Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Denis Noble is acclaimed in his area of expertise. Evolution is not his area of expertise. You just used an appeal to false authority fallacy.
And you are right, a physiological journal, not an evolutionary biology journal published that non peer reviewed article. You just hit your foot with that shot. And the journal does have peer reviewed articles in it. But not all of them are reviewed. Your favorite article was not reviewed.

This is nothing but “pathetic denial” as previously said by another informed evolutionist "LegionOnomaMoi". If you were confident about your stance, you wouldn’t deny the facts. It’s pathetic. See his post # 2266.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

Again, it’s not about Noble but rather the latest 21st century scientific finds through the work of numerous scientists. Your empty denial wouldn’t change a thing.

First, in his lecture, Noble presented the work of many other prominent scientists that he specifically referenced such as Mattick JS, Shapiro JA, Müller GB, Nelson VR, Heaney JD, Tesar PJ, Davidson NO, Nadeau JH, Jablonka E & Lamb M, Beurton PJ, Falk R & Rheinberger H.-J, Pigliucci M, Gissis SB & Jablonka E, Melham T, Bard J, Werner E.

Second, Noble's paper in question (#753 & #781) is not the only paper that challenged/disproved all the fundamental assumptions of Neo-Darwinism. Many other papers/scientists did the same, see #4087 for other papers by Peter A. Corning, Radomir Crkvenjakov, Henry H. Heng, Edward J. Steele, Reginald M. Gorczynski, Robyn A. Lindley, Yongsheng Liu, Robert Temple, Gensuke Tokoro, Dayal T. Wickramasinghe, N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Gerd B. Müller.

Third, Suzan Mazur book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.” The book is presenting evidence by major scientists from a dozen countries for a paradigm shift that is underway replacing Neo-Darwinism. Denis Noble is only one of several scientists who have overturned Neo-Darwinism, along with many other top scientists such as: James A. Shapiro, Frantisek Baluska, Ricardo Flores, Nigel Goldenfeld, Eugene Koonin, Kalevi Kull, Eviatar Nevo, Peter Saunders, Stuart Newman, Luis P Villarreal, Carl Richard Woese and others.

Fourth, See the links below for the scientific dissent from Darwinism that includes numerous scientists.

Microsoft Word - 2021 Dissent List_May_Final_Update1.docx (discovery.org)

That said, It’s not really about how many on each side of the argument, that would be a fallacious “argumentum ad populum”, but rather it’s about latest scientific finds and the strong challenges against Neo-Darwinism posed by many prominent scientists beyond what can be denied or ignored by any rational and informed person.

 

[LIIA]

Do you think that you are safe?

I neither made nor can make such claim, did I? I only try to stay on the path of righteousness and hope I would be safe, but God is the only judge.

On the other hand, in your post # 3926 you claimed to be safe, again, is there anything other than your wishful thinking to back such claim? Why do you think that you’re safe?

 

[LIIA]

What is your religion? It's morality is almost certainly relative too.

Don’t you already know that I’m a Muslim? Why asking about what you do know?

Morality becomes relative only when it’s up to every individual to define it, but when the defining criteria are ordained by the Creator for everyone to follow, then it’s not a matter of a relative view/preference.

Poorly asked question. There could be quite a few. You should have asked what mine was.

I was asking you not anyone else, didn’t I?

What is the basis to define a morality base “as per your view”?

Sorry, that would be you. You are forgetting that you believe in fairy tales and an immoral god.

Meaningless empty claims as usual.

I did explain my view but only those who can/want to understand would get it.

No, that only reflects on your poor morals. Your error was to assume that just because you do not have proper morals that others suffer the same flaw.

Why the emotional defensive nonsense? I didn’t accuse you of anything. Did I?
I was only discussing a concept. Do you understand? Unless you feel that the concept reflects on you, that’s why you came back with such nonsensical defense and accusations.

 

[LIIA]

But you made another error. How would you know if the fossilized Ediacaran life did not lead to comp!ex Cambrian life? Some of them do appear to be ancestral. But I will wait for you to prove your claim first.

In the Cambrian Period all major animal phyla with complexity/sophistication of the biological structures comparable to modern life started appearing in the fossil record. In addition, the major body plans of the Cambrian life exhibited considerable morphological isolation from one another.

In the Ediacaran period only simple macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms composed of individual cells were found and none bear clear structures that would place them in a living group.

Now for the alleged 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 and endless intermediates/transitional forms.

But the fact is that not one basic type or phyla of marine invertebrate is supported by an ancestral line between single-celled life or Precambrian life and the Cambrian Explosion nor the basic phyla are related to one another.

In almost all cases, the body plans and structures present in Cambrian period animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier strata. No transitional intermediates are found in lower strata to connect the complex Cambrian animals with those simpler living forms of the Precambrian or the Ediacaran life.

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 but Evidence showed very fragile and soft microscopic remnants of Precambrian life preserved in lower strata in such great detail that individual cells can often be recognized. Which poses the question “why the larger ancestral forms that supposedly evolved into the Cambrian animals couldn’t be preserved”. 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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is nothing but “pathetic denial” as previously said by another informed evolutionist "LegionOnomaMoi". If you were confident about your stance, you wouldn’t deny the facts. It’s pathetic. See his post # 2266.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

Again, it’s not about Noble but rather the latest 21st century scientific finds through the work of numerous scientists. Your empty denial wouldn’t change a thing.

First, in his lecture, Noble presented the work of many other prominent scientists that he specifically referenced such as Mattick JS, Shapiro JA, Müller GB, Nelson VR, Heaney JD, Tesar PJ, Davidson NO, Nadeau JH, Jablonka E & Lamb M, Beurton PJ, Falk R & Rheinberger H.-J, Pigliucci M, Gissis SB & Jablonka E, Melham T, Bard J, Werner E.

Second, Noble's paper in question (#753 & #781) is not the only paper that challenged/disproved all the fundamental assumptions of Neo-Darwinism. Many other papers/scientists did the same, see #4087 for other papers by Peter A. Corning, Radomir Crkvenjakov, Henry H. Heng, Edward J. Steele, Reginald M. Gorczynski, Robyn A. Lindley, Yongsheng Liu, Robert Temple, Gensuke Tokoro, Dayal T. Wickramasinghe, N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Gerd B. Müller.

Third, Suzan Mazur book “The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin.” The book is presenting evidence by major scientists from a dozen countries for a paradigm shift that is underway replacing Neo-Darwinism. Denis Noble is only one of several scientists who have overturned Neo-Darwinism, along with many other top scientists such as: James A. Shapiro, Frantisek Baluska, Ricardo Flores, Nigel Goldenfeld, Eugene Koonin, Kalevi Kull, Eviatar Nevo, Peter Saunders, Stuart Newman, Luis P Villarreal, Carl Richard Woese and others.

Fourth, See the links below for the scientific dissent from Darwinism that includes numerous scientists.

Microsoft Word - 2021 Dissent List_May_Final_Update1.docx (discovery.org)

That said, It’s not really about how many on each side of the argument, that would be a fallacious “argumentum ad populum”, but rather it’s about latest scientific finds and the strong challenges against Neo-Darwinism posed by many prominent scientists beyond what can be denied or ignored by any rational and informed person.

No, those were all valid points. Your savior is not an expert in the field and he has not been taken very seriously. And this is by people that have the ability to understand his work. I guess that it was not that impressive.

I can see that you do not understand the scientific method or how it works. Would you like to discuss it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I neither made nor can make such claim, did I? I only try to stay on the path of righteousness and hope I would be safe, but God is the only judge.

On the other hand, in your post # 3926 you claimed to be safe, again, is there anything other than your wishful thinking to back such claim? Why do you think that you’re safe?

No, I claimed to be safer than you. You are the one that claims that God is a liar. I do not make that mistake. God is going to be so mad at you if he exists.

 

[We Never Know]

No, I claimed to be safer than you. You are the one that claims that God is a liar. I do not make that mistake. God is going to be so mad at you if he exists.

How is a god a liar?

 

[LIIA]

You need to learn how to get to the point. None of that refutes natural selection.

My point is specific/clear. Again, my point is the fact that the contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory because latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all of its central assumptions. Currently, there is no agreed upon framework to replace the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism. Till a new framework gets agreed upon, you have nothing. Do you understand?

On the other hand, in your post #3914 and #4096, you tried to move the goalposts from the challenges against the contemporary ToE to specifically defend “natural selection”. It only shows your acknowledgment that all other central assumptions of the MS are disproved, mainly “random mutations” (See # 1245). The scientific resources addressed and disproved all assumption of the M, no exception, including “natural selection” but items “E” and “F” of my post #4087 clearly addressed the illusion of “natural selection” and the fact that “natural selection” has no way of explaining speciation.

See #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

All that article points out is that there are evolutionary forces that Darwin did not know about.

That only results in the theory being refined. Not refuted.

The language of the scientific resources is specific/clear with respect to the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism that all central assumptions of the theory have been disproved and that the time has come to move decisively beyond the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology not merely a refinement as you claimed.

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

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

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

Like it or not all of your scientific sources support the fact that you are a monkey.

As I said many times, all my sources are from the other side of the argument. I.e., mainstream sources that support evolution because you wouldn’t accept otherwise and Yes, they all believe that you are a monkey but the point is that they cannot back such belief up with a scientific theory, simply because till a new agreed upon framework replaces the outdated/disproved framework of the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism, you have nothing. Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You

In the Cambrian Period all major animal phyla with complexity/sophistication of the biological structures comparable to modern life started appearing in the fossil record. In addition, the major body plans of the Cambrian life exhibited considerable morphological isolation from one another.

In the Ediacaran period only simple macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms composed of individual cells were found and none bear clear structures that would place them in a living group.

Now for the alleged 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 and endless intermediates/transitional forms.

But the fact is that not one basic type or phyla of marine invertebrate is supported by an ancestral line between single-celled life or Precambrian life and the Cambrian Explosion nor the basic phyla are related to one another.

In almost all cases, the body plans and structures present in Cambrian period animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier strata. No transitional intermediates are found in lower strata to connect the complex Cambrian animals with those simpler living forms of the Precambrian or the Ediacaran life.

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 but Evidence showed very fragile and soft microscopic remnants of Precambrian life preserved in lower strata in such great detail that individual cells can often be recognized. Which poses the question “why the larger ancestral forms that supposedly evolved into the Cambrian animals couldn’t be preserved”. 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?

No, there were some phyla that appeared later, Of course you are going to claim that they are not "major". And so what if they did? Do you know the likely cause for the Cambrian explosion? You probably do not. I do.

You bring up nonsensical arguments that do not help you they only demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is a god a liar?

That is a reading comprehension fail on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don’t you already know that I’m a Muslim? Why asking about what you do know?

Morality becomes relative only when it’s up to every individual to define it, but when the defining criteria are ordained by the Creator for everyone to follow, then it’s not a matter of a relative view/preference.

I was asking you not anyone else, didn’t I?

What is the basis to define a morality base “as per your view”?

Meaningless empty claims as usual.

I did explain my view but only those who can/want to understand would get it.

Why the emotional defensive nonsense? I didn’t accuse you of anything. Did I?
I was only discussing a concept. Do you understand? Unless you feel that the concept reflects on you, that’s why you came back with such nonsensical defense and accusations.

More falsehoods. Do you want a serious discussion? You are rather boring. No one hardly bothers to read your posts any longer. You only repeat failed arguments and run away from offers of discussing the parts of science that you need to learn to debate properly.

 

[LIIA]

No, those were all valid points. Your savior is not an expert in the field and he has not been taken very seriously. And this is by people that have the ability to understand his work. I guess that it was not that impressive.

I can see that you do not understand the scientific method or how it works. Would you like to discuss it?

See # 2266

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

It’s not by me; it’s by another evolutionist but rather informed and ethical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point is specific/clear. Again, my point is the fact that the contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory because latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all of its central assumptions. Currently, there is no agreed upon framework to replace the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism. Till a new framework gets agreed upon, you have nothing. Do you understand?

On the other hand, in your post #3914 and #4096, you tried to move the goalposts from the challenges against the contemporary ToE to specifically defend “natural selection”. It only shows your acknowledgment that all other central assumptions of the MS are disproved, mainly “random mutations” (See # 1245). The scientific resources addressed and disproved all assumption of the M, no exception, including “natural selection” but items “E” and “F” of my post #4087 clearly addressed the illusion of “natural selection” and the fact that “natural selection” has no way of explaining speciation.

See #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

The language of the scientific resources is specific/clear with respect to the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism that all central assumptions of the theory have been disproved and that the time has come to move decisively beyond the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology not merely a refinement as you claimed.

View attachment 73453

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

View attachment 73454

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect

View attachment 73455
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)



As I said many times, all my sources are from the other side of the argument. I.e., mainstream sources that support evolution because you wouldn’t accept otherwise and Yes, they all believe that you are a monkey but the point is that they cannot back such belief up with a scientific theory, simply because till a new agreed upon framework replaces the outdated/disproved framework of the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism, you have nothing. Do you understand?

No, you cherry pick sources that are not well accepted and pretend that they have refuted parts of evolution. When challenged you could not support those refutations. There were only claims of refutations.

I am not going over your old lost arguments. I am willing to go over the basics of science and then we can work up to your articles because you have not understood the refutations given to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See # 2266

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

It’s not by me; it’s by another evolutionist but rather informed and ethical.

Dude! Referring back to old posts of yours is just you admitting you are wrong since all of those were refuted. Than you for admitting that you were wrong again. You need to come up with something new.

 

[LIIA]

No, you cherry pick sources that are not well accepted and pretend that they have refuted parts of evolution. When challenged you could not support those refutations. There were only claims of refutations.

I am not going over your old lost arguments. I am willing to go over the basics of science and then we can work up to your articles because you have not understood the refutations given to you.

Keep dreaming, you have challenged no one and I cherry picked nothing.

Do you think “LegionOnomaMoi" (an evolutionist) is cherry picking as well? See his post # 2266.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

Wake up, the contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory.

No one is taking your nonsense seriously, at least. I’m not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Keep dreaming, you have challenged no one and I cherry picked nothing.

Do you think “LegionOnomaMoi" (an evolutionist) is cherry picking as well? See his post # 2266.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

Wake up, the contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory.

No one is taking your nonsense seriously, at least. I’m not.

Tell me what is wrong with this informal deduction.
The contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory, therefore the world is from God.

 

[LIIA]

Dude! Referring back to old posts of yours

This what you fail to understand, it's not my post. It’s a post by an EVOLUTIONIST like yourself. Do you understand? but he is Knowledgeable and ethical. Again, See his post # 2266

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory, therefore the world is from God.

I never said that, did I?

 

[LIIA]

You

No, there were some phyla that appeared later, Of course you are going to claim that they are not "major". And so what if they did? Do you know the likely cause for the Cambrian explosion? You probably do not. I do.

You bring up nonsensical arguments that do not help you they only demonstrate your ignorance.

Seriously?

Go back and read my post # 4364, you may get it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the Cambrian Period all major animal phyla with complexity/sophistication of the biological structures comparable to modern life started appearing in the fossil record. In addition, the major body plans of the Cambrian life exhibited considerable morphological isolation from one another.

In the Ediacaran period only simple macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms composed of individual cells were found and none bear clear structures that would place them in a living group.

Now for the alleged 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 and endless intermediates/transitional forms.

But the fact is that not one basic type or phyla of marine invertebrate is supported by an ancestral line between single-celled life or Precambrian life and the Cambrian Explosion nor the basic phyla are related to one another.

In almost all cases, the body plans and structures present in Cambrian period animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier strata. No transitional intermediates are found in lower strata to connect the complex Cambrian animals with those simpler living forms of the Precambrian or the Ediacaran life.

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 but Evidence showed very fragile and soft microscopic remnants of Precambrian life preserved in lower strata in such great detail that individual cells can often be recognized. Which poses the question “why the larger ancestral forms that supposedly evolved into the Cambrian animals couldn’t be preserved”. 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?

Okay, so what is next?