Darwin's Illusion

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess if you have other ideas in your mind, then you exist. do you? I wonder what kind of ideas? do you think its valid, invalid or just some meaningless rhetoric? is there any other option?

As long as you can't hold variance and do all/nothing and not in some case something and something else, I am nothing and didn't write this post.

 

[LIIA]

Just because you say so

in my case, it's never because I said so, I always provide the sources.
in your case, it's always because you said so, yet you are under the illusion that your responses have any merit.

 

[LIIA]

As long as you can't hold variance and do all/nothing and not in some case something and something else, I am nothing and didn't write this post.

on my end, it's never all or nothing.
on your end, it's always nothing or nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

on my end, it's never all or nothing.
on your end, it's always nothing or nothing.

No, everything is all, something, something else and/or nothing in short. You and I just do something and something else for this context.

 

[LIIA]

No, everything is all, something, something else and/or nothing in short. You and I just do something and something else for this context.

I'm sorry, it's nothing but some rhetoric that will never get you anywhere. but again, you're entitled to your view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, it's nothing but some rhetoric that will never get you anywhere. but again, you're entitled to your view.

No, I am not real and I have no view. You are all and I am nothing. That is the Truth and that is how you are not even reading this. That is how unreal it is that I am different that you. You are the Truth and I am the False and it is not real.

 

[LIIA]

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.

No, abiogenesis is axiomatic because it’s considered as true (the only option) independent of any evidence. The notion that one of two must be correct is a false dichotomy. Other options may be possible (such as panspermia).

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.

Only if you consider abiogenesis as an axiom, otherwise the lack of evidence can very well point to the fact that the hypothesis is false.

Also “incomplete” is really some wishful thinking, there is no evidence that nucleotides, nucleic acids or self-replication exist in "nature" outside the living cell, neither under prebiotic conditions nor today. Evidence for the assumed “chain" is really more like "non-existent". We discussed that on this thread many times. See #1850 and the link below.

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no crisis in the science as you imply,

I provide evidence, you provide “wishful thinking” and no, there is no crisis in the science. There are advancements that disproved the modern synthesis. The only crisis is for those who dwell in the past and fail to understand that science is ever changing. See #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

How would all of that evidence then be understood?

Simply follow the evidence where it leads not where you want it to be.

The change process is controlled by the cell machinery. The adaptation process is an intelligent response to environmental pressures; it emerges through directed mutations never through random evolution.

Adaptation/microevolution never leads to macroevolution.

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

Artificial selection may produce variations of species with specific/favorable phenotypic traits otherwise there will be reproductive barriers that prevent the creation of new species.

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.

Yes, this is the point. Even so affecting the medium causes alterations of consciousness but it doesn’t mean that the medium and the source are the same.

Your phone can capture/save photos and sounds but it’s not possible for your phone to have qualia. Qualia is only possible within consciousness.

Interactions of matter don’t give rise to consciousness. Beyond consciousness there is no qualia of any kind. The materialistic realm doesn’t support qualia. Beyond consciousness there is no photos or sounds, there is no colors, light or dark, there is no music, there is only waves, lots of waves of varying length/frequency/strength vibrating in every direction, that’s it.

 

[LIIA]

No, I am not real and I have no view. You are all and I am nothing. That is the Truth and that is how you are not even reading this. That is how unreal it is that I am different that you. You are the Truth and I am the False and it is not real.

your notion cannot support anything to be true or false and you fail to understand that your own notion as a subjective idea in your mind should not be an exception.

I say your notion is false. we can draw conclusions with acceptable level of certainty through logical analysis of data/observations. based on your view, can you prove me wrong with any level of certainty? what is your reference? you don't even acknowledge logic/rationalism as a reference? again, without a reference, it's not possible to argue about anything.

 

[LIIA]

You are a rationalist and I am a skeptic.

You must have “rational reasons” that led to your adaptation of “skepticism”. Can you see the contradiction? You managed to make a judgment based on logic. Since you used rationalism to prove irrationalism then rationalism stays as the only reference to reach conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

your notion cannot support anything to be true or false and you fail to understand that your own notion as a subjective idea in your mind should not be an exception.

I say your notion is false. we can draw conclusions with acceptable level of certainty through logical analysis of data/observations. based on your view, can you prove me wrong with any level of certainty? what is your reference? you don't even acknowledge logic/rationalism as a reference? again, without a reference, it's not possible to argue about anything.

Yes, you say. And I still do differently. The problem is that you do different kinds of experiences and cognition differently than me. But the problem is that I can still do it, though it is false. So now explain the world with the observation that I am doing something false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You must have “rational reasons” that led to your adaptation of “skepticism”. Can you see the contradiction? You managed to make a judgment based on logic. Since you used rationalism to prove irrationalism then rationalism stays as the only reference to reach conclusions.

Yeah, I am doing a contradiction. Now explain that observation as a part of the world.

 

[LIIA]

You need to read the science and find out where we're up to in our researches into abiogenesis.

I did but obviously you didn’t read the scientific article that I provided. It clearly explains current status of abiogenesis. Here is the link again.

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

We haven't finished the journey, but we're making progress along the path.

At what point would you give up on the axiom?

The difference is, I'm talking about science.

Are you serious? Every word I said in #1850 is supported by the scientific article that I provided at the end of the post (see the link above). On the other hand, you appear to be making empty claims.

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

How ironic? You are talking about “evidence-based reasoned argument" yet you came with an irrelevant empty statement about the ToE as your response to an argument concerning abiogenesis! How rational is that?

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

I haven’t seen flying pigs but I can tell you that directed mutation doesn’t account for the transformation of tiktaalik to a monkey. Limited adaptation can never account for such transformation. There is no evidence for that nonsense.

Who directs directed mutation?

The cell machinery.

Again, 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. See the article below and # 1245.

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

Do you have a photo?

Here is a video of the cell machinery in action. See the link below.

Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube

DNA animation (2002-2014) by Drew Berry and Etsuko Uno wehi.tv #ScienceArt - YouTube

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, I am doing a contradiction.

you are but it appears that you are not aware of it.

Now explain that observation as a part of the world.

do you imply that it's not? do you think every observation is an illusion? it's an interesting view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

you are but it appears that you are not aware of it.

do you imply that it's not? do you think every observation is an illusion? it's an interesting view.

No, just start explaining how false works as a part of the world.

 

[LIIA]

Which the existence of ring species shows is false. The difference in size of dogs is mainly due to a difference in only a single gene. So the reason great danes are not mated with chihuahuas is physical, not genetic.https://www.perfectdogbreeds.com/chihuahua-great-dane-mix/

We can't talk about speciation before first identifying what is “species”. As I said before, the definition of species is controversial. There are many methods for identifying species. Ernst Mayr's Biological Species concept based on the ability of interbreeding is neither the only definition nor enough to delineate species. There are many other methods for identifying species such as Morphological Species Concept, Ecological Species Concept, Phylogenetic Species Concept, etc.

To avoid confusion about the delineation of " species” I specifically said that gene mutations through the adaptation process never give rise to a new family of species.

Ring species variants are technically the same species even if the distant ends cannot naturally interbreed. All variants of dogs are the same species even if it doesn’t naturally breed.

The same species can have non-interbreeding variants, but these variants are not necessarily new species such as the example of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane or the variants of ring species.

But again, to avoid any confusion, my point was specific that the adaptation process will not give rise to a new family of species.

Adaptation (microevolution) doesn’t give rise to macroevolution. The fact of adaptation triggered the speculation of the myth/illusion of macroevolution.

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can't talk about speciation before first identifying what is “species”. As I said before, the definition of species is controversial. There are many methods for identifying species. Ernst Mayr's Biological Species concept based on the ability of interbreeding is neither the only definition nor enough to delineate species. There are many other methods for identifying species such as Morphological Species Concept, Ecological Species Concept, Phylogenetic Species Concept, etc.

To avoid confusion about the delineation of " species” I specifically said that gene mutations through the adaptation process never give rise to a new family of species.

Ring species variants are technically the same species even if the distant ends cannot naturally interbreed. All variants of dogs are the same species even if it doesn’t naturally breed.

The same species can have non-interbreeding variants, but these variants are not necessarily new species such as the example of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane or the variants of ring species.

But again, to avoid any confusion, my point was specific that the adaptation process will not give rise to a new family of species.

Adaptation (microevolution) doesn’t give rise to macroevolution. The fact of adaptation triggered the speculation of the myth/illusion of macroevolution.

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

View attachment 76119

Yeah, you quote mine.

 

[LIIA]

No, just start explaining how false works as a part of the world.

"False" is concept like any other concept. Logical assessment of data my support or refute the concept.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"False" is concept like any other concept. Logical assessment of data my support or refute the concept.

Yeah, but all kinds of false are not the same.
There are at least 4 main versions and then combinations. We just do that differently.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, you quote mine.

really! ok

you're entitled to your view, but I recommend you try to understand the post.

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, but all kinds of false are not the same.
There are at least 4 main versions and then combinations. We just do that differently.

I guess your "false" has better merits than mine. it's ok.