Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

I would ignore words that imply false meaning that contradicts the facts of the real world. It’s not about fast or slow rate of change; it’s about gradualism/tree of live being nonexistent in the fossil record, neither before nor after periods of stasis. If you focus on semantics/misleading words and ignore the facts, how intellectually honest is that?

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Though evolution is a gradual process there never was a prediction that we would observe gradualism everywhere in the fossil record. That makes your argument a strawman. We do see it in the very limited areas where there were periods of continual deposition. But that is not the norm. geologically. There are often periods of deposition and periods of a lack of deposition.

Try to think rationally. It is impossible for sediments to be continually deposited everywhere on the Earth for the Earth's entire history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would ignore words that imply false meaning that contradicts the facts of the real world. It’s not about fast or slow rate of change; it’s about gradualism/tree of live being nonexistent in the fossil record, neither before nor after periods of stasis. If you focus on semantics/misleading words and ignore the facts, how intellectually honest is that?

There you go making your easily refutable error again. There are limited times of gradual change. There never was a prediction of records of gradual change for all species. There is a prediction that we would find transitional fossils. And we have found countless transitional fossils and they all confirm the phylogenetic tree. There neve was a prediction that we would find all of the transitional fossils.

Your argument is a strawman. You expect to see the impossible and that was never promised to you.

 

[LIIA]

"vestigial" does not mean it has no function.

Obviously, you don’t understand the ignorant claims that you are parroting. Aren’t you claiming that the appendix is a vestigial organ? If not, what exactly is your claim?

Again, The article below clearly stated “THE IDEA OF THE APPENDIX BEING A VESTIGIAL ORGAN SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISCARDED.”

The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature - PMC (nih.gov)

Do you even know what "vestigial" means? Because the way you used this word in that sentence, suggests that you don't.

Lets not play a silly semantic game.

First, I’m the one who used the word “vestigial” not you, I'm simply correcting your parroted claims because “vestigial” is the correct word that the proponent of the ToE such as yourself use when they make their alleged claims about these organs.

Second, again, I'm saying health problems of the appendix as well as many other organs are associated with the aging process; your interpretations or claims of the appendix being vestigial are merely outdated ignorant claims and I already explained why multiple times. See #3162.

 

[LIIA]

You just stated the obvious. You seem to be also making the argument that evolution theory is somehow "bad" or even "incorrect" because it doesn't include moral values.

How many times I repeated that the impact of the ToE on morality has nothing to do with the scientific refutation of the theory? Do you understand English?

I'm not even going to go there. Because it is irrelevant.
Whatever ideologies were born, if any actually did - doesn't matter, inspired by a theory in biology, has no bearing on the validity of that theory.

So at best, this is just a red herring.

Again: not even wrong.

It's a theory that explains how species originate. That's it. It has nothing to do with morals, values, whatever. The more you double down on this nonsense, the more in the category of "not even wrong" you are burying yourself.

Can you understand that you are just arguing a red herring? I guess not.
It doesn't matter to the validity of the theory.

If people shape their political views based on this theory, I can only call them foolish - whatever those views are (for better or worse). Again, it's a theory that addresses the subject of species origination. Trying to morph it into a political ideology is not more or less then a misapplication.

The only reason you bring it up, is because you are religiously desperate to argue against the theory and can't manage to do it with a proper argument that actually addresses the theory and the evidence for it.

So instead, you need to resort to strawmen, quote mining and red herrings.

No.

More red herrings. Actually, this kind of smells like an ad hominem...
"Darwin was an a-hole, therefor evolution is wrong".
Something like that.

Really what’s wrong with you guys? Can’t you keep track of a simple argument? Let me remind you.

In your post #3171, you claimed, “Intellectual honesty is not a trait common among creationists”. Obviously your absurd accusations were aimed at me but I’m not here to waste time on nonsense, I didn’t respond, then in # 3187 Audie repeated the same accusations. So in my response # 3194 to her, I wanted to discuss “Morality” as a concept and how it relates or fits at both ends. What does it mean? What is the reference of morality? Why something would be moral, immoral? Why would you choose to be moral?

It was a response to the accusation of being immoral but not to return another empty accusation but rather to discuss the concept. If natural interactions of matter control the outcome, if our conduct is reduced to an outcome of a chemical reaction, if your genes control your conduct, do you have a choice, can you call the outcome of a natural process moral or immoral?

And as I said in # 3235 “The evolutionary concept eliminates any meaning or reference for Honesty/Morality. It becomes a matter of relative preference or need as it fits in the struggle for survival. Those proponents of the ToE who claims to embrace honesty/morality and extend a helping hand to the weak and disabled are necessarily hypocrites who are betraying the only principle of nature to eliminate the unfit along the natural course towards prosperity.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously, you don’t understand the ignorant claims that you are parroting. Aren’t you claiming that the appendix is a vestigial organ? If not, what exactly is your claim?

Again, The article below clearly stated “THE IDEA OF THE APPENDIX BEING A VESTIGIAL ORGAN SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISCARDED.”

The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature - PMC (nih.gov)



Lets not play a silly semantic game.

First, I’m the one who used the word “vestigial” not you, I'm simply correcting your parroted claims because “vestigial” is the correct word that the proponent of the ToE such as yourself use when they make their alleged claims about these organs.

Second, again, I'm saying health problems of the appendix as well as many other organs are associated with the aging process; your interpretations or claims of the appendix being vestigial are merely outdated ignorant claims and I already explained why multiple times. See #3162.

The appendix may not be vestigial.

But you admitted that all of the other are vestigial. I am not playing word games. You just do not understand the terms that you are abusing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times I repeated that the impact of the ToE on morality has nothing to do with the scientific refutation of the theory? Do you understand English?



Really what’s wrong with you guys? Can’t you keep track of a simple argument? Let me remind you.

In your post #3171, you claimed, “Intellectual honesty is not a trait common among creationists”. Obviously your absurd accusations were aimed at me but I’m not here to waste time on nonsense, I didn’t respond, then in # 3187 Audie repeated the same accusations. So in my response # 3194 to her, I wanted to discuss “Morality” as a concept and how it relates or fits at both ends. What does it mean? What is the reference of morality? Why something would be moral, immoral? Why would you choose to be moral?

It was a response to the accusation of being immoral but not to return another empty accusation but rather to discuss the concept. If natural interactions of matter control the outcome, if our conduct is reduced to an outcome of a chemical reaction, if your genes control your conduct, do you have a choice, can you call the outcome of a natural process moral or immoral?

And as I said in # 3235 “The evolutionary concept eliminates any meaning or reference for Honesty/Morality. It becomes a matter of relative preference or need as it fits in the struggle for survival. Those proponents of the ToE who claims to embrace honesty/morality and extend a helping hand to the weak and disabled are necessarily hypocrites who are betraying the only principle of nature to eliminate the unfit along the natural course towards prosperity.”

Why do those accurate accusations bother you so much?

Once again, you should be trying to learn. Ask proper questions and people will help you.

 

[LIIA]

You speak as if there was only single celled life before the cambrian explosion.
In reality, multi-cellular life pre-dates the cambrian explosion by 50 to 100 million years.

And that "geological instant" took 20 to 60million years (depending where you wish to draw the line).

First, I said about 3.5 billion years from the alleged LUCA, there was nothing but single-celled microbial life, then the sudden Cambrian explosion of extraordinary complex creatures of virtually every major animal phyla appeared. Do you think it would make a difference to argue that it was 3.4 not 3.5 billion years? This is ridiculous.

Second, you’re talking about the Ediacaran period from about 635 million years ago to the beginning of the Cambrian. In that period only macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms were found. Also there are no ancestors to the Cambrian creatures were found in the Ediacaran period.

Third, the explosion of life with a massive leap from single-celled organisms to complex creatures looks nothing like what the ToE speculated about slowly branching tree of life where you have one organism diverging into many other organisms. The alleged tree does not exist in the fossil record, neither before nor after the Cambrian explosion.

Yes, we've been over this and it was explained to you at length, ad nauseum.
Darwin was wrong. Evolution is not a constant slow trend of change, but rather change comes in waves with peaks of "rapid gradual change" when local optimums shift, and downs of very slow to even no gradual change in times of stasis / local optimum.

It's called punctuated equilibrium.

Yes, Darwin was wrong, and you make another false claim about gradual change taking place before the periods of stasis, which is false based on the evidence of the fossil record.

There is no evolutionary change during the periods of stasis. Per the ToE, the change must be gradual and very slow; the gradual change should take place before and after the periods of stasis, but as it turned out, such gradualism is nonexistent in the fossil record. The entire geological history is characterized by periods of stasis. Again, alleged exceptions don’t prove an assumed rule that was supposed to dominate the geological history.

That's false.
It exists in the fossil record, it exists in comparative anatomy, it exists in DNA... it even exists in geographic distribution of species.

The reason why you shift from the fossil record to DNA and comparative anatomy is because you know that the fossil record doesn’t support the speculated gradualism. You are talking about interpretations or speculations but if the “tree of life" as predicted by the ToE with organisms diverting into other organisms is true on a tremendous scale that gave rise to every single organism alive or ever lived on earth, then such gradualism must be seen in the fossil record but it’s not.

So we are just going to ignore all progress that was made the last 200 years in the field and instead we are just going to pretend that point out errors that Darwin made 200 years ago, means that the modern theory is incorrect? And simply ignore that those errors are no longer part of the model today?

Not at all.

First, we’re not ignoring any progress and Darwin was not wrong to admit the lack of gradualism in the geological history, it was a fact at his time and still a fact today after two centuries of research.

Second, regardless of Darwin’s speculations but the modern theory itself “the modern synthesis" is wrong. The latest 21st century science disproved all the central assumptions of the modern synthesis (neo-darwinism). No exception. See # 753 & 781.

That's like saying that the modern model of gravity (relativity) is wrong because Newton didn't know about the relativity of time and how it relates to gravity

It’s the other way around; you deny the 21st century science (See # 753 & 781) and stick to an outdated theory (MS). That’s like saying the theory of general relativity is wrong because it deviates from the classical Newtonian model.

Yes, Darwin was wrong, but this is not the point, what matters is the fact that the central assumptions of the modern ToE (the MS) were disproved.

 

[LIIA]

Why would you say such a stupid thing?

In my posts #3194 & #3235, I explained how morality as a concept fits in the evolutionary view. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons. Your response with nothing but emotional denial is absurd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, I said about 3.5 billion years from the alleged LUCA, there was nothing but single-celled microbial life, then the sudden Cambrian explosion of extraordinary complex creatures of virtually every major animal phyla appeared. Do you think it would make a difference to argue that it was 3.4 not 3.5 billion years? This is ridiculous.

Second, you’re talking about the Ediacaran period from about 635 million years ago to the beginning of the Cambrian. In that period only macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms were found. Also there are no ancestors to the Cambrian creatures were found in the Ediacaran period.

Third, the explosion of life with a massive leap from single-celled organisms to complex creatures looks nothing like what the ToE speculated about slowly branching tree of life where you have one organism diverging into many other organisms. The alleged tree does not exist in the fossil record, neither before nor after the Cambrian explosion.

Your knowledge is a good fifty years out of date. Do you know why there were very few fossils before the Cambrian, think about it. See if you can get the right answer. At any rate there are older fossils. They are rare and scientists did not know what to look for. But once they knew what to look for they found quite a few more.

You are once again using strawman arguments.

Yes, Darwin was wrong, and you make another false claim about gradual change taking place before the periods of stasis, which is false based on the evidence of the fossil record.

No, it is not. How many times does this need to be repeated? It was never predicted that a complete record of gradualism, or even anything like it, would be found in the fossil record. So not finding gradualism where it was not predicted to be found does not help you.

You do not understand your own arguments.

There is no evolutionary change during the periods of stasis. Per the ToE, the change must be gradual and very slow; the gradual change should take place before and after the periods of stasis, but as it turned out, such gradualism is nonexistent in the fossil record. The entire geological history is characterized by periods of stasis. Again, alleged exceptions don’t prove an assumed rule that was supposed to dominate the geological history.

How are you going to prove that?

The reason why you shift from the fossil record to DNA and comparative anatomy is because you know that the fossil record doesn’t support the speculated gradualism. You are talking about interpretations or speculations but if the “tree of life" as predicted by the ToE with organisms diverting into other organisms is true on a tremendous scale that gave rise to every single organism alive or ever lived on earth, then such gradualism must be seen in the fossil record but it’s not.

No, I switch to DNA because it is stronger evidence.

The fossil record was always predicted to be incomplete.

Not at all.

First, we’re not ignoring any progress and Darwin was not wrong to admit the lack of gradualism in the geological history, it was a fact at his time and still a fact today after two centuries of research.

Second, regardless of Darwin’s speculations but the modern theory itself “the modern synthesis" is wrong. The latest 21st century science disproved all the central assumptions of the modern synthesis (neo-darwinism). No exception. See # 753 & 781.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

It’s the other way around; you deny the 21st century science (See # 753 & 781) and stick to an outdated theory (MS). That’s like saying the theory of general relativity is wrong because it deviates from the classical Newtonian model.

And there you go, admitting that you are wrong again. That is not how you debate properly.

Yes, Darwin was wrong, but this is not the point, what matters is the fact that the central assumptions of the modern ToE (the MS) were disproved.

Darwin was not perfect, but he was not "wrong". And when were these supposed "central assumptions" disproved? All you have are some papers that you did not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my posts #3194 & #3235, I explained how morality as a concept fits in the evolutionary view. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons. Your response with nothing but emotional denial is absurd.

It does you no good to refer back to arguments that you already lost. Perhaps you should try to make them again and see if you can support them more thoroughly the second time around. No one is going to go back and revisit your past failures.

 

[LIIA]

Have you ever wondered why biologists don't consider this to be an argument against evolution at all?

They do. Why you think they don’t, it’s a mystery that was never resolved.

The Cambrian explosion is known among scientists as “Darwin's dilemma”. It’s a dilemma that Darwin acknowledged as a problem that defies explanation, simply because it disproves gradualism. As Stephen Jay Gould put it: “Nothing distressed Darwin more than the Cambrian explosion.”

In a moment of geological time, enormous diversification/radiation of life appeared in the exquisitely preserved fossils of the Cambrian period without any evolutionary history.

The geologically sudden appearance of all major complex animal phyla during this period without any trace of the gradual transitional steps is a mystery that was never resolved. Within the vast bulk of the Precambrian (about 3.5 billion years), there were no animals or any transitional steps to explain the Cambrian life. The development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information. “The big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses is where does all that new information come from?

Stephen J. Gould, acknowledged this problem. He said, “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life”. He also said, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution”

2013, Dr. Mark McMenamin said, “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse.”

Not acknowledging the Cambrian dilemma is a stance based on ignorant bias or mere wishful thinking not the evidence of the real world.

Here are some considerations/challenges to the ToE/Gradualism posed by the Cambrian explosion:

a) One of the most popular explanations for the missing Precambrian fossils is that the Precambrian animals were too soft and too small to have been preserved. Evidence showed very fragile and soft microscopic remnants of Precambrian life preserved in lower strata, which poses the question “why the larger ancestral forms that supposedly evolved into the Cambrian animals couldn’t be preserved”. IOW, if you can pursue something that fragile, why couldn't you in the same strata of rock preserve the immediate ancestor of a hard-shell trilobite?

b) The organisms that we know today fall into one or another of those major body plans first appeared in the Cambrian explosion, which deepens the Cambrian mystery since the major differences were present right at the beginning, it’s not a gradually increasing curve of the number of phyla growing over time as speculated by the ToE.

c) Neo-Darwinism proposes that new proteins are constructed by the dual mechanisms of genetic mutations and natural selection as the genetic instructions for building proteins are copied, an occasional error can alter their contents, if these accidental revisions prove beneficial to survival, they are selected or preserved and passed on to future generations over eons of time, these small changes accumulate and new proteins cell types and even Cambrian carnivores gradually evolved into existence, which proved to totally contradict the evidence of the Cambrian life.

The biological structure of a Cambrian trilobite was as complex and sophisticated as a modern crab, its organs included a brain, gut, heart and compound eyes, each organ was constructed from specific types of cells each cell type was made from dozens of specialized protein molecules and each protein was assembled from DNA genetic codes, now for the evolutionary process to transform a simple Precambrian organism like a sponge with four or five cell types into a Cambrian trilobite, that's a huge leap in complexity that requires a vast amount of new genetic information, where does that information come from that's the central challenge to the ToE imposed by the Cambrian explosion.

d) The odds among all the possible amino acid combinations that mutations would stumble upon a combination of a single new short functioning three-dimensional protein molecule/chain is roughly 1 in 10 to the 74th power or one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. So, on the question of something like the Cambrian explosion, it’s not possible that unguided random mutations and natural selection can accomplish what needs to be accomplished to explain new numerous functional proteins of all forms of life that appeared within that period.

But the inability of random mutations to generate genes and proteins is only part of the problem since the Cambrian body plans demanded more than new DNA genetic information, the body plan does not reside at the DNA level, while DNA carries the instructions to manufacture proteins it cannot alone assemble them into cell types or arrange cell types into new "tissues and organs" or "tissues and organs" into body plans, instead the formation of body plans ultimately requires another level of information/instructions that direct the development of complex animals from fertilized eggs to control the division, alignment and migration of cells toward targeted areas into patterns that will form the tissues and organs through a process of cell specification and differentiation to perform particular roles to be an eye, heart, limb, etc.

The process to build different kinds of organisms depends on the instruction set through the flow of info of a magnitude beyond anything that we can conceive. The cell machinery does not just read the genome. It imposes extensive patterns of marking and expression on the genome. Without purposeful interpretation of DNA towards meaningful functions, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info.

The higher-level information that's required for building new tissues and organs and body plans isn't found in DNA, that means that you can mutate DNA indefinitely without respect to probabilistic limits, without respect to time and number of trials and you're never going to get the kind of form and structure you need to build a new organism. The DNA is simply the wrong tool for the job and no amount of time is going to overcome that limitation. That has a devastating implication for the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection because it also fails to explain the origin of the huge volume of complex information that controls the development of the body plans of the Cambrian life.

 

[LIIA]

Claiming to know my emotional state
is dishonest.
Misquoting me is dishonest.
Arguments from ignorance and
incredulity are fallacies.
Tossing in references to Hitler are
considered an automatic loss.
I just skimmed your post, this isn't a
a comprehensive listing of where
all you are off the rails.

Making a false statement about ToE
as you in your last paragraph as basis
for a false and invidious accusation
of hypocrisy is contemptible.

What I actually say is that it is impossible
to be an informed creationist who is
intellectually honest.

I didn’t claim to know your emotional state. I know what you wrote.

It’s ironic that you deny what I said while continuing your meaningless emotional accusations. Obviously, this is all what you can do. You cannot engage on a rational argument. Thanks anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They do. Why you think they don’t, it’s a mystery that was never resolved.

The Cambrian explosion is known among scientists as “Darwin's dilemma”. It’s a dilemma that Darwin acknowledged as a problem that defies explanation, simply because it disproves gradualism. As Stephen Jay Gould put it: “Nothing distressed Darwin more than the Cambrian explosion.”

In a moment of geological time, enormous diversification/radiation of life appeared in the exquisitely preserved fossils of the Cambrian period without any evolutionary history.

The geologically sudden appearance of all major complex animal phyla during this period without any trace of the gradual transitional steps is a mystery that was never resolved. Within the vast bulk of the Precambrian (about 3.5 billion years), there were no animals or any transitional steps to explain the Cambrian life. The development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information. “The big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses is where does all that new information come from?

Stephen J. Gould, acknowledged this problem. He said, “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life”. He also said, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution”

2013, Dr. Mark McMenamin said, “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse.”

Not acknowledging the Cambrian dilemma is a stance based on ignorant bias or mere wishful thinking not the evidence of the real world.

Here are some considerations/challenges to the ToE/Gradualism posed by the Cambrian explosion:

a) One of the most popular explanations for the missing Precambrian fossils is that the Precambrian animals were too soft and too small to have been preserved. Evidence showed very fragile and soft microscopic remnants of Precambrian life preserved in lower strata, which poses the question “why the larger ancestral forms that supposedly evolved into the Cambrian animals couldn’t be preserved”. IOW, if you can pursue something that fragile, why couldn't you in the same strata of rock preserve the immediate ancestor of a hard-shell trilobite?

b) The organisms that we know today fall into one or another of those major body plans first appeared in the Cambrian explosion, which deepens the Cambrian mystery since the major differences were present right at the beginning, it’s not a gradually increasing curve of the number of phyla growing over time as speculated by the ToE.

c) Neo-Darwinism proposes that new proteins are constructed by the dual mechanisms of genetic mutations and natural selection as the genetic instructions for building proteins are copied, an occasional error can alter their contents, if these accidental revisions prove beneficial to survival, they are selected or preserved and passed on to future generations over eons of time, these small changes accumulate and new proteins cell types and even Cambrian carnivores gradually evolved into existence, which proved to totally contradict the evidence of the Cambrian life.

The biological structure of a Cambrian trilobite was as complex and sophisticated as a modern crab, its organs included a brain, gut, heart and compound eyes, each organ was constructed from specific types of cells each cell type was made from dozens of specialized protein molecules and each protein was assembled from DNA genetic codes, now for the evolutionary process to transform a simple Precambrian organism like a sponge with four or five cell types into a Cambrian trilobite, that's a huge leap in complexity that requires a vast amount of new genetic information, where does that information come from that's the central challenge to the ToE imposed by the Cambrian explosion.

d) The odds among all the possible amino acid combinations that mutations would stumble upon a combination of a single new short functioning three-dimensional protein molecule/chain is roughly 1 in 10 to the 74th power or one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. So, on the question of something like the Cambrian explosion, it’s not possible that unguided random mutations and natural selection can accomplish what needs to be accomplished to explain new numerous functional proteins of all forms of life that appeared within that period.

But the inability of random mutations to generate genes and proteins is only part of the problem since the Cambrian body plans demanded more than new DNA genetic information, the body plan does not reside at the DNA level, while DNA carries the instructions to manufacture proteins it cannot alone assemble them into cell types or arrange cell types into new "tissues and organs" or "tissues and organs" into body plans, instead the formation of body plans ultimately requires another level of information/instructions that direct the development of complex animals from fertilized eggs to control the division, alignment and migration of cells toward targeted areas into patterns that will form the tissues and organs through a process of cell specification and differentiation to perform particular roles to be an eye, heart, limb, etc.

The process to build different kinds of organisms depends on the instruction set through the flow of info of a magnitude beyond anything that we can conceive. The cell machinery does not just read the genome. It imposes extensive patterns of marking and expression on the genome. Without purposeful interpretation of DNA towards meaningful functions, the DNA is nothing more than storage of coded info.

The higher-level information that's required for building new tissues and organs and body plans isn't found in DNA, that means that you can mutate DNA indefinitely without respect to probabilistic limits, without respect to time and number of trials and you're never going to get the kind of form and structure you need to build a new organism. The DNA is simply the wrong tool for the job and no amount of time is going to overcome that limitation. That has a devastating implication for the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection because it also fails to explain the origin of the huge volume of complex information that controls the development of the body plans of the Cambrian life.

Since when was the Cambrian explosion known as Darwin's dilemma

And why give us another long post full of nonsense and strawman arugments?

Ooh, and we have a poor odds argument too. Sorry, but those sad arguments by people that had no understanding of biochemistry are worthless. They are just complex arguments from ignorance loaded with false "facts". Try to find a peer reviewed article that makes such arguments. You will not find one.

 

[LIIA]

Two things about your final paragraph.

First, it is false. Sudden " jumps"
are not all that is seen.
Whatever a "jump" might be. Or "sudden".
Whatever you are " quoting" is not from
scietific lit., or is grossly misquoted.

Really?

Ok, thanks.

Second. I doubt you can find any reference
in the literature that speaks of " fully formed".

Unless maybe it's referring to an embryo
as not a fully formed adult.

And I even more doubt you can say what
" fully formed" wouldeven means like, in contrast to what...not
fully formed? What would that even be?

Seriously?

I intentionally use the same language of paleontologists to avoid nonsensical arguments such as yours. These quotes were repeated multiple times, but it appears that you neither read nor understand. Again, Stephen J Gould said in his book The Panda's Thumb,

“Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed”

In fact, the Cambrian fossils are good examples of exquisitely preserved, fully formed life without any trace of the speculated gradual transitional steps. See # 3291

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

Ok, thanks.



Seriously?

I intentionally use the same language of paleontologists to avoid nonsensical arguments such as yours. These quotes were repeated multiple times, but it appears that you neither read nor understand. Again, Stephen J Gould said in his book The Panda's Thumb,

“Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed”

In fact, the Cambrian fossils are good examples of exquisitely preserved, fully formed life without any trace of the speculated gradual transitional steps. See # 3291

Of course life is "fully formed". Creationists cannot even explain what something not "fully formed" would look like.

One of the dumbest arguments ever.

 

[LIIA]

I checked these out and am very impressed. I never knew that anyone agreed with me about anything so it's heart warming to see this. I arrived at the same conclusions by a different route. I think the primary difference between them and me is that I consider "survival of the fittest" as a far distant tertiary cause of "change in species". I believe "natural selection" is so weak in causing change that it shouldn't even be studied at our low level of knowledge at this time. All individuals are equally fit. No individual is more likely to be naturally selected for extermination except in specific and isolated instances. It certainly plays a tiny role in change in species.

With respect to your view on the ToE, you’re not alone, not at all. See the video below.

Darwin's Dilemma - YouTube

“Natural selection” doesn’t cause any change. mutations are not random. Directed mutations cause very specific changes to allow an organism to better fit its environment. See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

When we finally know the truth it might not fit well into an equation or six but it will be simple enough anyone can understand.

The truth is really simple. Everything is caused with the exception of the first cause.

The causality chain is always in need for a preceding cause till the chain breaks at the point when time no longer exists. The causal entity beyond the boundaries of time (and space) is a brute fact without start or end, i.e., a non-contingent origin that is necessary to explain every contingent.

I know you have a unique perspective on consciousness and life. In fact, Quantum physics/the anthropic principle provided a new understanding of consciousness as it relates/interacts with matter and the entire universe. It introduces a consciousness model within a higher dimensional framework, integrating elements of physics and metaphysics. Matter and consciousness are regarded as dual aspects of one underlying reality integrating the physical and the metaphysical. See # 3086.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 155 | Religious Forums

People will believe anything at all if they want to and history has shown there are always snake oil salesmen to sell them on it. People wanted to believe Darwin because it removed God from life and from all things mundane. It took a most highly complex reality and put it into "survival of the fittest". No matter it's wrong because it's easy to remember and allows us to walk all over the little guy and all the rest of the weak amongst us. We get what we want unless it's our families being shoved into the ovens.

The ToE concept of random genetic mutations and natural selection is an extreme oversimplification that cannot account for the complexity of life.

Selection doesn’t create anything, and the “astronomical odds of randomness” is a mathematical impossibility. See # 1517

Darwin's Illusion | Page 76 | Religious Forums

The odds among possible amino acid combinations that mutations would stumble upon a combination of a single functioning protein is roughly 1 in 10 to the 74th power or one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

Considering the number of possible combinations that can be randomly produced in nature, there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the alleged evolutionary process, even for a single species.

 

[LIIA]

ROFL.

I just started watching this video and it starts out 'from the knowledge of God's work we shall know him"!!!

Check out the Ancient Reality thread. Ancient Reality Post #818 (last post now)

I've been battling the nonsensical beliefs of Egyptologist for many tears now but now there is proof they are wrong. Specifically there is work from ancient Egypt that could not possibly have been done by egyptians or anyone who came before. From the knowledge of ancient work we will learn about ourselves and perhaps God at the same time.

Of course the irony is lost on believers.

The problem happens when we try to force the explanations of what we don’t know to fit within what we do know. Which necessarily leads to a misleading oversimplification. The absolute reality can very well be beyond our knowledge/imagination.

The work of the Ancients proves beyond doubt that they had access to different type of ancient technologies with means/methods beyond our grasp/knowledge today, or possibly discovered but not allowed for publication. Ancient knowledge was never allowed or meant for the public, it was exclusively kept for the inner circle and may very well continue to be.

While the knowledge of ancient work may shed light on aspects of reality not known or clear to us, but the knowledge of God's work is attainable through the observations of everything in existence. “From the knowledge of God's work, we shall know him", “from the knowledge of the relative effects, we shall know the absolute cause".

 

[LIIA]

I've watched most of this now and while it is quite interesting and makes many valid points it's ground I traveled extensively in my younger days.

Of course all of this is way over my pay grade.

In more recent times though I have a little different perspective. While I see the validity of 'intelligent" design still, I no longer really believe in "intelligent". I believe in logic; that reality and math are logic, that science incorporates logic by means of experiment.

You believe in consciousness, consciousness and intelligence are two flips of the same coin. Being conscious is being aware. Awareness is not limited to the process of acquiring info through sense perception but it’s also associated with the ability of utilizing the info in a meaningful/purposeful manner. That is intelligence.

Intelligence with respect to the rational analysis that translates sense data to adaptive behaviors within an environment/context is a manifestation of consciousness.

I can't know whether God exists or not and I'm sure no one ever will but if there is a Creator then It is a manifestation of the same logic or we are a manifestation of It.

I understand you’re skeptical but if God exists, it means that there is meaning, purpose and consequences. Life is not a purposeless journey that ends with death. Death is merely a transition from a temporary phase to a permanent phase along our journey. See # 3138.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 157 | Religious Forums

If the existence of God is a 50/50 chance to you, then there is a 50% chance that by not fulfilling the purpose of your life, you would be risking your eternal life. It’s a huge risk. Our earthly life (no matter how long it could be) would be totally negligible compared to our eternal life. Mathematically, any amount compared to infinity is effectively zero. If there is a 50% chance that your meal is poisoned, would you still eat it and risk your life?

In fact, from my religious perspective, with respect to believing in God, there is no chances or percentages, you either believe or you don’t.

It is painfully obvious that reductionistic science has gotten far too big for is britches. More accurately few people understand science and more and more scientists don't understand science either. They draw conclusions and use them to extrapolate all of reality and this is visible in the blind adherence to Peers and Et Als. The only components of science are Observation > Experiment and neither of these are group projects. All ideas are and always have been individual as are the observations and interpretations of them and evidence. Thought is individual. Consciousness is individual. That an individual would have the hubris to exclude the possibility of a creator simply shows they do not understand science or what science studies. It's one thing to say that in your considered opinion there is a low probability God exists but it's much different to say there isn't, can't be, or that science says there is no God. If you estimate the odds of something at 0% or 100% you are engaging in a circular argument or superstition.

They try to force what they don’t know to fit within what they think they do. It’s an illogical attempt to encompass the limitless within the limited or the absolute within the relative. It will not work.

I believe we will find a natural explanation for everything though some questions can never be answered. I further believe some of the answers would look like the supernatural to people today. Each time we learn a new natural explanation the atheists will believe God is finally utterly disproven and now we know everything.

“Natural explanation" is a misleading term. "Natural” means that something exists beyond our influence/control. Being “Natural" is not an explanation. It’s only an observed fact. The invisible “Natural" forces of unknown nature that control matter is neither an explanation nor a mechanism. It’s merely a given name to an observed phenomenon (such as dark energy, strong nuclear force, etc.). In that sense, we don't have any explanation of any kind, its only observed behaviors.

See # 1906.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 96 | Religious Forums

They are saying what the world could look like if seen through definitions that exclude all living things (consciousness)

Consciousness is an integral aspect of reality that cannot be excluded.

Quantum reality posits that quantum states suddenly resolve when they’re measured (the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness); the act of observation with the human mind is causing the world to manifest changes. Consciousness has the capacity to change the behavior of matter.

Reality is very much structured so we can understand it but then this is probably because ultimately we are a part of reality.

Yes, John Archibald Wheeler suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed. Consciousness and the quantum state of the universe are interrelated; the entire universe would be in a superposition of states that only collapses to the realm of classical reality through the observation of the conscious mind.

Per the anthropic principle, observations could only happen in a universe capable of developing conscious life.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

Ok, thanks.



Seriously?

I intentionally use the same language of paleontologists to avoid nonsensical arguments such as yours. These quotes were repeated multiple times, but it appears that you neither read nor understand. Again, Stephen J Gould said in his book The Panda's Thumb,

“Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed”

In fact, the Cambrian fossils are good examples of exquisitely preserved, fully formed life without any trace of the speculated gradual transitional steps. See # 3291

You need link. Odds are that there are transitional fossils for most cases since his time.

That was 50 years ago. And please, stop with the "fully formed" nonsense.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, on land smooth transitions are all but nonexistent.

True but it's also true for aquatic life such as the example of the Cambrian explosion.

There is no need for us to demonstrate smooth transitions. The idea that there should be is a strawman argument.

There is.

The ToE predicts that every single life ever existed, came through a slow process of gradual changes through millions of transitional forms. Such prediction requires abundance of evidence in the fossil record, but again the fact is that “the fossil record does not support gradualism".

Nope. Darwin never predicted that we would find endless fossils. He predicted that we would find transitional fossils, and we did.

Never!!! it's another one of the endless, ignorant claims of yours.

Darwin wrote " Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”