Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Did I ever mention every experiment and observation supports my theory better than it does Darwin?

Pick up any biology textbook or magazine and you'll find myriad experiments if you don't believe me.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

Why do you frequently quote your own posts, and then post a reply, as if you were arguing with yourself?

Do you imagine that you win a lot of arguments with yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@cladking

Why do you frequently quote your own posts, and then post a reply, as if you were arguing with yourself?

Do you imagine that you win a lot of arguments with yourself?

Hey! Give the guy a break. He has to find someone that he can beat in a debate occasionally.

 

[Jose Fly]

Pretty much mine too, but I am still amazed by it. And not just creationists, but attention seekers that create these fantastic and convoluted narratives weaving conspiracy theories and fictional ancient cultures, psuedoscience and a mish mash of misunderstanding into what appears to be a belief system.

Makes you wonder what motivates them to do that, doesn't it? It's like reality just isn't interesting enough for them or something.

 

[gnostic]

By what magic do you know this?

The only magic that exist, are “tricks” - sleight of hand, illusions, escapolgy, eg Harry Houdini’s acts. This where these magicians relied on technical skills for such performances. These are acts for entertainment. There are nothing supernatural about these “tricks”.

Then there are magic that don’t exist, supposedly “supernatural” or “otherworldly”, with examples listed below:

Then there are magic in the occultism, where supposedly real magic occurred, eg witchcraft, sorcery, Vodun (voodoo), etc.

But then there are all the other paranormal in parapsychology, such as powers of the individuals, eg psychics, telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, precognition, etc., which related to occultism, mentioned above.

Then there are magic involving religious beliefs in miracles, healing, the various different forms of afterlife (eg resurrection, reincarnation, belief in soul, etc), beliefs in divine and spiritual beings, eg god’s, angels, demons, jinns, fairies, ghosts, etc.
​

Then there are fictions that recreate the above examples in stories or narrative in book form (eg short stories, novels, comic, etc), or in studio-made filmmaking, eg Hollywood, etc, with various genres in these narratives, eg fantasy, sci-fi, horror, gothic, paranormal theme, etc. In the film and tv industries, these “magic” use tricks too like magicians and illusionists do, but more often these tricks using green background and computer-generated visual effects, and editing, hence special effects. The technical skills in these tricks are computer-generate, hence technology, not magic.

None of the Natural Sciences involve in non-supernatural “tricks” or supernatural “magic”. And while I know tricks exist for entertainment, I don’t believe in magic of the supernatural kind.

Science is about “knowledge” that can be verified through the uses of “tests and observations”, eg “evidence” & “experiments”. These tests also yield information about the characteristics of the physical and natural phenomena or the phenomena’s processes, information that commonly referred to as “data”.

There are no magic tricks or no supernatural magic - occult or divine - in Natural Sciences.

Natural Sciences involve in understanding natural phenomena and its processes, based on the physical evidence discovered or experiments performed. No magic of any sort are involve.

You are fibbing again. Playing word game, conflating “magic” with “sciences”.

It is just incredible how much you have to lie, by changing or redefining words to suit your fantasy, or to invent some narratives of your paranoid of some conspiracies.

 

[cladking]

You are fibbing again. Playing word game, conflating “magic” with “sciences”.

You play every game in the book. I say you imply science works through magic and you say I equate science and magic.

Then you call me a "liar", a "paranoid" and repeat for the 100th time the unsubstantiated claim I believe in conspiracies.

Never will you admit there's such a thing as "metaphysics" and that all theory is founded in experiment and not the divination of fossils.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Makes you wonder what motivates them to do that, doesn't it? It's like reality just isn't interesting enough for them or something.

I'm convinced that sometimes I encounter people with delusional disorder that have created their own narratives of reality that they bring to life on the internet. Since the birth of the internet, conspiracy theories have become more widely available and we have seen the power of promoting conspiracy theories and keeping them alive. Over time, I have come to the conclusion that even valid objection to the claims of the deluded cause them to double down on their delusions and promote them even more strongly. I'm coming to think that the best way to deal with them is to present valid rejection of their baseless claims using reason, sound facts and theory and following that, just stop feeding them.

 

[Valjean]

Did I ever mention every experiment and observation supports my theory better than it does Darwin?

If they did then they'd now be researching your theory.
What is your theory? I'm still waiting for an explanation. Is your theory really a theory, or just speculation.

Darwin? What does Darwin have to do with current biological research?
What's this obsession with Darwin? I don't see medical researchers referring to Hippocrates or Galen. I don't see engineers citing Archimedes.
Why are evolution deniers always harping on "Darwinism?"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If they did then they'd now be researching your theory.
What is your theory? I'm still waiting for an explanation. Is your theory really a theory, or just speculation.

Darwin? What does Darwin have to do with current biological research?
What's this obsession with Darwin? I don't see medical researchers referring to Hippocrates or Galen. I don't see engineers citing Archimedes.
Why are evolution deniers always harping on "Darwinism?"

Speculation. Fantastical speculation based on erroneous understanding.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm convinced that sometimes I encounter people with delusional disorder that have created their own narratives of reality that they bring to life on the internet.

As message boards and forums fade in popularity, I've noticed what seems to be an increase of posters with mental health issues. I'm never really sure how to interact with such folks, so I usually just leave them alone.

In a couple of forums I used to belong to, after I left some of the people I had debated later opened up and shared that they were battling with things like schizophrenia, early stage dementia, bipolar disorder, etc.

I guess you never know in some cases.

Since the birth of the internet, conspiracy theories have become more widely available and we have seen the power of promoting conspiracy theories and keeping them alive. Over time, I have come to the conclusion that even valid objection to the claims of the deluded cause them to double down on their delusions and promote them even more strongly.

Yep, the backfire effect.

I'm coming to think that the best way to deal with them is to present valid rejection of their baseless claims using reason, sound facts and theory and following that, just stop feeding them.

I only bother when I get the sense that either there are "lurkers" who might find what I post useful, or when the person is actually engaging and making decent arguments. If it's just a bunch of rambling nonsense, I figure there's little to be gained by challenging them.

But I understand why others might decide otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As message boards and forums fade in popularity, I've noticed what seems to be an increase of posters with mental health issues. I'm never really sure how to interact with such folks, so I usually just leave them alone.

In a couple of forums I used to belong to, after I left some of the people I had debated later opened up and shared that they were battling with things like schizophrenia, early stage dementia, bipolar disorder, etc.

I guess you never know in some cases.


Yep, the backfire effect.


I only bother when I get the sense that either there are "lurkers" who might find what I post useful, or when the person is actually engaging and making decent arguments. If it's just a bunch of rambling nonsense, I figure there's little to be gained by challenging them.

But I understand why others might decide otherwise.

When someone doesn't really understand the topic of discussion and has a rather dubious personal opinion, but seems open to discussion, I often will join in and maintain some presences. But there are some key criteria I have come to recognize as very indicative of those for which discussion is a waste of time.

Failure to use accepted technical terminology. Failure to define terms they do use. Claims of providing evidence when they do not. Reliance on mantras as a response to pretty much anything. Conspiracy theories over evidence. Running the gamut of logical fallacies. Empty claims with never any effort at support. Persistent abuse of these areas pretty much means that there will be no useful discussion come of any sort of engagement. Like the new intelligent design guy as an example. Not sure if you saw those threads, but the claims were ridiculous and nonsensical. Not worth much time in trying to have a reasonable discussion or debate.

Sometimes I will post my responses for the general population and any potential lurkers. Beyond that, if there seems no hope for a decent discussion, I have to overcome my urge to decimate and follow the more rational course of moving on.

 

[cladking]

What's this obsession with Darwin?

There is no obsession with Darwin. This thread is "Darwin's Illusion" (or "delusion").

What is your theory?

It's really very simple. First off by the standards of modern science it is more aptly termed an "hypothesis" or series of hypotheses. The closest term is probably "paradigm". By the standards of ancient science it is "theory".

This "theory" is simply that there are at least two different modes of human cognition and they are driven by language. Ancient (metaphysical) Language was logical and science could be based on it just like all animal languages. Modern languages are confused and illogical so science can only be based on experiment and nothing else. Since this makes no sense to us we can't understand Ancient Language and we see all things from the basis of our beliefs whether we have a scientific perspective or not. From our perspective "survival of the fittest" makes perfect sense even though it excludes all individuals and hence individual consciousness which is life itself. From our perspective it seems things change gradually even though all observed change in all life is always sudden. We can't see that there is widespread and pervasive evidence pyramids were built with linear funiculars because our eyes are full of ramps or as the builders said ramps are in the centers of our eyes. They observed species changed suddenly at bottlenecks due to consciousness and thereby invented agriculture just as termites, ants, and beavers had done before them. Just as we can't see the evidence for funiculars and refuse to even investigate how pyramids were actually built we can't see how wrong Darwin was or devise experiments to show it.

Consciousness is life itself and all life is conscious. There's no such thing as "intelligence" . We think in one dimension and believe everything we see and see everything we believe. We are "homo omnisciencis" who MUST build models of reality and create a broccas area in the brain to talk and this structure drives the thought we each experience. Ancient people were "homo sapiens" who became extinct at the "tower of babel" when language became overly complex giving rise to modern pidgin languages and the experience of "thought". Ancient cognition was four dimensional. "Thought" which doesn't exist in any other species is the process of comparing sensory input with existing beliefs.

This theory explains tens of thousands of disparate facts and has hundreds of thousands of corollaries. It is supported by a remarkable amount of physical evidence and good predictions. .

I could be wrong but I'm the only one of my species that can be wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

When someone doesn't really understand the topic of discussion and has a rather dubious personal opinion, but seems open to discussion, I often will join in and maintain some presences. But there are some key criteria I have come to recognize as very indicative of those for which discussion is a waste of time.

Failure to use accepted technical terminology. Failure to define terms they do use. Claims of providing evidence when they do not. Reliance on mantras as a response to pretty much anything. Conspiracy theories over evidence. Running the gamut of logical fallacies. Empty claims with never any effort at support. Persistent abuse of these areas pretty much means that there will be no useful discussion come of any sort of engagement. Like the new intelligent design guy as an example. Not sure if you saw those threads, but the claims were ridiculous and nonsensical. Not worth much time in trying to have a reasonable discussion or debate.

Sometimes I will post my responses for the general population and any potential lurkers. Beyond that, if there seems no hope for a decent discussion, I have to overcome my urge to decimate and follow the more rational course of moving on.

Have you ever encountered a creationist who met all those criteria? I honestly can't recall a time where I have.

 

[LIIA]

LO

LOL! Yes it did.

Just stop the terribly ignorant naysaying and ask questions when you have no clue.

Seriously? Do you consider that a response? Go back to #1520. Read it again, respond to the specific points of my argument or just stop your nonsense.

Anyone with some knowledge about the subject knows that your claim about the confirmation of abiogenesis is nonsense. You’re deceiving no one but yourself.

Again, there absolutely no evidence that nucleic acids may form on its own from non-living inorganic matter. You don’t see nucleic acids freely floating around in nature. It’s nonsense.

Unless you want to talk about the example of viruses? It is the closest example of nonliving genetic material in nature but yet it’s totally different, with a very complex structure and absolutely has no way to replicate without a living cell. See last item of #1364 & 1446

The ToE shifts the problem to an origin (first living organism) and stops there. abiogenesis comes as a desperate trial to complete what the ToE started to eliminate the need for creation. Evolutionists hold to abiogenesis desperately because if abiogenesis is false, then they are back to square one and the ToE doesn’t refute creation and indeed it doesn’t.

Without an organism that is alive, can grow, reproduce and pass the alleged gradual changes to offspring, no evolutionary process is possible. LIFE CREATE EVOLUTION NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, which doesn’t eliminate creation as many would think but merely shifts the problem to the first living organism. Here comes the role of the alleged abiogenesis to claim that an evolutionary process created the first organism. In other words, an evolutionary process created life and life created the evolutionary process, a fallacious circular reasoning to eliminate the need for an external cause to the process.

It’s a wishful thinking to attribute life in its entirety to some evolutionary process in one way or another. Both the idea of evolution and its reversed idea of abiogenesis are false. Non-living Organic compounds cannot stay intact for millions of years to gradually get more complex. Such organic compounds will most certainly disintegrate/decompose in no time. TIME DOESN’T HELP THE PROCESS. TIME IS THE ENEMY OF THE PROCESS.

The fact as we see it is that organisms do adapt as a result of directed mutation (not random mutation). Other than that, the claim that organisms transform into totally different organisms is a fairytale. Evolutionists don’t call it a “fairytale”, they call it “historical narrative” (see #331) which is very much the same. It’s only semantics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you ever encountered a creationist who met all those criteria? I honestly can't recall a time where I have.

Not a creationist strictly. But yes, I have. At least two that I can think of.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you ever encountered a creationist who met all those criteria? I honestly can't recall a time where I have.

Then of course, there are creationists that use the old playbook as if they are hosting never-before-seen claims and ideas that haven't long ago been explained away by evidence or refuted outright. The logical fallacy buffet is always on their menu.

 

[LIIA]

Challenged by who?

SCIENTISTS!!

See # 326 & 327 for the alleged evolution of man
See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)
See #1298 for the alleged evolution of whales
See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

See #1252 for some evolutionary nonsense (Orce Man & Nebraska Man) that got refuted by scientists.

Yes, we all know how you rely exclusively on Nobel's claims. I'm curious...have you ever read any of the criticisms of his ideas?

Go ahead and provide your reference. Criticisms by whom? and what does it mean? Gradualism was criticized and described as "evolution by creeps”. Punctuation was criticized and described as "evolution by jerks.” So, what does such criticism means to you? Don’t you still accept both?

Denis Noble CBE FRS FMedSci MAE is one of the most acclaimed scientists in history who wrote over 500 published papers. Most biologists fully embrace Professor Noble, especially fellow microbiologists and geneticists. The few objections are from the self-acclaimed “evolutionary biologists” who note that evolution happens, BUT HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE INNER WORKINGS OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS nor any idea HOW evolution happens.

Any no-name “biologist” who disagrees with Noble is at odds with mountain ranges of evidence and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Noble is regarded as one of the pioneers and father of systems biology, he developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart and saved millions of lives by discovered activated potassium channel currents in the heart and their role in controlling repolarisation and pacemaker. He was Secretary-General for the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) for 8 years and the head of the Royal Society, the most prestigious body of scientists in the world.

Noble is a very highly respected scientist. Those who attack Noble really just show us the inadequacies of their inferior agendas.

One of the leading voice of Evolutionary Biologists is James A. Shapiro, who is an eminent microbiologist–bacterial molecular geneticist, The key goal of his book “Evolution: A View From the 21st Century” is to demonstrate that a central premise of Darwinian evolution is incorrect and to spell out the implications of that conclusion for evolutionary theory. Shapiro has devoted much of his writing to pointing out that the modern theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) is deeply flawed and needs a new paradigm.

Denis Noble’s name is on the back cover of Shapiro’s book, recommending it. Any time you see world famous evolutionary biologists, you see Denis Noble in full agreement. Noble is also a featured chapter in the Suzan Mazur book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.” The book is presenting evidence by major scientists from a dozen countries for a paradigm shift that is underway replacing neo-Darwinism. Noble is credited as one of several biologists who have overturned Neo-Darwinism, along with many other top scientists such as: 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.

Well yeah, the possible number of random mutations is huge. No one is disputing that. So what's your point?

seriously? No one is disputing that. So, you acknowledged now that you were wrong to dispute it and describe it as empty assertions in your post # 1471

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

In #1471 you called it empty assertions and said the burden of proof is on me. I did provide the proof before and future elaborated in # 1517, now you say, “No one is disputing that” and shift goalposts to “what is your point” as if you didn’t see it or understand it before!! The point again as you clearly understand it is that your randomness fairytale is a mathematical impossibility and that you are evidently not an ethical debater.

So we agree the Nazis were wrong in how they applied Darwinian concepts.

Wow!! So you finally acknowledged that the Nazis applied DARWINIAN CONCEPTS!! Just stick to it and don’t change it in your next post if you can.

But no, it was not misinterpretation it was definitely true interpretations of the Darwinian concepts as understood by Darwin himself and evident in his prediction in the “The Descent of Man” about the elimination of the so-called “savage races”.

Because the process isn't random. Mutations are indeed random, but they are then passed through a non-random filter (selection) that generates non-random results.

That's BIO 100 stuff. You didn't know that?

Neither mutations are random nor Natural Selection has any way of explaining speciation. See the link below and #753

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

That is an obsolete understanding that had been proven false. Believe it or not “science is constantly changing”!!! Will you guys ever wake up?

I see nothing in there about EES being a majority view among biologists. Quote where the papers says that.

Again, the paper said “this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a WIDESPREAD feeling among scientists and philosophers alike” see #911

Do you know what “widespread” means? That’s English 101 stuff.
(Sorry, I borrowed that 101 thing from you)

So what do you do with the fact that he believes evolution happens, life on earth shares a common evolutionary ancestry, and humans share an ancestry with other primates?

Is he still credible?

You don’t get it; 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).

Yet, you don’t know for a fact what he believes or doesn’t believe, I don’t think he explicitly declares everything he believes but he certainly provides hints.

He said “There are many metaphysical questions we can ask about what is life and what am I, what are you, and we all have our own ways of answering that kind of question, THAT'S THE FUNCTION OF COURSE OF RELIGION and there are many religions, The important point ….my point is not to say which is right or which is wrong is to say think about it it's not so certain we know what we are”

He did acknowledge the role of religions to provide answers for questions that we can’t answer. In many lectures, he acknowledged the fact that we have no right to claim any knowledge whatsoever, with respect to the question “what is life”.

The lecture is on YouTube. Here is the link. See 38:38
(156) Music of Life Lecture - Denis Noble - YouTube

Again, I’m quoting Noble specifically with respect to the refutation of all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis”. See # 753 & # 781. Other than that, it’s not a concern for me.

The fact remains, you linked to an article that you claimed showed non-random mutations. But the article said absolutely nothing about that, and the non-random claims were your own imposition. Please debate ethically.

No, this specific article didn’t say anything about non-random mutations (other articles did see #1245).

Now it’s your turn, can you ethically claim that the documented mutational behavior is in any way random? You don’t have to answer but if you do, be ethical.

You didn't answer the question. Who do you believe is the "designer"? God? Aliens? Time travelling geneticists?

God. Wasn’t that obvious enough?

God is the necessary being. God is the absolute first cause. God is the designer. I said that numerous times in numerous posts, didn’t I?

I never said anything about aliens or time traveling. The Aliens thing is Dawkin’s belief that aliens put the first seed of life on earth. See the link below 3:26.

(156) Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - YouTube

I didn't comment on the credibility of the Royal Society. I noted that you've not shown any support for your claim that the EES is a majority view in biology. Pay better attention.

Again, the paper said “widespread”. It’s not a game of semantics. Does the endorsement/publishing by a scientific academy such as the Royal Society means anything to you? Don’t you guys acknowledge the role of “peer review” in scientific publications (Judgment by a panel of two or more experts in the field before publishing)?

Don’t play games with semantics. Forget about “majority”, it’s “widespread”. The paper didn’t say “majority” if that is what you are after. The paper didn’t and I never used the word “majority” either, did I? You are the one who unethically claimed that I did in a fallacious attempt to move the goalposts. If I did, show me when did I say “majority” or stop your irrelevant semantics game.

Again, I did provide a credible source. Telling you to further verify the facts for yourself has nothing to do with shifting the burden of proof. Yes, it’s indeed on me and I did provide it. Is that clear enough?

 

[LIIA]

I think it would be more true to say that it is beyond the domain of science at this time. Unless we can use some form of inquiry (I believe we can) that isn't wholly dependent on reducing everything to its constituent parts then this initiation might always be beyond the domain of science.

To be specific, it’s beyond experimental/observational science. But if you mean science in the broader term as the logical interpretation/drawing conclusions from the collective human knowledge of all sources, then yes, we indeed can.

Yes, I agree. But the problem is far more severe than your correct analysis. In addition to this foolish axiom there is also the simple fact that all knowledge is held as belief and models. All input is seen in terms of these beliefs. Anomalies are all around us but they are invisible to us. We interpret all of reality in terms of what we "know" so are blind to everything else including the paradoxes of existence.

Sure, our mindset is never neutral. We always start with a premise. Our tinted glasses overlay its color on absolutely everything we see. Almost no one is looking at things with clear glasses. Yet we may not be even aware of it or have the slightest ideas that the colors we see are not the true colors.

 

[cladking]

But no, it was not misinterpretation it was definitely true interpretations of the Darwinian concepts as understood by Darwin himself and evident in his prediction in the “The Descent of Man” about the elimination of the so-called “savage races”.

To most people the term "survival of the fittest" means the unfit won't survive anyway and if they do reproduce their off spring will be unfit. Better to spend resources on the most fit with the best genes.

Then they wonder what's wrong with the world. They believe Peers are more important than experiment because most don't understand experiment anyway until someone explains it to them. We have science bought and paid for that drives not only what is investigated but also government and the results. "Science" is power today whether it's based on "hunches", "evidence", or "statistics". Science is trillions of dollars whether it's right or wrong. In a world where you can make all the money there is, who needs experiment?

 

[LIIA]

I doubt that we are even close to ruling out "abiogenesis"

We are actually not even close to rule it in as a theory. If it ever happens, then at that time, we may worry about ruling it out.

then people wonder that he found there is no God

They are wrong. Darwin’s theory only shifted the problem of creation to the first living organism. An organism that is alive can grow, reproduce and pass changes to offspring is absolutely necessary before any evolutionary process (adaptation) may take place. That’s why evolutionists desperately need abiogenesis to somehow explain the first life. The fact remains that real world data neither supports abiogenesis nor evolution (MS).

One thing certain though, consciousness exists

Consciousness is the driver of the physical body; we are only alive as long as we can carry through goal-oriented actions as driven by our consciousness otherwise we would be dead even if our internal biological functions continue working.

Logic, purpose, values, meanings, perception, thoughts are all rooted in consciousness. I agree that the understanding of consciousness is a key to the understanding of life and reality itself.

I always wondered how a will in our consciousness translates to a complex muscle movement. How an intention gets to be an action, not any action but rather a very specific action exactly as intended. You want to move your right hand and it obeys as you wished. How/why the message never goes to the wrong address; you never wish to move your right hand to see your left hand or leg moving. How a mere intention translates to purposeful neural messages that travels along the correct route through the neural network to the specific muscles being commanded to execute a set of coordinated muscle actions to carry out goal-directed movements? All of that is merely directed by a simple wish in our consciousness. We wish and our body obeys. We wish and it’s done. Let alone the extremely complex internal functions of our bodies that get managed on our behalf without consulting our “conscious” minds. Where is the randomness in all of this? Without knowing what consciousness is, how can we claim that a random process can use a physical state to give rise to consciousness? See #281

We easily forget that organisms are dependent on genes which means consciousness and behavior are dependent on genes.

With the same human genome, we find at least 200 different types of cells in the human body that perform very specific vital functions. Genes are nothing more than a storage of coded info at the disposal of the living system which interprets them in a myriad of different purposeful ways to produce thousands of different types of proteins and trillions of cells of various types that work all in harmony to create our body plan with its unique set of morphological features.

It’s an extremely complex process beyond belief and absolutely nothing of it is random. In fact, a single cell is a complex system beyond belief let alone a body plan of an unimaginable complexity and encompassing trillions of different types of cells.

The genes may change in conjunction with the living system but neither the changes nor the entire genome itself create us, our bodies and minds. The DNA is merely the database from which the organism gets the necessary information. THE CELL MACHINERY DOES NOT JUST READ THE GENOME. It imposes extensive purposeful patterns of marking and expression on the genome. Without such purposeful interpretation of DNA towards meaningful functions, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info like music notes written on the music page, a totally dead code waiting for the performers to play it to bring it to life. Once played, only then, the dead notes become alive. It becomes music, the music of life.

Data is not what creates an organism; it’s the purposeful utilization of data by the living system to build the specific numerous integrated functions that collectively achieve a final body plan.

See# 1247

The Music of Life Preview
The Music of Life - Google Books

The Music of Life Sourcebook
The Music of Life-sourcebook.pdf

As complex as our body is; it’s not what makes us alive. It’s our consciousness. Without it, we are dead even if our body continues to stay alive with or without the assistance of life support equipment (see #281). We may have an idea about the materialistic aspects of our body, beyond that we have no clue. We absolutely have no idea what consciousness is or what life is. What does it mean to see, hear, smell, sense, love, hate, laugh, cry, understand, what are those? What gives rise to those? We’re only very familiar with it. The norm takes away the wonder; it’s a relative perception.

”Say, It is He who has constructed you and gave you the ability of hearing and vision and comprehending; little are you grateful.” Al Mulk 23.