Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

It's not enough to agree with doctrine. If you don't use the same words as doctrine then you are still a heretic.

Pointing out the flaws in models, interpretations, and definitions is no way to endear yourself to the faithful.

True

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re welcome. The reason for the short form is because you said nothing of value.

If the prerequisite of a process is not possible, then the process is not possible. Let alone if the mechanisms of the process are also disproved.

The prerequisite of evolution is a perfect organism that has all functional vital systems/life processes essentially required to allow the organism to grow, reproduce, survive and pass gradual slow changes to offspring. If the prerequisite of evolution is not possible, then evolution is not possible especially if all the fundamental assumptions of the theory are challenged/disproved for being in contradiction with new empirical evidence.

Everything was discussed in this thread boils down to the summary of facts regarding the current status of the ToE today as clarified in #2399.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

The ToE is an assumption that was taking as an axiom but there is nothing to justify the axiom given the fact that today there is no theoretical framework capable of providing explanation consistent with new empirical evidence.

Evolution is an assumption without any ground to stand on. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, and the Modern synthesis was disproved. Every observation we see in the real-world points to a directed adaptation process not a random evolution. See #2399.

Dude! Just because you cannot refute a fact does not make it "nothing of value".

And you would have to prove that a prerequisite of evolution is a perfect organism. No one in the science has ever said that or implied that to the best of my knowledge. In fact everyone that I have seen has stated the opposite to be the case. What you just used is a strawman argument. People use those when they cannot refute the actual arguments.

So please! Please make a case for why the first organism had to be perfect. And please find actual papers by experts that make this claim.

I can find you countless papers that will tell you that in effect evolution works on "good enough" it never works on perfection.

And the reason that there is no evidence for your claim is because it does not appear to be possible and no one in the science has made that claim. Wow! Scientists can't find evidence for claim that they never made! Stop the presses! Who would a thunk it

 

[LIIA]

you would have to prove that a prerequisite of evolution is a perfect organism. No one in the science has ever said that or implied that to the best of my knowledge. In fact everyone that I have seen has stated the opposite to be the case. What you just used is a strawman argument. People use those when they cannot refute the actual arguments.

So please! Please make a case for why the first organism had to be perfect. And please find actual papers by experts that make this claim.

I can find you countless papers that will tell you that in effect evolution works on "good enough" it never works on perfection.

And the reason that there is no evidence for your claim is because it does not appear to be possible and no one in the science has made that claim. Wow! Scientists can't find evidence for claim that they never made! Stop the presses! Who would a thunk it

Based on previous discussions, I knew that proponent of evolution such as yourself would typically ignore the core concept of the argument and rely on some red herring tricks and irrelevant semantics in a trial to cause distraction. That is why I specifically clarified the intended meaning of the word “Perfection” in my post # 2460 but I'm going to elaborate further to avoid any confusion.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 123 | Religious Forums

The meaning of “Perfection” in this context is with respect to successful achievement of the purpose or necessary intrinsic quality of having the ability to survive/persist and reproduce within an environment.

Here are some defining characteristics of such organism that must exist as a prerequisite before any evolutionary process would be possible:

- An organism that is already alive and can persist/stay alive within its specific environment.

- An organism that has all vital systems/life processes essentially required to allow the organism to stay alive/survive within an environment.

- An organism that has the ability to interact with its environment to maintain a flow of nutrients to obtain required energy for self-sustenance, growth and persistence within its environment.

- An organism that has the ability to reproduce and pass gradual slow changes to offspring and continue to persist for generations to allow for slow accumulation of gradual changes in subsequent future generation.

These are the necessary characteristics of the organism that must exist first as a prerequisite. None of these characteristics can be excluded. As I previously clarified in #2460, it's an organism that has all functional vital systems/life processes essentially required to allow the organism to survive, grow, reproduce, and pass slow gradual changes to offspring. Otherwise, no evolutionary process of any kind would be possible.

Evolution is allegedly a very gradual and slow process over a very long time and requires many generations before any changes may accumulate. Without such living organism as clarified above, there is nothing to evolve.

- If the organism is missing any of the vital systems that are required to enable the organism to be alive and persist within its specific environment, it can neither be alive nor evolve.

- If the organism is not capable of obtaining energy and nutrients within its specific environment, it will neither survive nor evolve.

- If the organism cannot reproduce and pass gradual slow changes to offspring, then no evolutionary process is possible.

An organism with the defining characteristics as clarified above is absolutely necessary as a prerequisite before any evolutionary process of any kind may take place, if the perquisite is not possible, the evolutionary process is not possible.

“Perfection” in this context is simply to have the necessary intrinsic qualities/abilities to be alive/stay alive, grow and successfully reproduce/persist within an environment. Any organism of any kind that achieves this purpose is a perfect organism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Based on previous discussions, I knew that proponent of evolution such as yourself would typically ignore the core concept of the argument and rely on some red herring tricks and irrelevant semantics in a trial to cause distraction. That is why I specifically clarified the intended meaning of the word “Perfection” in my post # 2460 but I'm going to elaborate further to avoid any confusion.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 123 | Religious Forums

The meaning of “Perfection” in this context is with respect to successful achievement of the purpose or necessary intrinsic quality of having the ability to survive/persist and reproduce within an environment.

Here are some defining characteristics of such organism that must exist as a prerequisite before any evolutionary process would be possible:

- An organism that is already alive and can persist/stay alive within its specific environment.

- An organism that has all vital systems/life processes essentially required to allow the organism to stay alive/survive within an environment.

- An organism that has the ability to interact with its environment to maintain a flow of nutrients to obtain required energy for self-sustenance, growth and persistence within its environment.

- An organism that has the ability to reproduce and pass gradual slow changes to offspring and continue to persist for generations to allow for slow accumulation of gradual changes in subsequent future generation.

These are the necessary characteristics of the organism that must exist first as a prerequisite. None of these characteristics can be excluded. As I previously clarified in #2460, it's an organism that has all functional vital systems/life processes essentially required to allow the organism to survive, grow, reproduce, and pass slow gradual changes to offspring. Otherwise, no evolutionary process of any kind would be possible.

Evolution is allegedly a very gradual and slow process over a very long time and requires many generations before any changes may accumulate. Without such living organism as clarified above, there is nothing to evolve.

- If the organism is missing any of the vital systems that are required to enable the organism to be alive and persist within its specific environment, it can neither be alive nor evolve.

- If the organism is not capable of obtaining energy and nutrients within its specific environment, it will neither survive nor evolve.

- If the organism cannot reproduce and pass gradual slow changes to offspring, then no evolutionary process is possible.

An organism with the defining characteristics as clarified above is absolutely necessary as a prerequisite before any evolutionary process of any kind may take place, if the perquisite is not possible, the evolutionary process is not possible.

“Perfection” in this context is simply to have the necessary intrinsic qualities/abilities to be alive/stay alive, grow and successfully reproduce/persist within an environment. Any organism of any kind that achieves this purpose is a perfect organism.

There is a lot of nonsense and unsupported claims in that post and it still does not excuse your use of the word "perfection".

What you have a problem with is abiogenesis. And that is probably because you are making the error of thinking of life in the terms of modern life

The first successful organism would have been almost the exact opposite of "perfection". The only reason that it survived is because it could and that there would have been no competition at all. Even an extremely weak person can "win" a race if he or she is the only one running in it.

The first life would only need to be able to harvest chemicals from its environment and make a copy of itself. That is all. It does not even have to be a perfect copy. It only has to make copies that are "good enough" faster than they die. That does not sound like perfection to me.

 

[LIIA]

There is a lot of nonsense and unsupported claims in that post and it still does not excuse your use of the word "perfection".

I explained what I mean by “perfect” organism, identify your “good enough” organism and demonstrate how it can miss any of the essential characteristics as I identified in my post # 2463

What you have a problem with is abiogenesis. And that is probably because you are making the error of thinking of life in the terms of modern life

No, I’m not thinking of life in the terms of modern life, I’m only identifying the essential characteristics of the first living organism that must exist before any alleged evolutionary process of any kind may take place.

Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory for a reason, and it doesn’t explain the necessary first life that must exist before any evolutionary process would be possible.

The first successful organism would have been almost the exact opposite of "perfection".

Nonsense. Identify “perfection” per your view. Can you exclude any of these characteristics below from your “exact opposite of perfection” organism?

- Being already alive

- Has the ability to persist/continue to be alive

- Has the ability to obtain energy through nutrients to survive and grow

- Has the ability to reproduce and pass gradual slow changes to offspring

- Has the ability to persist for many generations to allow for slow accumulation of gradual changes in the subsequent future generation.

The first organism must have all essential characteristics as identified in my post # 2463 before any evolution.

The only reason that it survived is because it could and that there would have been no competition at all. Even an extremely weak person can "win" a race if he or she is the only one running in it.

Nonsense. The challenge has nothing to do with any competition with other living organisms. The challenge is to be alive to begin with and to have the ability to grow, reproduce and persist for generations.

The first life would only need to be able to harvest chemicals from its environment and make a copy of itself. That is all. It does not even have to be a perfect copy. It only has to make copies that are "good enough" faster than they die. That does not sound like perfection to me.

Again, what is your definition of “good enough” or “perfection”?

Shouldn’t this “good enough” organism be alive with the ability to grow, reproduce and persist for many generations? Even so these are the minimum requirements, but it achieves the purpose of life perfectly hence it’s nothing short of “perfection”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I explained what I mean by “perfect” organism, identify your “good enough” organism and demonstrate how it can miss any of the essential characteristics as I identified in my post # 2463

You missed the point. Your "perfect organism" is nowhere near perfect. When you have to totally redefine a word then you should not be using that word.

No, I’m not thinking of life in the terms of modern life, I’m only identifying the essential characteristics of the first living organism that must exist before any alleged evolutionary process of any kind may take place.

Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory for a reason, and it doesn’t explain the necessary first life that must exist before any evolutionary process would be possible.



Nonsense. Identify “perfection” per your view. Can you exclude any of these characteristics below from your “exact opposite of perfection” organism?

- Being already alive

- Has the ability to persist/continue to be alive

- Has the ability to obtain energy through nutrients to survive and grow

- Has the ability to reproduce and pass gradual slow changes to offspring

- Has the ability to persist for many generations to allow for slow accumulation of gradual changes in the subsequent future generation.

The first organism must have all essential characteristics as identified in my post # 2463 before any evolution.



Nonsense. The challenge has nothing to do with any competition with other living organisms. The challenge is to be alive to begin with and to have the ability to grow, reproduce and persist for generations.



Again, what is your definition of “good enough” or “perfection”?

Shouldn’t this “good enough” organism be alive with the ability to grow, reproduce and persist for many generations? Even so these are the minimum requirements, but it achieves the purpose of life perfectly hence it’s nothing short of “perfection”.

And I am ignoring the rest. Since you will not own up to your nonsense we can discuss one claim at a time. I am not writing books for science deniers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has the ability to reproduce and pass gradual slow changes to offspring

I picked out this claim because it is so bad. No, that is not needed at all and also demonstrates that you do not understand simple life. Simple life reproduces at the simplest level by fission. It makes a copy of itself. Though it is impossible to say which one is the copy. They both have the same DNA or likely RNA in the earliest of life. One copy is just slightly different from the other and neither may be the same as the original. How do you tell which one is the original? Let's say that neither copy is the same. That is very possible. How do you tell which one is the original. In fact the only way that we can currently analyze the DNA of life is to kill the cell that has it.

Your posts are usually wrong in so many ways that there is just no answering them. You are quite often fractally wrong.

 

[LIIA]

I picked out this claim because it is so bad. No, that is not needed at all and also demonstrates that you do not understand simple life. Simple life reproduces at the simplest level by fission. It makes a copy of itself. Though it is impossible to say which one is the copy. They both have the same DNA or likely RNA in the earliest of life. One copy is just slightly different from the other and neither may be the same as the original. How do you tell which one is the original? Let's say that neither copy is the same. That is very possible. How do you tell which one is the original. In fact the only way that we can currently analyze the DNA of life is to kill the cell that has it.

Nonsense, copying itself is essentially “reproducing".

"Which one is the copy" is irrelevant with respect to the essential need that the organism must have the ability of reproducing. See #2460 #2463 & #2465.

 

[LIIA]

You missed the point. Your "perfect organism" is nowhere near perfect. When you have to totally redefine a word then you should not be using that word.



And I am ignoring the rest. Since you will not own up to your nonsense we can discuss one claim at a time. I am not writing books for science deniers.

Nice escape.

No one is asking you to write any books. You have thousands of posts on this forum. You spend lots of time on this forum and it doesn’t appear that you would stop any time soon, yet you don’t have time to respond to a post!!

Have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense, copying itself is essentially “reproducing".

"Which one is the copy" is irrelevant with respect to the essential need that the organism must have the ability of reproducing. See #2460 #2463 & #2465.

LOL! That was the point of my post. Copying is reproducing. You tried to claim that the original had to live a long time. That was what made your claim bogus.

You made badly worded post. Maybe English is not your first language. But as written that post demonstrated incredible ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice escape.

No one is asking you to write any books. You have thousands of posts on this forum. You spend lots of time on this forum and it doesn’t appear that you would stop any time soon, yet you don’t have time to respond to a post!!

Have a good night.

Yes, I have thousands of posts. But when someone writes a long rambling post as you did there is no need for me to respond to all of it. Debunking just a small part is enough. If you want to learn I will gladly hep you do that. But when you deny reality all that you can expect is corrections.

 

[LIIA]

LOL! That was the point of my post. Copying is reproducing. You tried to claim that the original had to live a long time. That was what made your claim bogus.

You made badly worded post. Maybe English is not your first language. But as written that post demonstrated incredible ignorance.

Nonsense. I said that the original organism must be alive and must have the ability to grow, reproduce and successfully persist within its environment for many generations.

It may be difficult sometimes to express my thoughts clearly/accurately in English as a second language, but I never said that the original organism had to live a long time, when I said, "it need to persist for many generations", it means the species need to persist (through reproduction) not the original organism itself. The original organism must reproduce, and the offspring must also reproduce successfully for many generations before any chance for a gradual accumulation of change would be possible. Such success of the original organism to survive and persist within an environment for many generations is a necessary prerequisite that is neither explainable nor possible. Again, if the necessary prerequisite is not possible, no evolutionary process of any kind is possible.

See #2460 #2463 & #2465.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, I have thousands of posts. But when someone writes a long rambling post as you did there is no need for me to respond to all of it. Debunking just a small part is enough. If you want to learn I will gladly hep you do that. But when you deny reality all that you can expect is corrections.

#2465 is not long, no one asked you to write any books. Do you expect me or anyone else to buy your silly excuses? Go back to #2465 and demonstrate the reasons of your disagreement, if you have any.

You blindly follow an outdated theory and deliberately ignore the fact that it was proven contradictory to empirical evidence. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory and the Modern Synthesis was disproved. Your stance has no basis to stand on. The only thing that you may be capable to teach is red herring tricks. I’m not interested.

Your continuous reliance on distraction tricks clearly shows that you are aware of the weaknesses of your stance. Stop being in denial. Debate ethically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. I said that the original organism must be alive and must have the ability to grow, reproduce and successfully persist within its environment for many generations.

It may be difficult sometimes to express my thoughts clearly/accurately in English as a second language, but I never said that the original organism had to live a long time, when I said, "it need to persist for many generations", it means the species need to persist (through reproduction) not the original organism itself. The original organism must reproduce, and the offspring must also reproduce successfully for many generations before any chance for a gradual accumulation of change would be possible. Such success of the original organism to survive and persist within an environment for many generations is a necessary prerequisite that is neither explainable nor possible. Again, if the necessary prerequisite is not possible, no evolutionary process of any kind is possible.

See #2460 #2463 & #2465.

Yes, but you added other nonsense to and used the term "perfect". It did not need to be anywhere near perfect, it only needed to be able to survive and reproduce. And it looks like you changed your wording a bit.


But there is no need to discuss abiogenesis with you. You cannot even understand evolution. When you can understand evolution then we can go on to a more advanced subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

#2465 is not long, no one asked you to write any books. Do you expect me or anyone else to buy your silly excuses? Go back to #2465 and demonstrate the reasons of your disagreement, if you have any.

You blindly follow an outdated theory and deliberately ignore the fact that it was proven contradictory to empirical evidence. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory and the Modern Synthesis was disproved. Your stance has no basis to stand on. The only thing that you may be capable to teach is red herring tricks. I’m not interested.

Your continuous reliance on distraction tricks clearly shows that you are aware of the weaknesses of your stance. Stop being in denial. Debate ethically.

Please, I made no "silly excuses". Can you make a post without false accusations?

And Oh My! You sort of got one thing right. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory. Yet. It is currently a series of scientific hypotheses since some of the questions of abiogenesis have been answered but not all of them.

Try asking questions without false accusations.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, but you added other nonsense to and used the term "perfect". It did not need to be anywhere near perfect, it only needed to be able to survive and reproduce. And it looks like you changed your wording a bit.

You still don’t get it. Your oversimplification of life is the problem. Life in any shape or form is very far from simple. The simplest form possible of any living system of any kind is exceedingly complex.

In essence, the rules that defines and enables the existence of a living system of any kind are always the same. The survival of any living system depends on the functional/purposeful flow/exchange of information, energy and matter as the system interacts with its environment to successfully achieve self-sustenance, growth and reproduction.

The original living system that you claimed to be very far from perfection must have the vital systems/life processes necessary to enables the system to be alive, stay alive, grow, reproduce and persist (through successful reproduction) for many generations within its environment.

“Perfection” of system is a measure of its success in meeting its goal, if this kind of success of the first living system to achieve an exceedingly difficult/complex goal of life and survival for many generations is not perfection, then what is?

But there is no need to discuss abiogenesis with you. You cannot even understand evolution. When you can understand evolution then we can go on to a more advanced subject.

You think you understand evolution, but you fail to understand that the evolutionary theoretical framework that you as well as the vast majority of other evolutionists adopt was already disproved. Evolutionary assumptions, explanations and mechanisms that you understand are already proven false. Your denial will not change the facts. Currently there is no alternative theory that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm consistent with empirical evidence to replace the disproved MS. You’re a blind follower of an outdated theory.

We did discuss abiogenesis in detail before; you may see #1850 and the conclusion of the article below.

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

It’s more than enough to state the fact that abiogenesis failed to be a scientific theory till today (and may never be). This failure is obviously for a reason, there is nothing to argue about. If it ever becomes a scientific theory, only then you may come back and state your case but till then you have nothing.

 

[LIIA]

Please, I made no "silly excuses". Can you make a post without false accusations?

Fine, if you want to prove me wrong, go back to #2465 and demonstrate the reasons of your disagreement, if you have any.

And Oh My! You sort of got one thing right. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory.

Great, so you finally acknowledged the fact that abiogenesis is not a scientific theory (and may never be). That is progress.

We did have a long discussion about abiogenesis before. See #1850
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still don’t get it. Your oversimplification of life is the problem. Life in any shape or form is very far from simple. The simplest form possible of any living system of any kind is exceedingly complex.

In essence, the rules that defines and enables the existence of a living system of any kind are always the same. The survival of any living system depends on the functional/purposeful flow/exchange of information, energy and matter as the system interacts with its environment to successfully achieve self-sustenance, growth and reproduction.

The original living system that you claimed to be very far from perfection must have the vital systems/life processes necessary to enables the system to be alive, stay alive, grow, reproduce and persist (through successful reproduction) for many generations within its environment.

“Perfection” of system is a measure of its success in meeting its goal, if this kind of success of the first living system to achieve an exceedingly difficult/complex goal of life and survival for many generations is not perfection, then what is?



You think you understand evolution, but you fail to understand that the evolutionary theoretical framework that you as well as the vast majority of other evolutionists adopt was already disproved. Evolutionary assumptions, explanations and mechanisms that you understand are already proven false. Your denial will not change the facts. Currently there is no alternative theory that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm consistent with empirical evidence to replace the disproved MS. You’re a blind follower of an outdated theory.

We did discuss abiogenesis in detail before; you may see #1850 and the conclusion of the article below.

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

It’s more than enough to state the fact that abiogenesis failed to be a scientific theory till today (and may never be). This failure is obviously for a reason, there is nothing to argue about. If it ever becomes a scientific theory, only then you may come back and state your case but till then you have nothing.

Nope. The error is yours.

One more time. Even the "simplest of life" that we see today has a 3 billion year evolutionary history. Why would you expect it to be simple. You are looking at the simplest of life today and making the mistake of assuming that is the simplest that life can be.

The simplest of life today still has to cope with countless other forms of life. If it was as simple as the first life it would have been consumed and gone extinct a long time ago.

You are making mistakes that you should have quit making in middle school at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, if you want to prove me wrong, go back to #2465 and demonstrate the reasons of your disagreement, if you have any.



Great, so you finally acknowledged the fact that abiogenesis is not a scientific theory (and may never be). That is progress.

We did have a long discussion about abiogenesis before. See #1850
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

Don't be silly. You have already been proven wrong. You either did not understand or ignored the refutations.

I am willing to help you with the basics so that you can be a better debater. But every time that you bring up an old post of yours you are just admitting that you are wrong all over again.

 

[gnostic]

Great, so you finally acknowledged the fact that abiogenesis is not a scientific theory (and may never be). That is progress.

No one said that Abiogenesis is a scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, but it is a working hypothesis, because there have been a number of experiments and numbers of evidence that support different models of Abiogenesis.

There needs to be more testings to decide which of these models is the most likely one to happen on Earth.