been confirmed as well as they solve problem after problem in abiogenesis. have they solved them all yet? No. That is why it is still in the realm of hypothesis. But because hypotheses have been confirmed there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Do you know what is totally lacking scientific evidence? The creator belief. It is not even a hypothesis. It is just a bedtime story for children.



Nope, Macroevolution has been observed in real time. But you do not understand that concept either. Why not just admit your ignorance and ask questions? When you spout nonsense people only laugh.



Sorry, referring to an ignorant poster is not "proof". That posters errors were already explained to him. He did not understand them.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of constantly demonstrating that you do not even have a high school level of scientific literacy why not ask questions? Why not try to learn?

Really?

See #1850

 

[LIIA]

Oh my!! It is to laugh!

Read the article that you linked. The concept started long before Darwin and he was never part of it. Do you know who started it? It was started by creationists. People that believe the creation myth of the Bible and perhaps the Koran too.

Nonsense, scientific racism is/was a scientific discipline. See #1857

Scientific racism applied evolutionary biology.
Scientific racism - Wikipedia

Evolutionary biology concepts as it applies to humans were understood in light of Darwin’s scientific book “The Descent of Man". These concepts were evidently racist and gender discriminative.

Antoinette Blackwell accused Darwin of sexism, arguing that his theory was flawed in this respect
Antoinette Blackwell, the one Who Denounced Darwin’s Sexism | OpenMind (bbvaopenmind.com)

 

[LIIA]

Does mathematics think? I do not understand or recognize the relevance of such a question.

I do not recall anyone claiming that natural selection was a conscious, thinking process. Perhaps one position, but that position is irrational and not based on knowledge, skill, evidence or reason and can be ignored.

Is the water cycle thinking? Is the deposition of silt at the bottom of a lake thinking? Is there evidence that processes following the laws of nature are thought processes? Is there evidence of any thinking in those systems?

No reasonable person is claiming that natural selection is a thinking process, so I do not understand the point of your post.

A program never thinks, a programmer always does. Mathematics doesn’t think, the mathematician always does. Math is nothing but a concept in the mind of the mathematician.

The rules of mathematics only help us to recognize order/logic when we see it, but it doesn’t have any power or mechanism to impose order/logic upon matter. Yet if a force exerts an influence that exhibits mathematical order, then we may identify it based on our understanding of the mathematical rules.

The sheep obey the law of the shepherd, they don’t think but the shepherd does.

Natural entities obey the natural law, the law is never random.

The end product is what drives the conclusion whether the processes involved in the production are random or purposeful.

A sophisticated end product can never be a product of random processes. Nothing in nature is random. Not even a single atom.

Without a program to control the interactions of the input, there is no output. I’m not saying, "there is no random output", I'm saying, "there is no output", period.

Without a program to control the interactions between subatomic particles or between galaxies, there is no output of any kind. When it comes to the universe in its entirety or life, it’s always about the processes that control the input not the input itself. The input will never cause an output of any kind on its own. Without the processes controlling subatomic particles, there is no matter, without the processes controlling the genes, there is no life.

It’s always about the program (the processes), not the input. yet a program never thinks, a programmer always does.

 

[LIIA]

How is it possible for so many statistical layers of things, happening in the water, all acting randomly, nevertheless, always add to a constant? It would be like 1 million people, throwing dice, with the sum of all the dice always equalling a constant, day after day? It seems impossible that random is in the lead by its own assumptions. Random is not the cause, but an affect that can redistribute constant entropy.

Its only possible if there is a process that controls the outcome. Even if the process is not known/understood.

Random is an expected behavior of mindless entities acting freely. Collectively such entities may constitute components of an outcome. If the mindless entities are controlled by a non-random influence/process, then the collective behavior as exhibited in an outcome is not random.

Mindless entities may be components of an outcome, but it doesn’t dictate the characteristic of the outcome, the controlling process does.

Building blocks may be components of a building but it doesn’t dictate the shape/design of the building, the Builder does.

Order is the arrangement of entities (otherwise considered as random entities) according to rules. Rules are never random.

In the case of the water there is no physical barrier, but there is still a type of entropic containment.

There is a type of constant entropic containment, without apparent physical boundaries, that determines the outcome, since all has to add to a constant entropy.

The nature of a controlling process (natural force) or how it controls entities is never known or seen, it just exists and exerts an observable influence.

A containment imposed on randomness to force a non-random outcome is control. Control is order.

Order is always a manifestation of imposed rules/restrictions. If rules are enforced, randomness is transformed into order.

Randomness is a mindless freedom. Order is a purposeful control.

There is no such thing as “random control”. If the process is random, it’s not controlled. If the process is controlled, it’s not random.

 

[LIIA]

The primary problem today is that never have believers in anything been so holier than thou. Even the inquisitors recognized the simple fact that they didn't always know God's will. They knew that their beliefs were derived from interpretations of gospel and from limited human understanding. But believers in science have no such limitations; they simply can't be wrong. Almost all of today's nonsense follows from absolutely no morals and no moral compunctions at all and the deep seated beliefs in the laws of nature as applied to even things we can't understand like human consciousness or the differences to all other consciousness. We allow the few to destroy products and companies while ruining stakeholders, widows, and orphans because someone can make another billion dollars from the dissolution of the commonweal. Rather than streamlining the economy so everyone can be wealthy and there is far less CO2 production we pass laws to make things even worse so some can garner massive profit.

Then almost everyone with a couple of brain cells is trained as a specialist. We have specialists who study the mites on the back legs of bark beetles which inhabit oak trees but almost nobody can see the forest or even the tree occupied by the bark beetle. Companies operate with each department working at odds with other departments and nobody can see the problem. Management fights labor and the financiers can see only money and profit. The economy hums along at about a 5% efficiency and hundreds of millions go hungry. Then somehow nobody can see the deplorable conditions all over the world because of the nonsensical fixation on race, religion, and sex in this country. Our government supports only the rich, the criminal class, and those who won't work. Young people are sacrificed at the altar of older people whether it's the ability to get a job or the need to ruin a generation to protect the sick and aged from disease. Schools have failed so now there is little hope of creating citizens or walking back some of our largest problems.

But I still believe it can be done. It will require people to understand how little is really known and it will require them to vote for anyone but the government who established this mess. The American people still have a great deal in common but we don't hold leaders responsible. We need to demand quality in all things. We need to fixate not on our differences because our differences are a strength not a weakness. We need to start paying more attention to what we have in common like the desire to see the young prosper and everyone given choices rather than having them made by a bureaucrat or congressman.

People need to quit listening to those who say it can't be done or that superstition and blind obedience is strength. Pyramids weren't built by dimwits for their betters. Society never functioned this way until now. We are told we are inferior or live in fly over country. We are told that we all have an equal chance and only the fit survive but the reality is life is a crap shoot. It takes more than persistence, hard work, and competence, it also takes a lot of luck and it takes luck that the terms are applied the same to all. We've been bamboozled by those who know everything and want everyone to believe they know everything because they even control scientific findings.

Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have yet to read, hear, or see any information, report, study, or experiment that shows that all of the assumptions of the theory of evolution have been overturned. It hasn't happened. No name dropping, cherry picking, red herring, circular arguments or confusing word deluge has shown that it has.

That is not dogma. That is a fact.

I savor the irony that the most basic assumption of the theory of evolution is staunchly defended within the word swamp from which arises the empty claim that all those assumptions have been wiped out.

 

[gnostic]

abiogenesis is not only an unevidenced hypothesis (see #1850, item B) but also constitutes an illogical circular reasoning. You want to believe that some evolutionary process gave rise to live (first live), then live allowed another evolutionary process to emerge (which is “mutation+selection" as hypothesized by the MS). In other words, evolution created live and live created evolution.

Sorry, but YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EVOLUTION IS A DIFFERENT FIELD TO ABIOGENESIS.

While I would agree with you that Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, it is working hypothesis, meaning that have some successes in the evidence department and in the experiment department.

So Abiogenesis isn't "unevidenced".

For you to say it is "unevidenced" only demonstrate what evidence is.

It is you who has been repeatedly making baseless claims about Abiogenesis and using circular reasoning.

You have ignored evidences already discovered and experiments that have already tested, so far.

Sure, it is not yet conclusive enough to elevate Abiogenesis to scientific theory status, but for you to say there are "no evidence" showed your ignorance as what tested scientific studies are.

Abiogenesis don't say anything about Natural Selection or Mutation, because the focus of Abiogenesis is on the origins of biological macromolecules, like proteins (plus amino acids), nucleic acids, carbohydrates, fatty acids, etc, all essential organic matters that make up the cells.

The studies focused on how inorganic chemical can naturally form into one of these organic matters. Abiogenesis is a lot more about chemistry - the origins of biological molecules or compounds.

And these compounds or molecules have to exist before even the earliest cells can exist.

(Note that the earliest cells were of prokaryotic type, which are found in the Bacteria taxa and Archaea taxa; both groups are unicellular microorganisms, hence they are referred to as prokaryotes.

Prokaryotic cells have been around 1.5 to 2 billion years, before the earliest organisms with eukaryotic cells. Animals, plants and fungi are all eukaryotes.)

Evolution is more about adaption/changes that can occur over time, with life already formed; hence cells must exist. Abiogenesis is about before the earliest living cells.

You are like every Christian creationists I have met, WHO CANNOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN Abiogenesis & Evolution.

You make the same mistakes as they do. Like them, you cannot learn from your mistakes, no matter how many time you have been corrected.

Until you understand the differences between the two, and until you learn what constitute as evidence, you are in no position to say what biologists and biochemists got wrong.

Since you are neither expert in biochemistry or biology, you really should do more researches or ask questions, instead of making ridiculously baseless claims of something you don't understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

See #1850

No, referring back to your old lost arguments is just you admitting that you are wrong again.

It is a pity that you have no understanding of the sciences at all and refuse to even discuss the basics of science and how they apply here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense, scientific racism is/was a scientific discipline. See #1857

Scientific racism applied evolutionary biology.
Scientific racism - Wikipedia

Evolutionary biology concepts as it applies to humans were understood in light of Darwin’s scientific book “The Descent of Man". These concepts were evidently racist and gender discriminative.

Antoinette Blackwell accused Darwin of sexism, arguing that his theory was flawed in this respect
Antoinette Blackwell, the one Who Denounced Darwin’s Sexism | OpenMind (bbvaopenmind.com)

Nonsense, scientific racism is/was a scientific discipline. See #1857

Scientific racism applied evolutionary biology.
Scientific racism - Wikipedia

Evolutionary biology concepts as it applies to humans were understood in light of Darwin’s scientific book “The Descent of Man". These concepts were evidently racist and gender discriminative.

Antoinette Blackwell accused Darwin of sexism, arguing that his theory was flawed in this respect
Antoinette Blackwell, the one Who Denounced Darwin’s Sexism | OpenMind (bbvaopenmind.com)

Just because one slapped the word "scientific" on a concept does not make it a scientific discipline. If you understood the scientific method you would see this. The scientific method deals with concepts that can be tested and shown to be wrong. How would you test scientific racism? What reasonable test based upon the merits and claims of scientific racism could possibly show that it was an incorrect concept? If you cannot come up with a reasonable way to test it it is not a scientific discipline. It is merely an about of science.

And how does that article support your beliefs at all? I am betting that once again you only read the headline and did not read the actual article.

 

[cladking]

Nonsense, scientific racism is/was a scientific discipline. See #1857

Scientific racism applied evolutionary biology.
Scientific racism - Wikipedia

Evolutionary biology concepts as it applies to humans were understood in light of Darwin’s scientific book “The Descent of Man". These concepts were evidently racist and gender discriminative.

Antoinette Blackwell accused Darwin of sexism, arguing that his theory was flawed in this respect
Antoinette Blackwell, the one Who Denounced Darwin’s Sexism | OpenMind (bbvaopenmind.com)

Scientific racism also invented ramps for the pyramids. "The Law of Overnight Apples" applies also to pyramids which anyone (especially 18th century English Egyptologists) could see clearly arose from sun addled bumpkins through the most ignorant and savage means possible; ramps. There simply has never been any need to even study how they were built because the builders were savage and ignorant, and besides, they mustta used ramps.

As bad as so much science is today it's not so much the fault of science but the fault of our belief systems. Children are being taught from a young age that modern man has evolved to the very apex of creation and that fundamental assumptions are irrelevant to the omniscience of Peers. Assumptions are not irrelevant because we each invariably reason all the way back to them. All arguments are circular and we must use experiment and reason to break out of this circular rut. We must continually examine our premises and seek to explain EVERY anomaly. We must toy with our axioms and definitions seeking better fit to the evidence and then devise experiment to show the current paradigm is wrong. Darwin could not have been more wrong because his circular reasoning started from erroneous assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific racism also invented ramps for the pyramids. "The Law of Overnight Apples" applies also to pyramids which anyone (especially 18th century English Egyptologists) could see clearly arose from sun addled bumpkins through the most ignorant and savage means possible; ramps. There simply has never been any need to even study how they were built because the builders were savage and ignorant, and besides, they mustta used ramps.

As bad as so much science is today it's not so much the fault of science but the fault of our belief systems. Children are being taught from a young age that modern man has evolved to the very apex of creation and that fundamental assumptions are irrelevant to the omniscience of Peers. Assumptions are not irrelevant because we each invariably reason all the way back to them. All arguments are circular and we must use experiment and reason to break out of this circular rut. We must continually examine our premises and seek to explain EVERY anomaly. We must toy with our axioms and definitions seeking better fit to the evidence and then devise experiment to show the current paradigm is wrong. Darwin could not have been more wrong because his circular reasoning started from erroneous assumptions.

No. Just no.

 

[cladking]

While I would agree with you that Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, it is working hypothesis, meaning that have some successes in the evidence department and in the experiment department.

Even if life really did evolve on earth or anywhere it is virtually impossible that it can ever become a theory because it is virtually impossible any evidence could survive anywhere. If it is ever shown that life blew in on the cosmic wind even this would have no bearing on the "theory" of abiogenesis. That life could have arisen naturally through natural processes is more akin to a belief than an hypothesis; an attractive belief but a belief nonetheless.