Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Let me explain: there are many various beliefs called Christian. Certainly does not mean they are all true according to God.

But they all base their faiths on the Bible. The one's arguing against hellfire use the Bible for that belief.


Once again, don't trust me, go to the Christians only part of the forum and start a thread like "Do you believe in hellfire, yes or no and why?" II cannot do that since I am not a Christian. You might learn a lot about your own religion if you do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, surely I have. And again -- there is no "proof" that is a go-between that evolved. No evidence based on recognition of cellular change "evolving" to something different.

And thank you for confirming that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Since you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and you refuse to learn what qualifies as evidence no one has to ever provide you with evidence.

To be able to demand evidence one has to be able to recognize it when it is given to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

And thank you for confirming that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Since you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and you refuse to learn what qualifies as evidence no one has to ever provide you with evidence.

To be able to demand evidence one has to be able to recognize it when it is given to you.

I found the following interesting under the subject of timeline of evolutionary history: "By 1000 Ma First non-marine eukaryotes move onto land. They were photosynthetic and multicellular, indicating that plants evolved much earlier than originally thought.[49]
750 Ma Beginning of animal evolution.[50][51]"

Just saying that so it seems that scientists find plants appeared on the earth before animal evolution. Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found the following interesting under the subject of timeline of evolutionary history: "By 1000 Ma First non-marine eukaryotes move onto land. They were photosynthetic and multicellular, indicating that plants evolved much earlier than originally thought.[49]
750 Ma Beginning of animal evolution.[50][51]"

Just saying that so it seems that scientists find plants appeared on the earth before animal evolution. Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

That article is about plants on land. Did you not notice that? But yes, plants would j have appeared first.. They had to. Think about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

That article is about plants on land. Did you not notice that?

(Yes, I did..)

But yes, plants would j have appeared first.. They had to. Think about it.

Yes, I definitely thought about it. The Bible says at Genesis 1:11-13 -- Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."
Yes, that seems reasonable, but there's more because of the atmosphere. That was on the third day (not a 24-hour period but a time with a beginning and a closure leading into the next 'day' time period) First plants, then animals. Yes, it's interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Yes, I did..)



Yes, I definitely thought about it. The Bible says at Genesis 1:11-13 -- Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."
Yes, that seems reasonable, but there's more because of the atmosphere. That was on the third day (not a 24-hour period but a time with a beginning and a closure leading into the next 'day' time period) First plants, then animals. Yes, it's interesting.

Forget Genesis. If you want to count the hits then you have to count the misses too. I was talking about in real life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Forget Genesis. If you want to count the hits then you have to count the misses too. I was talking about in real life.

I realize what your inclination is. But Genesis creation account follows real life. There's quite a bit about the water on the earth, water in the atmosphere, light diffused.more perhaps later.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

(Yes, I did..)



Yes, I definitely thought about it. The Bible says at Genesis 1:11-13 -- Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."
Yes, that seems reasonable, but there's more because of the atmosphere. That was on the third day (not a 24-hour period but a time with a beginning and a closure leading into the next 'day' time period) First plants, then animals. Yes, it's interesting.

Flowering plants, including those fruit trees, did not appear until about 130 million years ago. Well after the origin of plants. Grasses are only known as far back as 55 million years. Then too is the origin of the sun that follows the emergence of plants. Kind of strange that organisms that need sunlight and warmth would come before the sun.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

(Yes, I did..)



Yes, I definitely thought about it. The Bible says at Genesis 1:11-13 -- Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."
Yes, that seems reasonable, but there's more because of the atmosphere. That was on the third day (not a 24-hour period but a time with a beginning and a closure leading into the next 'day' time period) First plants, then animals. Yes, it's interesting.

How do you differentiate a timeline by guess work and imagination from one that was divine dictation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize what your inclination is. But Genesis creation account follows real life. There's quite a bit about the water on the earth, water in the atmosphere, light diffused.more perhaps later.

No, it really does not. And don't forget that there are two versions of the myth in Genesis.

 

[LIIA]

Actually I can say that about you, you are the one using false semantics.

The mechanisms are as follow:

• Natural Selection
• Mutations
• Genetic Drift
• Gene Flow
• Genetic Hitchhiking

All of them are tested mechanisms...but you want to ignore contemporary Evolution theory, and constantly attacking Darwin for not just "survival of the fittest" and Social Darwinism, both of them invented by HERBERT SPENCER.

Darwin had nothing to do with Social Darwinism, and yet in past posts, you attack him for it.

​

You are projecting.

You are the one in "denial" of what actually happened between Darwin and Spencer.

And in the past, you had also blame Darwin for the WW2 Holocaust.

Darwin don't play politics or plan war strategy, and the Holocaust happened more than 50 years after his death. Hence, you're the one making "empty claims", and being intellectual dishonest doing that.

And the whole Darwin/Holocaust link is "emotional accusation".

You two replies/posts above, are nothing more than projection and shameless hypocrisy. Look in the mirror.

And lastly, LIIA.

Have you seen, read or study today's biology?

If you have, it never talk of Spencer's Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism is political and social philosophy, IT ISN'T BIOLOGY, LIIA.

You seem so (falsely) focus on Darwin that you ignored the modern theory, "modern" as in contemporary and today. Natural Selection have seen been revised, corrected and updated, and there are no 1940s' politics involved.

Yes, you keep making false claims. Your last post, showed that you are the one making empty claim and emotional accusations.

Herbert Spencer! Again! You cannot be serious!

How many times we went over this? You are still very confused.

The concern here is ideas/concepts not persons. Yes, earlier on this thread we touched on “Social Darwinism”, “Scientific Racism”, “Eugenics", etc. the influence of the ToE was merely a byproduct of our original discussion about the ToE itself. Others initiated the talk about the influence, and I provided my input on the subject but as I clarified many times, I never claimed that the negative influence of the ToE has anything to do with the refutation or validity of the ToE as a scientific theory.

Again, I'm not concerned with attacking persons; my concern is the validity of ideas/concepts. The influence of the theory came as a byproduct of the discussion. We touched on the influence as well as many other subjects, which were directly or indirectly related to the main discussion. I hope it's clear enough.

 

[LIIA]

Biology is a hodgepodge of real science and mysticism and now days the real science is taking over. But most of the real progress exists only in study that can be reduced to experiment and the most important things about life can not be reduced. Even understanding the interplay between genetics and behavior which will one day be necessary to understanding how "evolution" really works has hardly begun.

I've followed many of your links and find most of them helpful on some level.

Darwin was far ahead of his time but he was still wrong about everything.

Most believers in Science don't understand that someday even Newton will be seen as quaint or misguided. It won't change his importance to science or progress though. Da Vinci wasn't even really a scientist but he was still a great man with a sharp mind and insights into reality.

Every man is a product of his time and place just as every man is a product of his own beliefs. These truths are self evident.

Yes, science is ever changing. Our scientific views are relative to our knowledge at a given point in time. Right or wrong, Darwin provided his input; the concern now is not Darwin as a person/scientist but rather the validity of ideas. Not original evolutionary ideas but rather the contemporary evolutionary theory, i.e., the modern synthesis. the focus of my argument has always been the "MS" (#753 & #781)

 

[LIIA]

You know that I can support my claims. You, like him, are incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sciences. You both refuse to learn the basics.

Why is that? Why are you afraid to even learn the basics of science?

You almost never support your claim, as if your mere opinion is enough support to your view. It’s not. Your typical pathetic stance is like “I know better that’s why I'm right and you guys should listen to me". It’s beyond ridiculous. Unless you support your claims, no one would take your nonsense seriously.

Regardless, when you claim that you know what you’re talking about, I believe it’s not exactly a lie, yet it’s still a false statement, simply because your specific knowledge of the ToE is only as good as its obsolete sources.

The 80 years old outdated "modern synthesis” with all of its disproved mechanism are still showing in biology textbooks. Even so scientists understand the need for the "extended evolutionary synthesis” to address the contradiction of the “modern synthesis" with latest 21st century science but there no agreed upon theoretical framework for the “EES" yet. The lack of agreed upon framework for the "EES" doesn’t mean that the “MS" is any less wrong. It doesn’t appear that the “EES" framework will be agreed upon any time soon or the "MS” will be taken out of biology text books, simply because there is nothing to replace it at the time being.

In summary, all mechanisms of the contemporary ToE , i.e., the “MS" are disproved for contradicting latest scientific finds and the proposed “EES" is not agreed upon. Accept it or deny it but this is the status of the ToE today. See #911, #753 & #781.

Abiogenesis is not doing any better either, let alone that it failed miserably to get established as a scientific theory after all of these years of research but also the famous 1953 “Miller–Urey experiment” that transformed the study of the origin of life into a respectable field of inquiry has now been thoroughly discredited simply because it did not simulate the atmosphere conditions of prebiotic earth.

Miller used a mixture of gases that people at the time thought reflected the atmosphere of the early earth (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor) but Scientists now believe the initial atmosphere was mainly composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo in 1983, the original results failed to materialize. Yet, textbooks and proponents of the ToE still talk about Miller’s experiment as if the experiment has scientific importance and fail to realize that at best, Its an invalid experiment with some historical significance.

Even if miller's experiment was valid, you're still light years away from making life, no matter how many molecules you can produce with early earth plausible conditions you're still nowhere near producing a living cell.

Even if you take a sterile test tube with fluid with just the right balance of acidity and alkalinity, the right temperature and all perfect conditions for a living cell and put in it one living cell and poke it with a sterile needle to allow its molecules to leak out into this test tube, now you have all the molecules you need for a living cell, not just the pieces of the molecules but the molecules themselves, yet you still cannot make a living cell out of them, it's not possible to assemble the components into a living cell again. So, what makes you think that a few amino acids dissolved in the ocean are going to give you a living cell? It’s totally unrealistic.

Please, no pathetic comments of the sort explained above, try to be rational if you can. I doubt it though.

You can do better than that. Don't you claim to be a Christian? Try to think how a Christian should act.

This is an obvious acknowledgment that Christianity provides a reference for morality, yet you don’t have any reference. Do you? What is morality to you? Does it mean anything to you? Why?

 

[LIIA]

For evolution, we have evidence from a host of scientific disciplines. For instance, genetics, paleontology, microbiology, molecular biology, chemistry and geology. The list is not limited to just those examples. The same logical criteria for viewing the evidence of science is no different than that used to review evidence for an historical figure. You cannot claim something in science without evidence and the experiments used to test the evidence.

Except that the latest finds of these scientific disciplines are what disproved the fundamental assumptions of the contemporary ToE, i.e., “the modern synthesis”. See # 911, #753 & #781.

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

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

 

[LIIA]

Here is some evidence of evolution. I know a lot of it will be of the kind where one animal doesn't change into another, but that isn't expected.

Of course no animal changes to another, it’s only a ridiculous myth. Yet all your evidence are actually against evolution. See the clarification below.

All the breeds of animals that humans have for food and companionship. The different breeds of dogs, cats, rabbits, pigs, cattle, goats, sheep, etc. All developed by artificial selection to fix traits that make them useful or interesting to us.

The same for plants. Corn, cotton, soybean, wheat, rice, fruit and vegetables all bred for traits that are pleasing to use using artificial selection techniques that mimic natural selection.

All the breeds of animals that humans have for food and companionship essentially stay as the same species, no matter what the extent of the change is but it’s not possible to create a new species through artificial selection.

The evolution of resistant populations of bacteria, insects, weeds, nematodes, and a few other pests to our efforts to control them chemically.

It’s another evidence against the ToE/MS, such organisms always develop the change/ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Especially in microorganisms such as bacteria, the change happens at a frightening speed (1000 fold resistance was achieved in 11 days). We know the change will happen and we know how fast it will happen, it’s not a random change as speculated by the the ToE /MS but rather a directed adaptation process that has nothing to do with randomness. See # 1245.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

he similar genomes found in the Great Apes, that includes us.

So what? Scientists estimate that we share about 60% of our DNA with bananas.

Mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes. Almost every gene found in one species so far has been found in a closely related form in the other. Both the mouse and human genomes contain about 3.1 billion base pairs. Scientists can mimic in mice the effect of DNA alterations that occur in human diseases. Lots of similarity between Mice and humans! See the link.

Why Mouse Matters (genome.gov)

But it’s not about genomes similarity. The body plans of organisms demand more than 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 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 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.

Data is not what creates an organism; it’s the purposeful utilization of data by the living system to build the numerous functions that collectively achieve a body plan. We may very well see very similar genes in very different organisms.

The fossils for different lines of organism that show change over time.

This is the problem, per the ToE. it should be changes over time (gradualistic direct ancestor-descendant evolutionary sequence over time) and it should be by far the dominant rule in the fossil record, but the fact is that it’s neither the dominant rule nor there is a direct line of descent leading from an ancestral to modern species.

The alleged fossils (the exceptions) don’t show continuous direction of change. In most cases alleged descendants lived side by side with or even before alleged ancestors. The dominant rule in the fossil record is the fact that gradualism is nonexistent in the geological history.

The fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion is evidence against the hypothesized gradualism. See #3291

Darwin's Illusion | Page 165 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

You almost never support your claim, as if your mere opinion is enough support to your view. It’s not. Your typical pathetic stance is like “I know better that’s why I'm right and you guys should listen to me". It’s beyond ridiculous. Unless you support your claims, no one would take your nonsense seriously.

Regardless, when you claim that you know what you’re talking about, I believe it’s not exactly a lie, yet it’s still a false statement, simply because your specific knowledge of the ToE is only as good as its obsolete sources.

The 80 years old outdated "modern synthesis” with all of its disproved mechanism are still showing in biology textbooks. Even so scientists understand the need for the "extended evolutionary synthesis” to address the contradiction of the “modern synthesis" with latest 21st century science but there no agreed upon theoretical framework for the “EES" yet. The lack of agreed upon framework for the "EES" doesn’t mean that the “MS" is any less wrong. It doesn’t appear that the “EES" framework will be agreed upon any time soon or the "MS” will be taken out of biology text books, simply because there is nothing to replace it at the time being.

In summary, all mechanisms of the contemporary ToE , i.e., the “MS" are disproved for contradicting latest scientific finds and the proposed “EES" is not agreed upon. Accept it or deny it but this is the status of the ToE today. See #911, #753 & #781.

Abiogenesis is not doing any better either, let alone that it failed miserably to get established as a scientific theory after all of these years of research but also the famous 1953 “Miller–Urey experiment” that transformed the study of the origin of life into a respectable field of inquiry has now been thoroughly discredited simply because it did not simulate the atmosphere conditions of prebiotic earth.

Miller used a mixture of gases that people at the time thought reflected the atmosphere of the early earth (methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor) but Scientists now believe the initial atmosphere was mainly composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo in 1983, the original results failed to materialize. Yet, textbooks and proponents of the ToE still talk about Miller’s experiment as if the experiment has scientific importance and fail to realize that at best, Its an invalid experiment with some historical significance.

Even if miller's experiment was valid, you're still light years away from making life, no matter how many molecules you can produce with early earth plausible conditions you're still nowhere near producing a living cell.

Even if you take a sterile test tube with fluid with just the right balance of acidity and alkalinity, the right temperature and all perfect conditions for a living cell and put in it one living cell and poke it with a sterile needle to allow its molecules to leak out into this test tube, now you have all the molecules you need for a living cell, not just the pieces of the molecules but the molecules themselves, yet you still cannot make a living cell out of them, it's not possible to assemble the components into a living cell again. So, what makes you think that a few amino acids dissolved in the ocean are going to give you a living cell? It’s totally unrealistic.

Please, no pathetic comments of the sort explained above, try to be rational if you can. I doubt it though.

When some says 2 + 2 = 5 and I correct them do I need to support that? Give me a serious claim that is well supported and then I will provide evidence. Or admit that you did not understand part of a refutation and I will go into more detail. You have not made any serious arguments here.

And there you go demonstrating your ignorance again. None of the mechanisms of evolution in the modern synthesis were refuted. Yes, new mechanisms have been found. Science is ever refining itself. You can't seem to understand this. You found authors involved in some of those new mechanisms that tended to over value their own discoveries. That does not refute the old mechanisms. You grab onto any article that you can improperly reinterpret as evidence against evolution when they are only minor tweaks to the theory. All of the authors that you cite accept the fact of evolution, they only vary slightly on the mechanisms.

And you are equally wrong about abiogenesis. Evolution, of course, does not rely on abiogenesis. When you bring that up you are moving the goalposts. You are conceding the evolution argument. Are you sure that you want to do that?

This is an obvious acknowledgment that Christianity provides a reference for morality, yet you don’t have any reference. Do you? What is morality to you? Does it mean anything to you? Why?

Sorry, but you definitely do not qualify for a discussion on morality. If it takes a book of myths to keep you moral that presents a rather negative picture of you. Even I do not think that poorly of you. You are merely misled. You are not immoral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that the latest finds of these scientific disciplines are what disproved the fundamental assumptions of the contemporary ToE, i.e., “the modern synthesis”. See # 911, #753 & #781.

View attachment 72151


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


View attachment 72152

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

Do you know what "click bait" is? They sure have your number. None of your sources even try to refute evolution. Once again, they are only tweaking the mechanisms at most. Yes, we have some new mechanisms and they need to be accepted.

So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course no animal changes to another, it’s only a ridiculous myth. Yet all your evidence are actually against evolution. See the clarification below.



All the breeds of animals that humans have for food and companionship essentially stay as the same species, no matter what the extent of the change is but it’s not possible to create a new species through artificial selection.



It’s another evidence against the ToE/MS, such organisms always develop the change/ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Especially in microorganisms such as bacteria, the change happens at a frightening speed (1000 fold resistance was achieved in 11 days). We know the change will happen and we know how fast it will happen, it’s not a random change as speculated by the the ToE /MS but rather a directed adaptation process that has nothing to do with randomness. See # 1245.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums



So what? Scientists estimate that we share about 60% of our DNA with bananas.

Mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes. Almost every gene found in one species so far has been found in a closely related form in the other. Both the mouse and human genomes contain about 3.1 billion base pairs. Scientists can mimic in mice the effect of DNA alterations that occur in human diseases. Lots of similarity between Mice and humans! See the link.

Why Mouse Matters (genome.gov)

But it’s not about genomes similarity. The body plans of organisms demand more than 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 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 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.

Data is not what creates an organism; it’s the purposeful utilization of data by the living system to build the numerous functions that collectively achieve a body plan. We may very well see very similar genes in very different organisms.



This is the problem, per the ToE. it should be changes over time (gradualistic direct ancestor-descendant evolutionary sequence over time) and it should be by far the dominant rule in the fossil record, but the fact is that it’s neither the dominant rule nor there is a direct line of descent leading from an ancestral to modern species.

The alleged fossils (the exceptions) don’t show continuous direction of change. In most cases alleged descendants lived side by side with or even before alleged ancestors. The dominant rule in the fossil record is the fact that gradualism is nonexistent in the geological history.

The fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion is evidence against the hypothesized gradualism. See #3291

Darwin's Illusion | Page 165 | Religious Forums

No, the Cambrian explosion was not an explosion. It was at least twenty million years long. It still shows gradual change. When you use discredited sources you lose the argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

Flowering plants, including those fruit trees, did not appear until about 130 million years ago. Well after the origin of plants. Grasses are only known as far back as 55 million years. Then too is the origin of the sun that follows the emergence of plants. Kind of strange that organisms that need sunlight and warmth would come before the sun.

I read that the light was evidently diffused and altered over time.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you differentiate a timeline by guess work and imagination from one that was divine dictation?

The only "timeline" in Genesis re the creation is that of days. And many of us know that the word 'day' there does not mean a 24-hour period but rather a set period with a beginning and an ending.