Darwin's Illusion

[mikkel_the_dane]

No conclusion can be drawn without logical ground. Logic is the necessary reference at the very top of any rational process. No idea or meaning can stand without a logical ground to support it.

...

I deny that and thus I am irrational and illogical, but that is a fact that you observe. That is called reductio ad absurdum and we can play that all you like. But the problem is that you experience it and thus it is real, not matter how unreal you claim it is.

 

[LIIA]

There are only 3 requirements that must be needed for any prospective “theory”:

• That the concept be “falsifiable”.
• That it followed the requirement of Scientific Method, which involves 2 stages -

1. Formulation of the hypothesis (which is to turn “concept” into detailed “explanations” with predictions)
2. Test the hypothesis (eg evidence & experiments)

• Peer Review (presents the hypothesis, plus evidence & data, to independent scientists to analyze, review & test them, as well to find errors or discrepancies)

Failing the 1st point (Falsifiability), won’t allow scientist to proceed to the next (Scientific Method). And a scientist would only present his works for peer-review if his testing support the explanations & predictions in the hypothesis.

Reaching a concept is a logical process,
establishing evidence with or against a hypothesis is a logical process,
falsification is a logical process. Even peer review is a logical process. Any rational process of any kind must adhere to logical principles.

It’s not about the methodology but rather the rational ground that ensures the true application of it.

You confuse being methodical/rational with being directly observable or testable.
Again, consider the example of dark energy as a total unknown and may never be known yet the concept of its existence is considered methodical, rational and falsifiable.

A very important principle of the scientific method/naturalism is the fact that naturalism is a “posteriori” view. It's not an advance commitment to certain ontology or axiom.

Actual application of naturalism became a prior commitment to the so-called materialism (as if materialism is an absolute concept rather than a provisional relative). A commitment that mandates a priori adherence to material cause that must produce the so-called material explanations no matter how counter-intuitive or mystifying to the uninitiated.

The real question becomes what are the criteria that define the so-called “naturalistic” vs. the “non-naturalistic”? Is it being unknown, unseen, or being of a nature that cannot be understood? Isn’t this exactly the case with all natural forces? How is it different from the so-called “supernatural”? How can we make such distinction? Is there such thing as “supernatural”? Or is it simply another “unknown”?

There is no such thing as materialistic or not, there is only data getting logically processed to draw conclusions, that’s all there is and we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. The classification of something as natural or not is a conception or rather a misconception but not by any means an intrinsic nature. How can you classify an unknown?

As a “posteriori” view, Naturalism should be open to acceptance to even what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities/forces. Naturalism should accommodate any conclusion driven by data/logic no matter how radical it appears to be. No assumption of any kind should be established as a priori tell the data is logically examined. That is exactly the logical error that can be seen in actual application of naturalism, which is the strict adherence to undefined/unevidenced false priori.

Order, rules, purpose and control are all exhibited in every observation in the cosmos, life, even at the atomic and subatomic level. We either fail to see it or simply attribute it to unseen forces that we don’t know what it is and simply assign some names to it and think that a given name to an unknown (such as “dark energy” or “strong nuclear force”) is an explanation or a mechanism

Assessment of data should be driven from a neutral view not an unevidenced priori of any kind. What supports the priori that rejects any possibility that a causal influence (God) may purposefully and consciously influence matter if every observation in our universe points to order, rules, purpose, control?

It's never about an entity following a rule; it’s about why the rule itself exist and how it does what it does. For us, it just exists; being a perceived norm takes away the wonder.

Whether it’s the universe, subatomic matter or life, it’s never about the input but rather the controlling processes that produce the output. Without the processes controlling subatomic particles, there is no matter, without the processes controlling the genes, there is no life.

Neither the processes nor the outcome is random. But regardless of how peculiar the norm may be, we tend to fall under the false impression that being the norm is itself a sufficient explanation but it’s not.

All entities that we can observe are probabilities; probabilities are changes that may or may not materialize, changes are only changes relative to an existing state. Probabilities are not possible without an existing state that gives rise to it. Reality exists/must exist; hence reality cannot be only probabilities, probabilities don’t give rise to itself. An aspect of reality must be a necessary existence to give rise to all probabilities.

If we logically follow the evidence (wherever it leads), it only leads to God. God is not a relative explanation to an individual system; God is the absolute explanation to the relative existence in its entirety. The absolute is the only explanation that must exist to give rise to every probable.

See #1851

Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

I deny that and thus I am irrational and illogical

Then, you have no ground to stand on and anything you say is baseless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reaching a concept is a logical process,
establishing evidence with or against a hypothesis is a logical process,
falsification is a logical process. Even peer review is a logical process. Any rational process of any kind must adhere to logical principles.

...

Yeah, standard Western rationalism. But I am so irrational and illogical, that I even did write this.
You: The world is logical.
Me: No, that is too simple.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then, you have no ground to stand on and anything you say is baseless.

Yeah, I am literally falling though space and not even that, I am not in the world.

 

[exchemist]

Adaptation is a fact. Adaptation is a controlled response to address environmental pressure through directed mutation. Nothing about adaptation is random. See #1245

Adaptation doesn’t lead to macroevolution. See #5258

That depends on the definition of species. The species concept is controversial. To keep things simple, changes through adaptation will never give rise to a new family. It’s only variations within a species.

Again, Consider the example of artificial breeding of dogs, it will never create new species, it will always be dogs. You may think a Chihuahua is a lot different than a Great Dane but both are still the same species. If you breed different species, you get sterile offspring. Gene mutations through adaptation never give rise to a new family of species. imagined transformation to another family of species is not possible.

This is a false distinction. There are living examples of animals in the middle of the process of forming new species. Ring species - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

self-reproducing cells

What do you mean “self-reproducing cells”? Do you mean cells that get spontaneously generated from nonliving matter or maybe strands of RNA freely floating in nature with the ability to self-replicate? Both are false.

See # 1850 for the actual status of abiogenesis

(814) Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

Where do you claim the first cells came from?

What evidence do you cite for your claim?

You’re making “false dichotomy”. I’m not concerned about making claims other than abiogenesis being false/unevidenced, yet you don’t see the axiomatic status of the concept that failed to be a scientific theory because of the lack of conclusive evidence.

Well, the modern theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

It was a theory till it failed. There is no phenomenon of evolution. There is directed mutation that controls the adaptation process, which is erroneously, called microevolution but it’s not an evolutionary process because evolution is necessarily a process that is dependent on random mutation. Adaptation (microevolution) doesn’t lead to macroevolution.

What finds are those, how do they contradict the modern theory of evolution, and who says so?

See #4087& #5258
Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, I am literally falling though space and not even that, I am not in the world.

agreed

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

agreed

Yet, you are communicating with me from sound ground and I am not in the world. So how does that work?

 

[LIIA]

LLIA doesn't understand science, so don't go down that rabbit hole.

According to whom? You? The guy who is failing through space and doesn’t even exist?
But why you think you’re failing? Is it gravity?

 

[LIIA]

Yet, you are communicating with me from sound ground and I am not in the world. So how does that work?

I'm not. you're imagining things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

According to whom? You? The guy who is failing through space and doesn’t even exist?
But why you think you’re failing? Is it gravity?

You use a metaphor and I just made fun of that. We are both on sound ground, just different places for the common ground.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not. you're imagining things.

Yes and that is so unreal, that you don't even know that, so you are imagining things yourself. It is all in your mind and I am not real at all.

 

[LIIA]

This is a false distinction. There are living examples of animals in the middle of the process of forming new species. Ring species - Wikipedia

Ring species is still a “species” but with distant ends that cannot interbreed. Can a Chihuahua naturally breed with a Great Dane? Yet they are both the same species and will never be anything other than dogs.

I told you that the definition of “species” is controversial and to keep things simple I said that gene mutations through adaptation never give rise to a new family of species.

 

[LIIA]

You use a metaphor and I just made fun of that. We are both on sound ground, just different places for the common ground.

are you sure about that? could it be a relative idea floating in your relative mind that doesn't exist? how can you be certain?

 

[LIIA]

Yes and that is so unreal, that you don't even know that, so you are imagining things yourself. It is all in your mind and I am not real at all.

No, you're not real, I'm not real either. we both don't exist.

 

[LIIA]

I am not real at all.

have a good unreal night.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

abiogenesis is regarded as an axiom. It was never even established as a scientific theory after many years of research because of the lack of conclusive evidence but the mentality is that it must be true whether it was proven empirically or not. abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, it’s an axiom.

Naturalistic abiogenesis is a hypothesis just like its only alternative, supernatural abiogenesis (creationism). You might call it axiomatic to say that one of those two must be correct for lack of a third possibility. The fact that the chain connecting the evolution of simple molecules to living cells is incomplete only means that there is more work to do.

the Modern Synthesis is the scientific theory of evolution. The theory has effectively failed.

The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no crisis in the science as you imply, but let's consider alternatives. Suppose the theory were falsified tomorrow. How would all of that evidence then be understood? What's left but an intelligent designer? You say that you're a Muslim. Do you think that a falsification of the theory restores the god of Abraham as the creator of the tree of life? Did your god orchestrate that massive deception?

The science-in-crisis trope is common among creationists, but has no merit. You say it's failed, but the theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Consider the example of artificial breeding of dogs, it will never create new species, it will always be dogs.

There is no known barrier to creating new species using artificial selection.

Consider the example of watching a football game on TV. The TV is the physical link between the event and your consciousness. Anything that affects your TV, affects your ability to watch the game but that has nothing to do with your consciousness.

Yes, I'm aware that the brain can be thought of as a medium for consciousness rather than a source for it. The TV metaphor might not be apt, as one cannot interact with the demonstrated phenomena as he can with the phenomena of consciousness, because as the "tele-" of television implies, the events are remote, and this require some type of broadcasting to be received by the television. The brain might be more of a record player generating phenomena than a radio receiving them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

have a good unreal night.

Don't you get it? You play with words and so do I. I just get that we both do that and you think I am the only one doing it.
You are a rationalist and I am a skeptic. That has nothing to do with God or not.

 

[blü 2]

What do you mean “self-reproducing cells”? Do you mean cells that get spontaneously generated from nonliving matter or maybe strands of RNA freely floating in nature with the ability to self-replicate? Both are false.

You need to read the science and find out where we're up to in our researches into abiogenesis. We haven't finished the journey, but we're making progress along the path.

(814) Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

The difference is, I'm talking about science.

You’re making “false dichotomy”. I’m not concerned about making claims other than abiogenesis being false/unevidenced, yet you don’t see the axiomatic status of the concept that failed to be a scientific theory because of the lack of conclusive evidence.

You've offered nothing by way of evidence-based reasoned argument to put even the tiniest scratch on the modern theory of evolution.

It was a theory till it failed. There is no phenomenon of evolution. There is directed mutation that controls the adaptation process

Aha! Directed mutation must be what accounts for all these flying pigs.

Who directs directed mutation? Do you have a photo?