Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

This is the point; the idea is regarded as axiomatic regardless of the failure of the scientific theory (The Modern Synthesis).

The theoretical framework and all the central assumptions of the scientific theory (MS) have failed and were disproved due to contradictions with the empirical evidence of latest science.

(1)
View attachment 75700
See the highlighted above and the link below. As I said in item 3, 4 & 5 in my post #5221, the adaptation process (the fact), which is erroneously called “microevolution”, doesn’t lead to "macroevolution" (the myth).

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis - ScienceDirect

(2)
View attachment 75701
Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

(3)
View attachment 75702
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

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

We have been over this. Noble claims that parts of evolution were refuted, but that was not in a peer reviewed article. You can tell that the claim was just his opinion and he is far outside of his area of expertise. His opinion does not carry much weight. You need something much stronger than a paper or two by an amateur.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have been over this. Noble claims that parts of evolution were refuted, but that was not in a peer reviewed article. You can tell that the claim was just his opinion and he is far outside of his area of expertise. His opinion does not carry much weight. You need something much stronger than a paper or two by an amateur.

Even if he is correct, it is still science as far as I can tell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if he is correct, it is still science as far as I can tell.

Nothing that Noble did in any way refutes the fact of evolution. Even if his model is correct we are still apes, The phylogenetic trees are still accurate which is why I am so confused when a science denier that does not like those facts refers to a person that only proposes a different mechanism for evolution. That is all that Noble does in his works.

 

[LIIA]

any claim of God is relative/limited to the person making it as far as I can tell.

The claim or the understanding is relative/limited. God is not.

Every contingent is dependent and has to be rooted in the absolute, but the absolute is independent of any contingent including the human mind.

God is the only/necessary absolute. without the absolute, no contingent is possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The claim or the understanding is relative/limited. God is not.

Every contingent is dependent and has to be rooted in the absolute, but the absolute is independent of any contingent including the human mind.

God is the only/necessary absolute. without the absolute, no contingent is possible.

Yeah, but that is empty beyond the formal proof you just gave. It only says God is absolute as the creator of the universe. It doesn't tell if She is friendly or evil.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing that Noble did in any way refutes the fact of evolution. Even if his model is correct we are still apes, The phylogenetic trees are still accurate which is why I am so confused when a science denier that does not like those facts refers to a person that only proposes a different mechanism for evolution. That is all that Noble does in his works.

I have come across that before. It is in effect quote mining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim or the understanding is relative/limited. God is not.

Every contingent is dependent and has to be rooted in the absolute, but the absolute is independent of any contingent including the human mind.

God is the only/necessary absolute. without the absolute, no contingent is possible.

You only have a belief in a God. You do not have any evidence for him, or even a logical argument that supports his existence.

 

[LIIA]

Nothing that Noble did in any way refutes the fact of evolution

Nobel as well as many others refuted the Modern Synthesis.

The Modern Synthesis is the scientific theory of evolution.

See # 5258 & # 4087

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You only have a belief in a God. You do not have any evidence for him, or even a logical argument that supports his existence.

Well, there is in philosophy a limited logical argument for the existence of objective reality in itself, but from that doesn't follow God as in religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobel as well as many others refuted the Modern Synthesis.

The Modern Synthesis is the scientific theory of evolution.

See # 5258 & # 4087

And it is if Noble is right, it is replaced with another model of the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobel as well as many others refuted the Modern Synthesis.

The Modern Synthesis is the scientific theory of evolution.

See # 5258 & # 4087

No, they simply denied it. There is a big difference. And posting to old arguments that you lost is just you admitting that you are wrong.

How did they refute it? You need to be precise. He only claims, and does not support, that the Modern Synthesis cannot account for all of the changes that we see..

But even if he refuted the mechanism, that does not refute the fact of evolution. Those are two related but very different topics. Noble still accepts the fact of evolution. He merely disagrees about its mechanism.

 

[LIIA]

I have come across that before. It is in effect quote mining.

The concern is the status of the Modern Synthesis today as a scientific theory. The Modern Synthesis has entirely failed, the framework as well as all central assumptions. I provided multiple scientific articles to demonstrate that failure. Do you think the scientific articles is simply equal to some quote mining? Ok. See # 2266 by “LegionOnomaMoi” (a knowledgeable evolutionist) that clearly acknowledges the failure of the Modern Synthesis. It’s up to you if you don't want to believe it but it’s simply a verifiable fact.

(810) Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

The main point is that Evolution as a scientific theory is nothing but the Modern Synthesis. If the Modern Synthesis has failed, Evolution has failed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The concern is the status of the Modern Synthesis today as a scientific theory. The Modern Synthesis has entirely failed, the framework as well as all central assumptions. I provided multiple scientific articles to demonstrate that failure. Do you think the scientific articles is simply equal to some quote mining? Ok. See # 2266 by “LegionOnomaMoi” (a knowledgeable evolutionist) that clearly acknowledges the failure of the Modern Synthesis. It’s up to you if you don't want to believe it but it’s simply a verifiable fact.

(810) Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

The main point is that Evolution as a scientific theory is nothing but the Modern Synthesis. If the Modern Synthesis has failed, Evolution has failed.

No, they are different. Modern synthesis is a model within evolution. If that model is replaced with another model, evolution is still there.
You are making a category mistake in effect.

 

[LIIA]

But even if he refuted the mechanism, that does not refute the fact of evolution.

If the mechanisms have been refuted and the theoretical framework has been refuted, why do you think that the scientific theory still stands?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If the mechanisms have been refuted and the theoretical framework has been refuted, why do you think that the scientific theory still stands?

The question if the organism can make changes to in effect the replication or not. Not if replication is false, but how replication actually happens.

 

[LIIA]

No, they are different. Modern synthesis is a model within evolution. If that model is replaced with another model, evolution is still there.
You are making a category mistake in effect.

False. The Modern Synthesis is not a model of evolution; the Modern Synthesis is the scientific theory of evolution. The theory has effectively failed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

False. The Modern Synthesis is not a model of evolution; the Modern Synthesis is the scientific theory of evolution. The theory has effectively failed.

The question if the organism can make changes to in effect the replication or not. Not if replication is false, but how replication actually happens.

 

[LIIA]

The question if the organism can make changes

The organism can make changes controlled by the cell machinery. It’s a controlled adaptation process but as discussed before, such adaptation never leads to macroevolution.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The organism can make changes controlled by the cell machinery. It’s a controlled adaptation process but as discussed before, such adaptation never leads to macroevolution.

So please find that in your links and post that. You made the claim, so give the text that confirms that.

 

[LIIA]

So please find that in your links and post that. You made the claim, so give the text that confirms that.

I already did that many times.

Again, in an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”

https://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2013.How Life Changes Itself- The Read-Write (RW) Genome.Physics of Life Reviews.pdf

Also please see # 1245 for further info.

(810) Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

See item 3, 4 & 5 of #5221

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis - ScienceDirect