mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I understand it. You don't accept that your model can be false as you don't do falsification. You confirm that you are right, because of reasons in you. I was just taught to do false differently than you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
I understand it. You don't accept that your model can be false as you don't do falsification. You confirm that you are right, because of reasons in you. I was just taught to do false differently than you.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is no objective better. It is better for you as you and different to me for better.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
So you’re wrong and your wishful thinking and empty claims are meaningless.
Why should anyone take your empty claims seriously?
It’s the typical nonsense of yours.
First, the scientific article is by Peter A. Corning. He is an American biologist, consultant, and complex systems scientist, Director of the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems, in Seattle, Washington. Its neither an opinion nor Corning is working outside his area of expertise.
Peter A. Corning
Peter Corning - Wikipedia
Second, the article is published by “Elsevier”, a global leader scientific journal that uses highest standards to ensure the scientific value of the publications. Elsevier serves the global research community, publishing over 600,000 peer-reviewed articles in 2022. More than 99% of the Nobel Laureates in science have published in Elsevier journals since the year 2000.
Elsevier-corporate-brochure-2023.pdf
Again, see the link below and attached PDF for the scientific article by Peter A. Corning.
Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect
These scientific articles that get published in top peer reviewed scientific journals are taken seriously among scientists in the field. On the other hand, laymen such as yourself may not be even aware of it. Your empty claims are totally meaningless. Do you understand?
My argument is very specific and clear that the scientific theory of evolution (MS) is false and I demonstrated why multiple times. I’m not concerned about any false axioms. On the other hand, your typical response is nothing but denial/wishful thinking. If you still insist that you are a monkey, it’s Ok, I’ll take your word for it but sorry, I’ll still not take your meaningless denial and empty arguments seriously.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
without a reference, anything goes, and all is equal. this is where you stand.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Meaningless and wishful are in your mind and points to your cognition and emotions. That is okay. I just do that differently for cognition and emotions.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
yes, my thoughts are in my mind, your thoughts are in yours but that has nothing to do with the validity of the thoughts from a logical perspective. I know you don’t acknowledge logic/rationalism, but I do. It’s Ok. We’re all different.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, because even that can be tested. Anything goes as a positive, so now I think that you are nothing and my thinking works as a positive and you are now nothing. That one is a folk belief and requires testing like anything else.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
A holistic view of as many puzzle pieces as possible is crucial for the logical process towards connecting the dots of reality.
Actually, a holistic interdisciplinary diverse field spanning the formal, natural, social, and applied sciences does exist. It’s called “Systems Science" and is concerned with the understanding of systems in nature, society, cognition, engineering, technology and science.
In fact, Peter A. Corning the author of the article below "Beyond the modern synthesis” is not only a biologist but also, he is a complex systems scientist Director of the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems, in Seattle, Washington and was the President of the International Society for the Systems Sciences.
Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis - ScienceDirect
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And understand the limits of even logic.
So if you want we start with the limitation of the 2nd law of classical logic.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
How can you do any testing without a reference or a premise? Even "testing" is a logical process that requires a reference. Do you understand? Without a premise, there are no conclusions to follow. Without the absolute, there is no relative of any kind to follow. Do you understand?
LIIA
Well-Known Member
it's never all or nothing. limitations don't mean nothing. we discussed that before.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So if you are a limitation and I am a different one, now what?
exchemist
Veteran Member
And yet we have vast amounts of evidence that species do actually evolve from one another. Merely asserting, without evidence, that adaptation cannot generate new species, is not going to persuade any thinking person, is it?
LIIA
Well-Known Member
The Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism has failed as a scientific theory. Some may accept this fact, some may deny it but regardless, it’s a verifiable fact.
The MS is not a model of evolution. The MS is the only scientific theory of evolution. The theory has failed. But many of those who already acknowledge that failure still accept evolution, but not as theory that failed but rather as an axiom that maintains its status regardless of the failure of the scientific theory itself.
The argument at a fundamental level boils down to randomness vs. purpose. But do we understand what randomness entails?
With respect to the change process, the ToE predicts a rule, which is a “numerous gradual random change” which can be harmful or neutral and the exception of some changes among the numerous random changes that happened to be beneficial within an environment, hence get naturally selected. Do we understand what this hypothesis of randomness predicts? Is that what we see in nature? Let’s consider an example.
"To be, or not to be" is a famous phrase of William Shakespeare. The phrase includes 13 letters. The number of possible arrangements of these letters are as follows:
13x12x11x10x...x2x1 = 6.2 billion arrangements
If we consider this phrase as a meaningful design/arrangement, then the chance of this phrase to appear among possible random arrangements of only 13 letters is 1 in 6.2 billion.
I’m not claiming that all random possibilities must materialize but if we adapt randomness as the cause of any system, then we must accept that the vast majority of arrangements are necessarily meaningless junk with very limited exceptions that accidentally appear to be intelligently designed.
Is this what we see in nature? If we look at the “body plan” of any animal walking on earth or in the fossil record since the earliest “body plans” that first appeared in the Cambrian period, do we ever see any evidence of randomness?
The “body plan” of the vast majority of animal exhibits balanced external reflective symmetry. External vital organs necessary for live such as the nose, mouth, the head itself and reproductive organs are always aligned on the axis of symmetry (centerline) while other less vital organs (the creature may continue to live without it) such as limbs, ears, and eyes are organized as duplicate parts along each side of the axis of symmetry. Each half is a mirror image of the other half. All parts/organs are organized logically, proportionally sized; symmetrical duplicate parts are always a mirror image of the same size.
No limbs are misplaced or longer on one half compared to the other or eyes, ears or mouth that are placed on another location of the body other than the logical location which is the head of the animal? We never see eyes on the legs or tail on the head. If these are the advantageous forms that survived selection, then where are the other forms with all kind of random features or errors that got eliminated? Is there any sign of such uncontrolled randomness in any body plan among living organisms or in the fossil record?
Even if we consider the earliest examples of Cambrian organisms such as the Trilobite, we see complex creature with balanced reflective symmetrical body plan with all necessary organs for life, protective hard shell and very complex organs such as eyes with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. No matter where we look, we see nothing but design/purpose. Nothing else.
How can you claim randomness as the rule if every observation points to design with no exception? Where is the evidence of the enormous chaos predicted by randomness? How can we adapt a view with zero evidence? The ToE is about ignoring all evidence of “design/purpose” that we see in every organism alive or in the fossil record and believe that everything is random regardless of the fact that there zero evidence of such randomness. Again, I’m talking about the overwhelming rule by far not any alleged exceptions.
Where are the polar bear mutants with dark fur that keep emerging randomly then get eliminated by selection? Where are the organisms with the random features that don’t function within its niche? Why don’t these random features emerge randomly among living organisms? Why it doesn’t exist in the fossil record either? Such randomness should be the vast majority of the observations if the ToE were true.
Give me evidence for a single incident of random “body plan” either among living organisms or in the fossil record and then let's see if your view has any merits.
Purpose/design is not only manifested in the body plan of organisms but also can be clearly seen in a single living cell. The cell is the most complex designed system man has ever witnessed. If we magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is large enough to cover a great city like New York, then we can witness a structure of unparalleled complexity/sophistication. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man"
Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube
DNA animations by wehi.tv for Science-Art exhibition - YouTube
The environment of the cell is very dynamic and extremely crowded with an army of tiny molecular machineries that routinely and faithfully execute their complex functions in a coordinated manner billions of times over inside the cell. Such as The “Helicase” molecular motors that spin like a jet engine along the nucleic acid to separate the two DNA strands or the “Dyneins” motors that literally walk along microtubules towards the minus-end and the “Kinesin” that moves towards the plus end of the microtubules to transport cellular cargo. The proteins fold into functional structures and the dynamic behavior of the complex multiprotein systems execute numerous functions towards DNA replication.
A single cell is a miraculous design with internally intelligent digital information processing system that utilizes extremely complex software in addition to extremely complex molecular dynamic hardware of an unimaginable magnitude. Let alone trillions of cells that work together in an amazing harmony to create the body plan of the organisms. It’s a design of an unparalleled sophistication. The inability to see the sophistication of such design in these biological systems can be only attributed to ignorance or foolishness.
The ToE (the notion of randomness) is the most ridiculous scientific theory in the history of mankind, yet many just want to believe it. But regardless of how many people choose to adapt a view, it’s never a proof of its validity.
Macroevolution, or the alleged change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form through numerous random changes is a myth. One can be an atheist and still not believe the myth of evolution. Those who aren't professional scientists in a specific scientific field have to take the science of that field on trust. They don’t only trust what they don’t know but also fail to understand that the science they chose to trust is ever changing and when it comes to evolution, it did change and the modern synthesis has failed due to contradictions with latest scientific finds.
If you logically contemplate what you observe in the world around you, you will come to the realization that believing in the blind randomness concept is a faith-based belief, but the concept of purposeful design is logically evidenced in every observation, not only in life and non-living matter but also in the entire universe.
We don’t see gravity, but we see its influence and infer its exists. Similarly, we don’t see dark energy, we believe it exists. We don’t see strong nuclear force; we believe it exists despite the fact that we don’t know what it is or how/why it does what it does. Is it really multiple forces or maybe one force that act differently on different entities? If its intrinsic nature cannot be known, how can we speculate about these questions with any level of certainty? (In the very early Universe, there is a speculation that all four fundamental forces were unified into a single force then got somehow separated)
Can we see the influence of God? Can we see design/purpose in every entity in our fine-tuned universe? Can we see God’s digital signature in the DNA of every living cell? Can we see the influence of God in every body plan of every single organism? Can we see the influence of God in the existence and calibration of the so-called natural forces itself? Can we see the influence of God in our consciousness and our own ability to have qualia? Can we understand that no probability of any kind is possible without an absolute ground? Can we understand that the chain of contingent entities must be rooted in a non-contingent being?
The truth of God will resonate within your inner being, you can tell it’s the truth but ultimately, your choice to accept or deny God depends on nothing but your “free will”. We’re all free.
The MS is not a model of evolution. The MS is the only scientific theory of evolution. The theory has failed. But many of those who already acknowledge that failure still accept evolution, but not as theory that failed but rather as an axiom that maintains its status regardless of the failure of the scientific theory itself.
The argument at a fundamental level boils down to randomness vs. purpose. But do we understand what randomness entails?
With respect to the change process, the ToE predicts a rule, which is a “numerous gradual random change” which can be harmful or neutral and the exception of some changes among the numerous random changes that happened to be beneficial within an environment, hence get naturally selected. Do we understand what this hypothesis of randomness predicts? Is that what we see in nature? Let’s consider an example.
"To be, or not to be" is a famous phrase of William Shakespeare. The phrase includes 13 letters. The number of possible arrangements of these letters are as follows:
13x12x11x10x...x2x1 = 6.2 billion arrangements
If we consider this phrase as a meaningful design/arrangement, then the chance of this phrase to appear among possible random arrangements of only 13 letters is 1 in 6.2 billion.
I’m not claiming that all random possibilities must materialize but if we adapt randomness as the cause of any system, then we must accept that the vast majority of arrangements are necessarily meaningless junk with very limited exceptions that accidentally appear to be intelligently designed.
Is this what we see in nature? If we look at the “body plan” of any animal walking on earth or in the fossil record since the earliest “body plans” that first appeared in the Cambrian period, do we ever see any evidence of randomness?
The “body plan” of the vast majority of animal exhibits balanced external reflective symmetry. External vital organs necessary for live such as the nose, mouth, the head itself and reproductive organs are always aligned on the axis of symmetry (centerline) while other less vital organs (the creature may continue to live without it) such as limbs, ears, and eyes are organized as duplicate parts along each side of the axis of symmetry. Each half is a mirror image of the other half. All parts/organs are organized logically, proportionally sized; symmetrical duplicate parts are always a mirror image of the same size.
No limbs are misplaced or longer on one half compared to the other or eyes, ears or mouth that are placed on another location of the body other than the logical location which is the head of the animal? We never see eyes on the legs or tail on the head. If these are the advantageous forms that survived selection, then where are the other forms with all kind of random features or errors that got eliminated? Is there any sign of such uncontrolled randomness in any body plan among living organisms or in the fossil record?
Even if we consider the earliest examples of Cambrian organisms such as the Trilobite, we see complex creature with balanced reflective symmetrical body plan with all necessary organs for life, protective hard shell and very complex organs such as eyes with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. No matter where we look, we see nothing but design/purpose. Nothing else.
How can you claim randomness as the rule if every observation points to design with no exception? Where is the evidence of the enormous chaos predicted by randomness? How can we adapt a view with zero evidence? The ToE is about ignoring all evidence of “design/purpose” that we see in every organism alive or in the fossil record and believe that everything is random regardless of the fact that there zero evidence of such randomness. Again, I’m talking about the overwhelming rule by far not any alleged exceptions.
Where are the polar bear mutants with dark fur that keep emerging randomly then get eliminated by selection? Where are the organisms with the random features that don’t function within its niche? Why don’t these random features emerge randomly among living organisms? Why it doesn’t exist in the fossil record either? Such randomness should be the vast majority of the observations if the ToE were true.
Give me evidence for a single incident of random “body plan” either among living organisms or in the fossil record and then let's see if your view has any merits.
Purpose/design is not only manifested in the body plan of organisms but also can be clearly seen in a single living cell. The cell is the most complex designed system man has ever witnessed. If we magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is large enough to cover a great city like New York, then we can witness a structure of unparalleled complexity/sophistication. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man"
Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube
DNA animations by wehi.tv for Science-Art exhibition - YouTube
The environment of the cell is very dynamic and extremely crowded with an army of tiny molecular machineries that routinely and faithfully execute their complex functions in a coordinated manner billions of times over inside the cell. Such as The “Helicase” molecular motors that spin like a jet engine along the nucleic acid to separate the two DNA strands or the “Dyneins” motors that literally walk along microtubules towards the minus-end and the “Kinesin” that moves towards the plus end of the microtubules to transport cellular cargo. The proteins fold into functional structures and the dynamic behavior of the complex multiprotein systems execute numerous functions towards DNA replication.
A single cell is a miraculous design with internally intelligent digital information processing system that utilizes extremely complex software in addition to extremely complex molecular dynamic hardware of an unimaginable magnitude. Let alone trillions of cells that work together in an amazing harmony to create the body plan of the organisms. It’s a design of an unparalleled sophistication. The inability to see the sophistication of such design in these biological systems can be only attributed to ignorance or foolishness.
The ToE (the notion of randomness) is the most ridiculous scientific theory in the history of mankind, yet many just want to believe it. But regardless of how many people choose to adapt a view, it’s never a proof of its validity.
Macroevolution, or the alleged change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form through numerous random changes is a myth. One can be an atheist and still not believe the myth of evolution. Those who aren't professional scientists in a specific scientific field have to take the science of that field on trust. They don’t only trust what they don’t know but also fail to understand that the science they chose to trust is ever changing and when it comes to evolution, it did change and the modern synthesis has failed due to contradictions with latest scientific finds.
If you logically contemplate what you observe in the world around you, you will come to the realization that believing in the blind randomness concept is a faith-based belief, but the concept of purposeful design is logically evidenced in every observation, not only in life and non-living matter but also in the entire universe.
We don’t see gravity, but we see its influence and infer its exists. Similarly, we don’t see dark energy, we believe it exists. We don’t see strong nuclear force; we believe it exists despite the fact that we don’t know what it is or how/why it does what it does. Is it really multiple forces or maybe one force that act differently on different entities? If its intrinsic nature cannot be known, how can we speculate about these questions with any level of certainty? (In the very early Universe, there is a speculation that all four fundamental forces were unified into a single force then got somehow separated)
Can we see the influence of God? Can we see design/purpose in every entity in our fine-tuned universe? Can we see God’s digital signature in the DNA of every living cell? Can we see the influence of God in every body plan of every single organism? Can we see the influence of God in the existence and calibration of the so-called natural forces itself? Can we see the influence of God in our consciousness and our own ability to have qualia? Can we understand that no probability of any kind is possible without an absolute ground? Can we understand that the chain of contingent entities must be rooted in a non-contingent being?
The truth of God will resonate within your inner being, you can tell it’s the truth but ultimately, your choice to accept or deny God depends on nothing but your “free will”. We’re all free.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
I'm not a limitation. I'm an ability with limitation. you're an ability with limitation. it's not all or nothing.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
No, it doesn’t and I did explain yet you insist.
Species “adapt” not “evolve”. Adaptation is erroneously called "microevolution" but it's not evolution at all. it's a totally different process and nothing is random about it. see #1245.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums
Adaptation does not give rise to the assumed microevolution. It only gives rise to variants within a species but again before we talk about species, we must first understand what a species is. See # 5535
(817) Darwin's Illusion | Page 277 | Religious Forums
Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis - ScienceDirect
LIIA
Well-Known Member
Adaptation does not give rise to the assumed macroevolution.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Good, then learn when we can do differently.
Audie
Veteran Member
The above is a typical gish.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, they are fun to spot in the wild.