Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

You don't understand science. You believe science is a bunch of nonsense you made up.

Reality is logic manifest.

Life is consciousness. Consciousness is "brain" manifest. "Brains" are logical because they are reality manifest. All consciousness is individual. Science is theory. All theory is experiment. All experiment must be interpreted. Human consciousness is determined by our analog illogical language which also serves to interpret experiment. The set of beliefs that we use to interpret experiment is called a "paradigm". No paradigm is logical.

Our current paradigms concerning great pyramids and change in species are illogical AND incorrect.

I believe the above is the farthest reality can be parsed at this time. Reality can be further reduced by science for study but perhaps not with the current paradigm. We've been stuck on the unified field theory for over a century. No branch of science factors in the effects of consciousness at this time. It is believed by biologists that consciousness can be factored out of species but then "species" is an abstraction and all life is individual and conscious.

If I am right about consciousness then Darwin was almost certainly wrong about almost everything.

Care to discuss this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reality is logic manifest.

Life is consciousness. Consciousness is "brain" manifest. "Brains" are logical because they are reality manifest. All consciousness is individual. Science is theory. All theory is experiment. All experiment must be interpreted. Human consciousness is determined by our analog illogical language which also serves to interpret experiment. The set of beliefs that we use to interpret experiment is called a "paradigm". No paradigm is logical.

Our current paradigms concerning great pyramids and change in species are illogical AND incorrect.

I believe the above is the farthest reality can be parsed at this time. Reality can be further reduced by science for study but perhaps not with the current paradigm. We've been stuck on the unified field theory for over a century. No branch of science factors in the effects of consciousness at this time. It is believed by biologists that consciousness can be factored out of species but then "species" is an abstraction and all life is individual and conscious.

If I am right about consciousness then Darwin was almost certainly wrong about almost everything.

Care to discuss this?

More nonsense. Just putting more nonsense on top of nonsense doesn't suddenly make it all not nonsense.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Reality is logic manifest.

No. Reality is matter, energy, and the laws of physics manifest. It is what it is and no amount of logic or reasoning can do anything about it.

Life is consciousness.

So you think earth worms, fleas, maggots, molds, poison ivy, and mushrooms are conscious?

Consciousness is "brain" manifest.

Earth worms, and ticks have brains. In what way do you believe they are conscious?

"Brains" are logical

So you think earth worms and chips demonstrate logic? I can think of some instances of Cubans were that is doubtful!

 

[cladking]

Reality is matter, energy, and the laws of physics manifest.

This is mystical thinking. Where do you suppose those laws of nature came from? Do you believe we know all those laws of nature? What is matter? Is it possible to understand matter without understanding gravity? All these things occur in time but we don't know what that is either. So you believe we understand reality and each of its parts without understanding even one of its parts.

There are no laws of naturte and no man ever invented mathematics. If it were so simple then why does nobody understand ancient math (to divide in three these your four days and eight nights)?

Most modern thought is highly mystical.

So you think earth worms, fleas, maggots, molds, poison ivy, and mushrooms are conscious?

YES!

So you think earth worms ... demonstrate logic?

All of reality is a manifestation of logic (and time). All things in nature always affect all other things. All logic applies to all things. Reality and earthworms are logic manifest and math is logic quantified. Earthworm brains are logical and see the world in terms of earthworms. They may not know what robins are but I wager they can almost hear them listening.

Earthworm language is probably very simple with fewer than ten words and another 30 nouns. How much do you need to know or communicate to be an earthworm? I'm sure I don't know.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

This is mystical thinking. Where do you suppose those laws of nature came from? Do you believe we know all those laws of nature? What is matter? Is it possible to understand matter without understanding gravity? All these things occur in time but we don't know what that is either. So you believe we understand reality and each of its parts without understanding even one of its parts.

There are no laws of naturte and no man ever invented mathematics. If it were so simple then why does nobody understand ancient math (to divide in three these your four days and eight nights)?

Most modern thought is highly mystical.



YES!



All of reality is a manifestation of logic (and time). All things in nature always affect all other things. All logic applies to all things. Reality and earthworms are logic manifest and math is logic quantified. Earthworm brains are logical and see the world in terms of earthworms. They may not know what robins are but I wager they can almost hear them listening.

Earthworm language is probably very simple with fewer than ten words and another 30 nouns. How much do you need to know or communicate to be an earthworm? I'm sure I don't know.

I’m not even gonna address every point. Just the fact that you specifically state that you believe poison ivy and fungus is conscious yet belief in the laws of physics is mystical thinking is enough for me to reject everything you have to say. As far as no one inventing mathematics? I think you have me confused with somebody else you’ve been talking. Have never discussed mathematics with you and I don’t believe man invented 2+2 = 4 anymore than I believe that man invented acceleration of gravity is 32 ft./s^2?

 

[LIIA]

NATURE is far more complex than logic, and LIFE is far more complex than logic.

Your very statement above is a reflection of a deficient understanding of logic. Nature or life is a physical system. Logic is a mental concept. A physical system can be compared to another physical system through a logical assessment process but you cannot compare physical entities (whether complex or simple) to a concept. It’s a fallacious comparison. Logic as a conceptual principle can address any level of complexity.

You may compare a physical system to a conceptual model of a matching function/complexity. The assessment of any system regardless of complexity is attainable through logic. Logic is what allows the establishment of relationships between entities. There is no level of complexity that cannot be assessed through logic.

I do understand (in general) the methodology of science, and you have I can see you have no grasp as to what constitute as scientific evidence.

Your understanding of the scientific methodology is deficient. You don’t understand the role of logic in the process, specifically with respect to the role of principles of inference for the establishment of the scientific evidence. We discussed that before in #331.

Again (copied from #331)
A causal relationship between the observations and hypothesis does not just exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence but rather provided by the observer seeking to establish observations as evidence. Background, experience and beliefs of the observer establish a prior that impacts perceived relationship. Independent observers of the same event may arrive at different conclusions, which may be correct or incorrect, or with a certain degree of accuracy. The rules of valid inference (if property applied) help the establishment of neutral logical conclusion with higher probability of correctness.

That said, evolutionary biology is not subject to the same rules of the scientific method. See# 331. We discussed that before. We shouldn’t run in circles.

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

What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (wordpress.com)

I do understand the values of logic, because they can be useful tools and useful aids, like mathematical equations, for instances.

HOWEVER, logics alone (and equations alone) do not overrule tested and verified empirical evidence or experimental evidence, nor do logics represent the whole solutions.

Logical principles of inference are essential means through which observations (with respect to its rational significance or relationship to a hypothesis) can be deemed as acceptable evidence.

I never said to rely on logic alone. Within the observable realm, BOTH observations/data and logic are necessary to establish empirical evidence. Its not one vs. the other. Again, we shouldn’t argue about the basics. I don’t want to repeat #331. Do your own search.

But I have finally reached my points, not all unicellular organisms are prokaryotes. There are some unicellular organisms from the 3 eukaryotic kingdoms (animals, plants and fungi), like unicellular fungi, unicellular algae and the Protozoa.

Now it best, to treat all these organisms whether they are unicellular organisms, multicellular organisms, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, to understand what make different and what they have in common, ALL BASED ON DISCOVERED EVIDENCE for each organism, and not play the game of A, B, C logic, because such logic don’t work because of the complexity of understanding the nature of life, as to WHAT they are, and HOW they live.

Ok, All cells fall into one of these two types: prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Yes, live is extremely complex beyond imagination. Sure single-celled organisms are different that multicellular organisms and may be studied separately. What is your point?

I’m not the one who oversimplified all of this by claiming that all this complexity emerged from a single-celled organism (LUCA). If you make such claim that the entire process is random and every form of life came from a single-celled origin, then you have to prove that the origin itself is a result of a random process. If the origin cannot be proved as random or in other words, if the origin cannot emerge in nature through random means, then the entire system did not emerge in nature through random means.

The point is, you cannot claim that life is a product of randomness unless you prove that the alleged origin of life itself is a product of randomness. Is that clear enough?

 

[LIIA]

In a human body (adult), the estimated number of cells are around 37 trillion cells, possibly even more.

Yes, more than 30 trillion cells and even much more (estimated about 40 to 100 trillion) bacterial cells in or on the human body, which play an incredibly vital rule to keep us alive. Our body is an amazing ecosystem. Indeed multicellular organisms are very complex. What is your point?

So it would be illogical (actually ludicrous) trying to explain multicellular organism on the basis of what biologists know about unicellular organism

Yes, it’s ludicrous to explain multicellular organisms on the basis of unicellular organism. This is actually what the evolution did by claiming that all multicellular organisms emerged from a single-celled universal common ancestor. But you didn’t get my point.

Again, evolution suggests that life came through a random process and all forms of life emerged from a single-celled universal common ancestor (the origin of life). If you don’t prove that the origin itself is a product of a random process, nothing is.

 

[LIIA]

Why are you talking about Darwin? What has he got to do with current evolution theory?

What is wrong with you guys? Why can’t you read or understand? Its not about Darwin, its about the ToE itself. in # 804, I summarized the history of the ToE since Darwin till the latest status of the theory today.

Again, the Modern Synthesis rejected some of Darwin’s assumptions and provided other new assumptions which ALL got disproved by latest finds of science. This is the status of the ToE today. See 781

 

[LIIA]

No they were not and you haven't demonstrated that. Your declarations are not evidence supporting your claims.

Directed mutations have not been demonstrated.

I don’t provide declaration. I provide evidence. On the other hand, all what you do is meaningless denial. See 781.

What's your agenda?

Make it known that the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology disproved the MS. See # 753 & 781

 

[ppp]

What is wrong with you guys? Why can’t you read or understand? Its not about

What's wrong you? You are the one who keeps focusing on Darwin. You, @LIIA . You.

If you don't like being called out on that fact, then skip your pseudo-history and focus on what is actually being said in the here and the now.

Is that too hard for you?

 

[LIIA]

Seriously, you can tell me. What is your agenda here?

To state my view regarding the subject of the thread, aren’t we all do the same?
To inform those who are not aware of the fact that the MS is an obsolete theory (all of its central assumptions were disproved). See # 753 & 781

You don't like modern science. You've tried walking it back

False, science is an essential contributor to the collective human knowledge.

I’m moving it forward by promoting the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology against the MS. You’re trying to walk it back to the mid 20th century by ignoring latest scientific finds, embracing an obsolete theory and ignoring the fact that science is ever changing. See #781.

After all, evolutionary biology is not an exact science but rather belongs to “the Geisteswissenschaften”. See# 331

but there are those intelligent design/creationism features of your posts that are clearly there

Sure, but its not the subject of this thread.

You make claims you can't substantiate. You swamp your audience intentionally as well as a number of other tricks many of us have seen before. For the life of me, I can't understand why you are arguing against a naturalistic theory and demanding it be replaced by a revised version of a naturalistic theory when I doubt that is what you really want

My claims have been substantiated. I’m not demanding anything other than stating the fact that the theory was disproved as clearly shown in #781

And you haven't given any serious reason why that paradigm shift should even occur when it hasn't in science.

The paradigm shift is going to eventually occur. It’s a matter of time; the delay is mainly because of the dogmatic resistance to change.

Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016

“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Then there are the allusions to the "Great Science Conspiracy".

“Dogmatic control” is a fact. Journalist Larry Witham said, "Once you're thick in science, you can't question the paradigm. If you want to get grants, if you want to be elected to high positions, if you want to get awards as a promoter of public education of science, you can't question the paradigm.” See# 202

Top it all off with some meaningless attempt to smear a scientific theory by falsely associating it with historical moral choices of people and groups

I’m acknowledging the opinion of others and stating the supporting facts for the damaging influence of the ToE.

The theory is no more a source of morality than physics is. By your argument we should fold up a lot of physics, since bombs and weapons are made using those theories.

The context is totally different, the utilization of physics may depend on the morality of a society. The ToE influence is damaging the morality itself by eliminating its basis and embracing racism against the weak and the inferior.

You got a sort of eclectic mess of nonsense that doesn't seem to know where it is going.

Meaningless denial. Try something new.

It’s going towards the rejection of your nonsense masquerading as science.

 

[LIIA]

What's wrong you? You are the one who keeps focusing on Darwin. You, @LIIA . You.

If you don't like being called out on that fact, then skip your pseudo-history and focus on what is actually being said in the here and the now.

Is that too hard for you?

The 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. is that clear enough? See # 753 & 781

 

[LIIA]

But you have brought up wars, genocide, racism and Social Darwinism, and none of these have to do with Evolution or with Natural Selection, and they also have nothing to do with biology.

Do you deny that the influence of the ToE extends much further beyond evolutionary biology?

Do you deny that evolutionary concept changed the general perceived concepts of the world?

Do you deny that evolutionary concept directly impacted the human identity, religious beliefs, social behavior, social psychology, our understanding of reality and the rules that control our very existence?

Do you deny that Darwin involved racism, politics and wars when he said “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”?

If you do, I’ve nothing else to say.

Biology students and biologists are not stuck with old knowledge and outdated testing techniques. We are living in the 21st century now, not the 19th century.

The mid 20th century “Modern Synthesis” is still the mainstream theory today. Most proponents of evolution are stuck with evolutionary view of the Modern Synthesis. The 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology disproved the MS.

2013 Birmingham, UK, As the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble said in his lecture,

“The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology.”

“Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

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

But Islam and Muslims have perpetrated the same mistakes as Christian with their scriptures. In the Qur'an, it say Allah created Adam from clay and water, that just as bad as Genesis saying God creating Adam from dust.

Anyway the Qur'an version of Adam's creation is just unscientific as the Genesis version, both BS. The authors of both scriptures demonstrated that they have no understanding of the human body.

It’s unusual to see that many logical fallacies in few statements but you managed to do it!

First, This is a False Dichotomy. Why are you involving Al-Quran in an argument about the ToE? Al-Quran being right or wrong has nothing to do with the validity of the ToE.

Second, you rely on fallacious “Ad Hominem” in the sense that you directed your defense against my background/beliefs rather than the argument that I’m maintaining.

Third, even so involving the Bible before with respect to possible influence on wars/genocide was a fallacious argument but you managed to make it more illogical by further moving the goalposts to the creation of Adam in Al-Quran.

Even so it’s irrelevant in this thread but I did discuss that before in # 329 as response to Aupmanyav. You may see #329

 

[LIIA]

And any human are not made of dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur'an).

Cells are not dust or clay.

Copied from #329

Al-Quran is only in the Arabic language. A translation to other languages is not Quran. It’s interpretations of Quran. Multiple different translations can be found in each language and it depends on the understanding of the translator.

The translation of Surah Al-Hijr 26 is “Assuredly we have created humankind from salsaalim min hama im masnoon"

“salsaalim min hama im masnoon" means a plastic substance from earthy mixture of solid material and water that has its color darkened and odor changed due to prolonged decomposition of organic material present in the mixture. (“حمأ مسنون" means old sludge).

About 98% of the mass of living cells is composed of four elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. The remaining 2% includes phosphorus, sulphur, calcium iron, zinc, sodium, potassium, chlorine, selenium, iodine, and small amounts of other elements.

Considering the chemistry conservation principle, organisms would retain their chemical traits as a reflection of the environment from which it originated. If this is the case, then there is no substance in any environment on earth that reflects the elements/chemistry of the living cell better than “حمأ مسنون" as explained above. A 2013 study by Cornell University suggested that life might have evolved in Clay.

It’s interesting that when Darwin proposed that life may have originated in some warm little pond with all sort of elements (in his letter to Joseph Hooker), the idea was appealing to many till today.

The difference here is we are talking about an intelligently guided (intentional) process not a random process. The hypothesized emergence of a living cell (complex internally intelligent system) through slow random process from nonliving mater is not possible simply because any biomolecules that may have emerged from nonliving mater through an unknown process, will decompose relatively very quickly before it gets any chance to change into something more complex. (It will not wait millions of years to get the other essential molecules. It will simply decompose.) See # 236.

We don’t know what life is but we do know beyond any doubt that a single living cell is an extremely complex structure beyond any thing that could be possibly engineered by man and that there is absolutely no process in nature through which nonliving matter could be transformed into the extremely complex living cell.

We can neither explain how a single cell would emerge from nonliving matter nor we have the slightest idea what life itself is.

Fundamental answers with respect to “Beginnings” are not attainable through science, it’s beyond the jurisdictions of science. Any thing that cannot be observed, replicated or get experienced with is beyond the jurisdictions of science. But we can logically understand that objective reality doesn’t stop at the point where we cannot see any further. We don’t and cannot identify the limits of objective reality.

Again this thread is about the ToE, religious beliefs/concepts are beyond this discussion.

Dust are lifeless husk. Neither are origin of cells of any organisms.

Under abiotic conditions, what is your understanding of the nonliving matter that played a role in the first abiotic synthesis that resulted the primordial organic soup from which life on earth allegedly originated? What are the components of the alleged primordial soup? Did it include dust particles (interplanetary dust)?

Dust cannot physically transform into organic matters like cells...unless magic are involved, and no such magic exist.

What is magic?

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

 

[LIIA]

I really can't care much less about whatever fantasies you choose to believe in, so I'm done with this "conversation". I used to be more like you on this back in my mid-teens by not believing in the basic ToE, but then I did the studying and eventually went into the field of anthropology.

So, as far as I'm concerned, you can believe in any fantasies that suit you.

Seriously? I didn’t talk to you about any fantasies, did I? Nor am I concerned about what you believed in your mid-teens. This is your issue.

in # 802, I’m asking you specific questions related to your field as someone who taught anthropology for 30 years and I was expecting an objective answer not a fallacious move of the goalposts and some emotional nonsense.

If you don’t know the answer, you don’t have to answer. or you may just honestly say “I don’t know”.

 

[LIIA]

I didn't see this before my last post, so let me conclude with this: the above is not even remotely logical, and one doesn't even have to be even a scientist to know that.

I’m sorry but this is pathetic, its not about logic, its about the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology that disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. Can you guys read or understand? See # 753 & 781 if you will.

 

[LIIA]

Would you say that you can't do chemistry if you haven't explained the origin of the elements, or that you can't explain meteorology or predict the weather if you haven't explained the origin of the Earth's atmosphere?

What scientific difference would it make if the first single-celled organisms were created by God and all other living things evolved from them?

It’s indeed a huge difference. The evolutionary view theorizes that life emerged on earth through a random process. If the origin of life is not random, nothing is. It’s a total change of the mindset.

 

[LIIA]

If Neanderthals and modern humans bred and produced fertile offspring, the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. of those hybrid offspring were also descendants of Neanderthals, therefore Neanderthals must be the ancestors of at least some some modern humans.

No, interbreeding with the ability to produce fertile offspring necessarily means that Neanderthals were the same species. Being the same species, Neanderthals cannot be considered as ancestors.

The evolutionary view predicts evolved intermediates as a result of speciation. Per the ToE, humans, chimps and bonobo are all descendants of the same common ancestor but numerous speciation events led to present species today. Whenever speciation takes place, the ability of interbreeding with original species is lost. The intermediates are not the same species. The alleged common ancestor is at the split point with two separate branches, one for humans and the other for chimps/bonobo.

 

[ppp]

is that clear enough?

No.

 

[LIIA]

No it didn’t make Darwin’s assumptions wrong, the modern synthesis more like incorporated Mendelian Genetic (Mendelian Inheritance Law) into Natural Selection.

Darwin’s own explanation on genetics, lacked accuracy, but he wasn’t about population of species need to adapt and change, when the environments have changed.

Gregor Mendel was Darwin’s contemporary, but Darwin was unaware of Mendel’s experiments and writing. Plus, Mendel’s writings ere lost for a time, only to be rediscovered by 2 biologists in 1900.

Almost 50 years later, Julian Huxley published his work that use Mendel’s genetics with Darwin’s Natural Selection, hence the Modern Synthesis.

The Modern Synthesis didn’t refute or disprove Natural Selection, it expanded Natural Selection, updating Darwin’s original work.

That’s called progress, LIIA.

You seemed very determined in only focusing on Darwin’s limitations, and not see modern progress of Natural Selection that have gone beyond the original work.

You still don’t understand understand how sciences work.

This is another confused illogical argument of yours.

First, I said that the Modern Synthesis suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. We don’t need to argue about this, do we? I didn’t say that the Modern Synthesis rejected all Darwin’s assumptions. Did I?

Second, in # 804, I was summarizing the history of the theory since Darwin till today. I’m neither focused nor concerned about Darwin’s limitation. My argument (see # 753 & # 781) is NOT ABOUT DARWIN, it’s about the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology that disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis.

Denis Nobel said about the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology, “Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

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

This is called progress, Gnostic. Why can’t you guys read or understand? Why do we have to run in circles?

Third, stop the load of irrelevant info. Try to understand and focus on what the argument is about.