Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Of course. We all have at times. And we only see denial and no refutation as a response.

Then I deny you ever showed mew one I didn't refute.

Frankly, though, I don't remember you ever providing one. Ever! I remember you saying you did at least half a dozen times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I deny you ever showed mew one I didn't refute.

Frankly, though, I don't remember you ever providing one. Ever! I remember you saying you did at least half a dozen times.

That is because you deny then and then forget them. You do not even have a basic understanding of the scientific method or the concept of scientifi8c evidence. I have offered to go over these with you, but you appear to know that if you understood those concepts you would be without excuse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is because you deny then and then forget them. You do not even have a basic understanding of the scientific method or the concept of scientifi8c evidence. I have offered to go over these with you, but you appear to know that if you understood those concepts you would be without excuse.

I cannot imagine how anyone that thinks all change in living things is sudden, that population bottlenecks cause speciation or that beavers farm fish has the knowledge and understanding to be involved in these discussions. All I have seen are empty claims of a belief system without virtue of evidence or reason.

 

[LIIA]

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

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

You know what, gnostic? You need to make an effort to understand what you read. Your typical approach is " I know better, then I'm correct”. You need to know that you don’t know better and you're always wrong. Let that settle, then relax, read slowly and try to understand. It would minimize unnecessary running in circles. It’s just an advice, please try.

Knowing you for some time, I was actually expecting this kind of typical misunderstanding on your end and tried as much as I can to make it clear in # 1903 but you still didn’t get it.

In #1903 I said, “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.”

Now, pay some attention please, I intentionally used the word “evolutionary process” to distinguish it from the typical understanding of "evolution".

When I say “evolution”, you may think the “ToE” but in principle, evolution in the language means a gradual accumulation of change, a gradual development of something from simple to complex.

Now, any gradual accumulation of change is “evolution" but I intentionally used “evolutionary process” to avoid the expected confusion with the “ToE”.

- When I said, " some evolutionary process gave rise to live (first live)", it means the alleged evolutionary process of “Abiogenesis"

- When I said, "live allowed another evolutionary process to emerge (which is “mutation+selection" as hypothesized by the MS)", it means the "ToE".

IN PRINCIPLE, BOTH “ABIOGENESIS" AND THE "TOE" ARE “EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS”. Do you understand?

Now, if I say, “evolution created live and live created evolution", do you understand?

“Abiogenesis" is an EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of how life originated.
(A gradual development of something from simple to complex)

My focus is the meaning in principle, the general concept, not the details. If you did understand, and I hope you did, please don’t try to argue only for the sake of argument. And try to make an effort to understand what you read.

 

[LIIA]

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.

Again, my focus is the principle. Not some irrelevant details; the principle concept is what matters. The principle is “There is no such thing as the scientific theory of Abiogenesis, it doesn’t exist, and was never established”. Why? Simply because evidence in that field of study is currently not sufficient, satisfactory or conclusive to support the idea that life emerged from nonliving matter.

I’m not concerned about experiment/evidence within a field of study; I'm concerned about current status of the idea that life emerged from nonliving matter, whether conclusive evidence has emerged to render the hypothesis acceptable as a scientific theory. It never happened.

As long as the evidence remains non-conclusive, Abiogenesis remains as unevidenced hypothesis, if it ever becomes evidenced, then it will be no longer a hypothesis, it will be a scientific theory.

If Abiogenesis ever becomes accepted as a scientific theory, then at that future time (if it ever happens) we may argue about the evidence but now there is no point to argue about a scientific theory that doesn’t exist or was never established. Yet, many try to impose Abiogenesis as a confirmed scientific theory, which is absolutely false. It is an unevidenced hypothesis, regardless of any irrelevant claims about alleged progress in the field. If you want to know where the field stands currently, see the link below.

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

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

The claim that evidence would emerge in the future is a meaningless wishful thinking. Simply, it will never happen. If it ever happens, let's talk.

 

[LIIA]

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

Really?

You never responded to # 1850 (or #1851)!! Shouldn’t you first respond to it before you call it "old lost argument"?

your pathetic tricks only expose the weakness of your position. If you want others to take you seriously, debate ethically, give it a try.

 

[LIIA]

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.

The only one playing with words to confuse the uninformed is you. Do you think it's up to you to take out the word “scientific" and replace it with whatever you wish? And if you do that, why would anyone take you seriously? Is it because you said so? That’s pathetic.

Did you notice that the first statement of the article said, “Scientific racism, sometimes termed BIOLOGICAL RACISM". Do you think biology has nothing to do with science? Yes, biology has lots of embedded "Geisteswissenschaften" but I would still call it science. Wouldn’t you? See #331

But no, per the article, scientific racism did receive credence throughout the scientific community and did cause significant damage to humanity throughout the world. And has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.

Go down the article to the section about scientific racism in the United States. Here is a short quote, “In the 20th century, concepts of scientific racism, which sought to prove the physical and mental inadequacy of groups deemed "inferior", was relied upon to justify involuntary sterilization programs. Such programs, promoted by eugenicists such as Harry H. Laughlin, were upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell (1927). In all, between 60,000 and 90,000 Americans were subjected to involuntary sterilization.”

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia

Patricia Hill Collins wrote, "Scientific racism was designed to prove the inferiority of people of color"
Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed., 2000), p. 300

Simon During wrote, "scientific racism became such a powerful idea because ... it helped legitimate the domination of the globe by whites";
Cultural studies: a critical introduction (2005), p. 163

1981, Stephen Jay Gould said in his book “The Mismeasure of Man" pp. 28–29, "Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even to hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within."

The Mismeasure of Man - Wikipedia

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.

What beliefs? Do you mean my argument that the theory of evolution was a major contributor to spreading damaging racist discriminatory ideology around the world (Racial Biology)? Sure, it did, go back to the scientific racism article and continue reading. See examples of the impact in Sweden, Germany, South Africa and the US.

The Swedish State Institute for Racial Biology was built and opened by 1922 and was the first such government-funded institute in the world performing research into "racial biology" and remains highly controversial to this day.

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

State Institute for Racial Biology - Wikipedia

Do you still want to call it the “religious racism”? Why the ridiculous denial? It was indeed “scientific”, that’s what it is “Scientific/Biological racism”. live with it.

 

[LIIA]

Nowhere do any biologist say that evolution occurred before there were life.

Actually, they do, in principle, evolution is a gradual accumulation of change from the simpler to the complex. Abiogenesis is essentially an evolutionary process of different type. It's still evolution even if alleged/unknown means of gradual change are different. See #1944

The parent organisms cannot pass on their genetic traits to offspring, if the parent don’t exist.

Exactly, the point is evolution (random mutation + selection) which is assumed to be a fundamental process to explain life, didn’t play any role of any kind for the emergence of first life. Life had to exist before evolution.

Hence, Evolution can be claimed to explain the diversity of life but not life itself. Meaning, we don’t have an explanation of life.

No experiment of any kind showed that life may emerge on its own (or even by an international artificial process) from nonliving matter

there is no basis for the false understanding that we explained life. The fact is we have no clue what life is. Life can never be produced from nonliving matter, neither through natural nor artificial means.

All what we did is engaging in a fallacious circular reasoning that “evolution created life and life created evolution”. See #1944

 

[LIIA]

Evidence and experiments (and the all-important DATA) do exist separately for Evolution and for Abiogenesis.

Indeed, it’s separate fields (but related) and each should be discussed separately.

“Important” is a relative word. Running towards the goal is important but it doesn’t guarantee that you will score. If you don’t score, it doesn’t count.

You have a premise, which you assume to be true (I don’t), you think you will get there but you will not. It’s only your wish. It doesn’t make sense to argue about a future goal without getting it achieved first. If you ever get there, let's talk. Running in the field may prove that you are trying but other than that, it doesn’t prove/guarantee anything.

You may disagree all you like, but one thing you cannot say there are "unevidenced" or there are "no evidence" for either fields.

I know what Abiogenesis is and what it is not. It is not a scientific theory, simply because the lack of conclusive evidence, is that clear enough?

When the evidence becomes conclusive, when the hypothesis is accepted as a theory, then we would have something to discuss, currently all what is there is some meaningless wishful thinking about future evidence that may never materialize.

Realistically speaking, if you want to know where the field stands currently, see the link below.

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

..you both think that the theory of Evolution have been "refuted". It hasn't.

If it has been refuted, then showed a or some scientific sources, where all premises of Evolution have been debunked.

Seriously?

What were #753, 781 and #1864 about?

Here it is again.

The article below clearly stated, “ALL THE CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODERN SYNTHESIS (OFTEN ALSO CALLED NEO-DARWINISM) HAVE BEEN DISPROVED”

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

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Neither has Abiogenesis.

No one have refuted or debunked either one of them.

Seriously?

Shouldn’t Abiogenesis get accepted as a scientific theory first before we worry about getting it debunked?

If you insist on your premise, it doesn’t mean anything to me till you prove it.

The fact is, Abiogenesis is not accepted as a scientific theory, why should I accept it or why should I worry about getting it debunked? It's illogical.

Again, any evolutionary process of any kinds necessarily depends on the ability of a system to persist, time is an essential factor to allow slow gradual accumulation of change. If the system cannot persist, there cannot be any accumulation of change. Any organic molecules of any kind will not survive the test of time. It will absolutely decompose/disintegrate before it gets any chance of further development. Organic molecules neither pass changes to offspring nor can stay intact for a long time; it will only and very quickly disintegrate. Without life there is no “survival of the fittest”, there is only “the decay of the dead molecules”. Without the persistence of a system, no evolutionary process of any kind is possible. Do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

Well said. And one fact about abiogenesis. We are likely to never know the exact path that life took when it formed. This is not due to a lack of evidence, but due to too many choices.

You’re correlating evidence and choices in a way that gives a false implication that evidence is not lacking, it's not. In this context, too many choices necessarily mean confusion/uncertainty. The uncertainty only confirms the lack of evidence. It doesn’t justify it as you imply. The evidence are definitely lacking

Yes, you may never know the path that life took when it formed but it’s definitely not because of the abundance of evidence. A man wouldn’t starve due to too many food options. If conclusive evidence of any kind ever existed to support any assumed or possible path of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, it would have been a scientific theory by now. The fact is till now scientists neither know any path from nonliving matter to life nor managed to obtain any conclusive evidence for abiogenesis.

Despite of the huge effort of researchers for many decades trying to obtain required evidence to elevate the hypothesis of abiogenesis to be a scientific theory, but all efforts failed to achieve that goal. Simply because the lack of evidence. Not because of any other reason.

Regardless of the continuous failure, the search for evidence continued based on a false premise that abiogenesis is true and along the endless route of search, scientists somehow came to the point that they no longer worry for conclusive evidence or for the establishment of abiogenesis as a scientific theory, they just accepted the hypothesis of abiogenesis based on their wish that the idea is true and simply tell everyone that life has emerged from nonliving matter as if a scientific theory was already established. The conclusion has been already made prior to evidence. The evidence is not that important.

When it comes to different parts of abiogenesis there is often more than one possible answer. Without evidence of some sort scientists will only be able to say maybe it took this path here, and that path there. Different processes will have different advocates

Exactly, evidence is definitely lacking, and scientists don’t know the path.

But one thing we do know is that the more it is studied the more evidence arises that abiogenesis was how life got here.

This actually not true, the more it is studied the more evidence arises that life doesn’t emerge on its own from non-living matter. It’s only your wishful thinking. If you want to know where the field stands currently, see #1850 and the link below.

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

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

You never responded to # 1850 (or #1851)!! Shouldn’t you first respond to it before you call it "old lost argument"?

your pathetic tricks only expose the weakness of your position. If you want others to take you seriously, debate ethically, give it a try.

I don't need to. All of your foolish arguments and misunderstandings have been refuted here. I do not have to repeat the work of others.

When you can admit that you know nothing about science then we can move on.

If someone declared that I do not even understand the basics of science I would debate that. I would show them that I do have that understanding. You know that you don't even understand the basics so you run away from that discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re correlating evidence and choices in a way that gives a false implication that evidence is not lacking, it's not. In this context, too many choices necessarily mean confusion/uncertainty. The uncertainty only confirms the lack of evidence. It doesn’t justify it as you imply. The evidence are definitely lacking

Yes, you may never know the path that life took when it formed but it’s definitely not because of the abundance of evidence. A man wouldn’t starve due to too many food options. If conclusive evidence of any kind ever existed to support any assumed or possible path of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, it would have been a scientific theory by now. The fact is till now scientists neither know any path from nonliving matter to life nor managed to obtain any conclusive evidence for abiogenesis.

Incorrect. But then again you do not even understand the concept of evidence. All that you have is denial.

Despite of the huge effort of researchers for many decades trying to obtain required evidence to elevate the hypothesis of abiogenesis to be a scientific theory, but all efforts failed to achieve that goal. Simply because the lack of evidence. Not because of any other reason.

Nope, they have not "failed". We continually learn more and more. One of the reasons that it could not be answered earlier is because we are still learning exactly how modern life works. There was almost no understanding of how life works in the 1950's when work began in earnest on abiogenesis. Life is a very complex process that takes a bit of understanding. We are getting closer and closer since scientists did the wise thing. The broke abiogenesis up into different problems.

They have answered quite a few problems. They have not answered all of them. Abiogenesis, unlike your beliefs, has never been refuted. It has only been corrected.

Regardless of the continuous failure, the search for evidence continued based on a false premise that abiogenesis is true and along the endless route of search, scientists somehow came to the point that they no longer worry for conclusive evidence or for the establishment of abiogenesis as a scientific theory, they just accepted the hypothesis of abiogenesis based on their wish that the idea is true and simply tell everyone that life has emerged from nonliving matter as if a scientific theory was already established. The conclusion has been already made prior to evidence. The evidence is not that important.



Exactly, evidence is definitely lacking, and scientists don’t know the path.



This actually not true, the more it is studied the more evidence arises that life doesn’t emerge on its own from non-living matter. It’s only your wishful thinking. If you want to know where the field stands currently, see #1850 and the link below.

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

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

So there you go with more dishonest denials. Why not try to learn? You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Remember, there is quite a lot of scientific evidence for abiogenesis. This is a fact. If you deny it you only demonstrate your own ignorance. You cannot seem to find any scientific evidence at all for your beliefs.

Why is that? Why can't you find any evidence at all for your personal beliefs. Even just a little evidence beats no evidence at all.

 

[cladking]

That is because you deny then and then forget them.

Ah yes. Yet another suggestion that you have provided evidence in the past.

You think this is an argument between nonsense and all that is holy so actual experiments and discussion aren't needed. The reality is that this is not a discussion at all because you refuse to discuss and the differences are in paradigms AND experimental interpretation. "Ring species" do not prove your circular argument correct. How ironic that even ring species form circles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah yes. Yet another suggestion that you have provided evidence in the past.

You think this is an argument between nonsense and all that is holy so actual experiments and discussion aren't needed. The reality is that this is not a discussion at all because you refuse to discuss and the differences are in paradigms AND experimental interpretation. "Ring species" do not prove your circular argument correct. How ironic that even ring species form circles.

You keep forgetting that you do not understand the basics of science. You do not even understand what an "experiment" is.

I am the one willing to discuss this. You are the one that constantly runs away,.

 

[cladking]

You keep forgetting that you do not understand the basics of science. You do not even understand what an "experiment" is.

I am the one willing to discuss this. You are the one that constantly runs away,.

Even if it were true that I don't understand the basis of science and you do (it is not), the fact remains we could discuss the evidence for and against Evolution were you willing. Indeed, we could even discuss the basis of science but all you want to do is lecture, not listen.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is nothing special at all about your gastropod example.

LOL. So to summarize, you claimed there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record. I showed you examples of exactly that. You first tried to wave them away by saying they were "challenged". But when I asked "by whom", you dropped that and switched to saying they didn't include speciation events. And now that I've pointed out that they do (and that "speciation" is even in the title of the article), you're reduced to the above, which is nothing more than "Nuh uh".

Your failure to rebut the examples of gradualism in the fossil record is noted.

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?

Your failure to explain the significance of evolutionary biologists debating the relative frequency of modes of speciation is noted.

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.

First, if all you have to hang on is Noble's choice of words, I'll let that speak for itself.

Second, are you aware that Noble is not an evolutionary biologist?

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)”

Thank you for illustrating my point for me. You are citing Noble as an expert in evolutionary biology (which he isn't), cherry-picking one aspect of his views that you like, and waving away the rest.

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?

That makes no sense. Why do you think a species must "try out" every possible mutation and interaction?

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.

That makes zero sense.

Not sure why is the confusion, Nazis were accurately applying Darwinian concepts in principle with respect to the necessity/need to exterminate the “unfit”.

Can you quote anything from "Darwinism" that says the "unfit" must be artificially removed from a population and that reducing genetic diversity in a population is beneficial?

The principle itself is wrong regardless of what criteria they used to determine the “unfit”. Both the principle and the criteria were rubbish.

Indeed, the Nazis' interpretation of evolutionary concepts was wrong as was their implementation of that interpretation.

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

Well he's not here, is he? And I'm sure that once again, you are cherry-picking from your experts. If Muller says the EES isn't widely adopted because of "dogmatic hostility", then it must be so. But if Muller says evolution happens, you can just wave that away, right?

I’m not concerned what the EES is

LOL....what?

You've been touting the EES as a majority and widespread view, and saying it's been subjected to "dogmatic hostility", but after it's pointed out that the EES is merely a reshuffling and addition of different mechanisms for evolution, suddenly you're "not concerned" about what it is?

That's hilarious.

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.

Empty assertion noted.

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.

Are you not keeping track of the topic? You claimed that if a journal publishes a paper, it means the journal endorses the material in the paper. Being involved in the review and publication process, I know that's not true, and I provided examples of journals saying exactly that ("just because we publish a paper, doesn't mean we endorse its contents").

Do you understand?

A) Your question is a part of the typical bigger question, “if God is all good, why there is evil”.

No, that's not the question at all.

You believe that God intentionally and specifically designed/created the plasmodium parasite to inflict suffering and death on humans. You believe that God intentionally and specifically designed/created every pathogen, disease, parasite, and pest to cause untold pain, suffering, and death.

You believe that every time a pathogen evolves resistance to an antibiotic, God did it.

You believe that every time a person gets cancer that's caused by a mutation, God did it.

You believe that every time a pathogen gets a mutation that allows it to infect a different species, God did it.

The closest you came to addressing these atrocities from your god is when you said, "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".

I'll simply note that I find such beliefs disgusting and horrible. I will never understand people who believe in and worship gods that are effectively bio-terrorists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if it were true that I don't understand the basis of science and you do (it is not), the fact remains we could discuss the evidence for and against Evolution were you willing. Indeed, we could even discuss the basis of science but all you want to do is lecture, not listen.

Since you do not understand the basics and refuse to learn you make any attempt at a conversation worthless.

All that can be done is corrections. If you want a discussion, you need to learn a little first. By the way, how does everyone know that you do not understand the basics of science? Because you keep running away. A person that understood the basics of science would not act in that manner.

 

[questfortruth]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.

Friend, it is a practical joke.

 

[LIIA]

My role/goal is to convey a message. Once I see signs that you got/understood the message, I’m done with my part. I don’t need you to acknowledge it; I only need you to understand it. Beyond that it’s on you.

Escape tactics/moving the goalposts are actually signs that the message was conveyed/understood, which would mean that I’m done with my part but if I see possible honest confusion, then I need to attend to it. I’ll ignore meaningless denial and try to focus on possible areas of confusion.

I only quote scientists of the highest caliber and I don't deceive myself/others by cherry-picking quotes to benefit a narrative. I wouldn’t deceive myself merely to get an acknowledgment from someone or illegitimately win an argument. I don’t need any acknowledgment. I only need to convey a message. That’s it.

Once properly conveyed, I’m done. You’re free to choose and responsible for your own choices. It’s on you but I do hope you would be able to see the truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood.

LOL. So to summarize, you claimed there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record.

You didn’t understand a word of what I said, and I wonder why? You are not ignorant. But you as well as many others here are “closed-minded”.

Exceptions (whether or not perceived/considered as legitimate) never constitute a rule, do you understand?

If the prediction is literally astronomical number of random trials/errors that gets filtered down by selection to endless gradual advantageous steps along the assumed evolutionary route that allegedly gave rise to every single species alive or ever lived on earth, then “examples” absolutely don’t cut it. Do you understand?

When Gould and Eldridge asserted that gradualism is virtually NONEXISTENT in the fossil record (see # 1256), it’s not because they are not aware of any examples such as yours, they sure do but examples are irrelevant to such conclusion, they made the assertion because evidence of the fossil record are by no means consistent or proportionate to the prediction entailed by gradualism, the fossil record doesn’t support gradualism. Now, when I say, “examples don’t cut it”, do you understand?

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

again, when I say challenged examples, it’s not at all about or limited to your example, I’m talking about all alleged examples of evolution. No exception. The argument/conclusion is based on the whole image not a vague single piece of the puzzle; it’s about the “Macro”, not the” Micro”.

Even If we consider your “especial” example from #1406, the author couldn’t establish ancestral relationships because the assumed ancestor which still lives today shows comparable degree of geographic variation to the variation seen in the lineage. Possible relationships are assumed, it's never decisive, even if it is, adaptations of gastropods will never transform it into anything other than variants of gastropods. Even if it did transform it into something other than gastropods (which is never the case), still, an exception can never prove a rule. Your example doesn’t prove anything, regardless of your example, the rule remains that gradualism (the most fundamental assumption of the alleged random evolution) is virtually NONEXISTENT in the fossil record". Do you understand?

You first tried to wave them away by saying they were "challenged". But when I asked "by whom", you dropped that and switched to saying they didn't include speciation events

First of all, I said examples of evolution are challenged by scientists, again think “Macro” not “Micro”. (See #1864, item 5). Second, I didn’t say anything about speciation events. It’s only your imagination due to your lack of understanding.

Semantics can be very misleading. I do acknowledge “speciation” but what is “speciation”? Or more precisely what is “species”? It’s definitely controversial. Did you ever hear of the "species problem" or the "species crisis”?

Speciation is mainly understood as the loss of ability of interbreeding, another definition of species is a classification containing organisms that are physically similar. So, if a variant loses the ability of interbreeding yet continues to be physically similar, is it really another species? If the variants were brought together to interbreed artificially, would the offspring be sterile/short-lived or fertile?

Speciation never results anything other than variants of the same species. It’s always a limited adaptation and never a transformation. Galapagos finches will always be finches, humans on different geographical areas may exhibit different adaptation with significantly different characteristics with respect to colors, length or body style/type, yet they all remain “Homo sapiens" and will never transform to anything else other than "Homo sapiens".

The point is, what we consider as speciation is merely limited adaptation that can be associated with loss of the ability of interbreeding, but the result is always physically similar variants of the same species.

Variants of dogs even through artificial breeding will never be anything other than dogs. If we try to artificially breed hybrids such as tions and ligers, it will always be sterile and short-lived (a dead end). It can never be a new different species.

The main problem with the theory is the alleged randomness of mutation. In the real world, we never see numerous random errors that emerge then get filtered down by selection as hypothesized by the ToE. Adaptation is not random; the changes always benefit the organism.

A classic example in the teaching of evolution is the alleged evolution of the peppered moth. An increase of air pollution during the industrial revolution was associated with increased frequency of dark-colored moths, as their camouflage matches the polluted background better. When pollution was reduced, the light-colored form again predominated.

Examples of “Industrial melanism” were observed/confirmed and considered as evidence of evolution through random mutation+natural selection. But the conclusion is false. There was never any observation/evidence of numerous random colors that got filtered down by selection to eliminate all random light colors and keep only dark colors to achieve better camouflage, similarly when pollution was reduced, only the appropriate light color emerged without any evidence of numerous random colors that got filtered by selection. There was never any evidence of random change. Neither in the adaptation of peppered moth nor the adaptation of any other organism, there are no random mutations.

The wiki article said, “instance of directional color change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution”. A random change could be any change of any characteristic; not necessarily a "color change" but the observed adaptation of the moth was specifically a purposeful change of color for better camouflage and not any random color but rather the correct color that emerged in a relatively very short time. A random change may or may not emerge but “Industrial melanism” is always a directed predictable change that always benefits the moth.

Mutations are never random; it’s always directed for the benefit of the organism. See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Organisms don’t evolute, organisms adapt. The adaptation never transforms one species into another; the result is always a variant of the same species.

LOL....what?

You've been touting the EES as a majority and widespread view, and saying it's been subjected to "dogmatic hostility", but after it's pointed out that the EES is merely a reshuffling and addition of different mechanisms for evolution, suddenly you're "not concerned" about what it is?

That's hilarious.

Not at all, go back and read #911. It’s not going anywhere.

I never said the EES is a widespread view, I said that the necessity of a major revision or entirely replacing the ToE is a widespread view simply because all central assumptions of the ToE (modern synthesis) are proven false. How is this problem gets resolved in the future is not my concern (possibly by another myth that eventually gets disproved), the point is that the ToE that is being taught and accepted blindly is already proven false. The acceptance of it is merely a matter of a baseless choice. Do you understand?

See # 781 & #1864.

Are you not keeping track of the topic? You claimed that if a journal publishes a paper, it means the journal endorses the material in the paper. Being involved in the review and publication process, I know that's not true, and I provided examples of journals saying exactly that ("just because we publish a paper, doesn't mean we endorse its contents").

A disclaimer is merely intended to minimize exposure to legal liability. Scientific journals do control what is allowed to be published. We shouldn’t argue about this.

 

[LIIA]

No, that's not the question at all.

It is. Don’t you consider illness and death to be evil? Then your question essentially is “if God is all good, why there is evil”.

I did explain to you that the test of “freedom of choice” entails that both wrong and right answers must be included among available choices. To be granted the freedom to choose any color, all colors even the black color most exist in our domain. Both good and evil must exist if we are to practice the freedom of choice. Otherwise, the choice would be imposed upon us. The need/shortage must exist, then you're free to share if you want or steal if you want. in either case you’re free and whatever you choose, your freedom of choice will not be taken away from you tell your test ends.

Imagine a different domain/realm of conscious rational entities that don’t get sick, tired, sleepy, hungry, no needs/desires, and no shortage of any kind. They know beyond doubt who God is, his attributes and his authority. The only need of these entities is not food, water, shelter, etc. but rather to submit to God and they simply do it nonstop to fulfill their only need.

They have absolutely no reason to have any conflict of any kind with each other. Knowing God and his authority don’t leave them any choice but to submit to him. Everything in their realm is white. All what they do is good. They are conscious and rational, but their jar is full of white marbles only. They always select a white marble but it’s not really a matter of choice. White is imposed on them. Per the Islamic view, this is the realm of "angels".

Freedom of choice dictates all gray and dark colors to exist in our domain otherwise there is no choice/test. If you’re free and tested to choose any color you desire, then black marbles must exist in our domain. Black is needs/shortages, weakness, illness, etc. these aggregates of black and all its associated causes/interacting entities must exist; without it, our realm essentially becomes the same as the realm of angels. The jar would be full of white marbles only, white would be imposed on us, there is neither “freedom of choice” nor a test.

You believe that God intentionally and specifically designed/created the plasmodium parasite to inflict suffering and death on humans. You believe that God intentionally and specifically designed/created every pathogen, disease, parasite, and pest to cause untold pain, suffering, and death.

You believe that every time a pathogen evolves resistance to an antibiotic, God did it.

You believe that every time a person gets cancer that's caused by a mutation, God did it.

You believe that every time a pathogen gets a mutation that allows it to infect a different species, God did it.

The closest you came to addressing these atrocities from your god is when you said, "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".

I'll simply note that I find such beliefs disgusting and horrible. I will never understand people who believe in and worship gods that are effectively bio-terrorists.

Death is not an unfortunate exception that happens to some, Death is a fact for all. In your view, you think death is evil, it's not. It’s only an end of a transitional state towards the real life that doesn’t end. The test of life with all its associated stress/struggle must end, it would be evil if it doesn’t. Yet when the test ends, it’s either success or failure and there must be consequences to both. Death is not an end; it’s merely a point along a journey.

A kid may watch a surgeon operating on a patient and believe the surgeon must be very evil/disgusting. He doesn’t see the bigger picture. He only sees what things appear to be relative to his own limited view not what things really are.

To put things in perspective, we must see the bigger picture, our life is short, and death is not the end. Our real life doesn’t end.

Mathematically, any amount compared to infinity is ZERO; this is what life on earth really is. An extremely short test, whatever happens within that relatively short timeframe quickly ends and if it doesn’t end, we end and leave it all behind. A tough exam may last for a couple of hours but it's never about these two hours, it's always about how the outcome of the exam would impact many decades and an entire life to come. What you achieve in the exam makes an everlasting difference in your life. The “permanent” is what really matters not the “temporary”.

From that perspective, the significance of life, death and everything that may take place within that very limited timeframe is a lot different as understood per the Islamic view. The test has a purpose, it will come to an end and all accounts shall be settled.

A kid watching a surgeon would think that the surgeon is evil, and the operation is unjustifiable, sure it's wrong and limited understanding by the kid, yet it doesn’t in any way mean that the surgeon doesn’t exist. Your relative understanding of the surgeon being good or evil has nothing to do with the fact that the surgeon exists, and the operation must be done even if you cannot wrap your head around the real reasons of the operation.

The “freedom of choice" dictates access to choices, white, black and everything in-between but this is not our life. It’s merely our test.