Darwin's Illusion

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only one:

All hail the mighty Pasta!

Ramen

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's page 300, I had to post something.

Who knows who is lurking out there.

 

[gnostic]

It was in some book I read. I've done a great deal of research and while most have been on the net I've also read a lot of books. I have not kept notes nor always bookmarked sources. I just try to keep a trail of breadcrumbs.

As always (I could be wrong but as I remember the author of the book claimed some of the Scrolls have roots going much farther back. One of the earliest (I believe 1500 BC) was most interesting to me because it appeared to be an Ancient Language original translated into the nature of truth, how to recognize it, and the light that is consciousness.

I do not claim to be infallible or know anything at all.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are only found in the Qumran caves, and neither the clay jars the scrolls were stored in, nor the parchments, papyri & bronze they were written on, dated anywhere near 1500 BCE.

Beside that, most of were written in Hebrew, and a few in Aramaic and Greek Koine, don't exist in the Late Bronze Age or this 1500 BCE.

Either you don't remember the detail in this book you read, or you misunderstood the book. Or, the book you read simply got it wrong (that would mean this book of yours is unreliable).

I am telling you, there are no Bronze Age writings of the Bible.

The oldest literary evidence, are some inscription found in the Ketef Hinnom cave, written on a couple of thin, blackened silver leaves, that contain a passage from Numbers 6, the Priestly Blessing. These two tiny scrolls, were dated to somewhere between 630 and 590 BCE, and the date were confirmed by other artifacts (mostly pottery vessels, as well as some jewellery, tools) found in the burial chambers of that cave. The scrolls were found in Cave 24, chamber 25.

These are the oldest literary evidence. There are nothing older these tiny scrolls; there are no stone tablets, clay tablets, manuscripts or scrolls, whatsoever prior to the Iron Age.

 

[cladking]

I am telling you, there are no Bronze Age writings of the Bible.

Did you even glance at the link?

I didn't read it either but it says some of the stuff is older.

BUT this is not what I'm talking about. Nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls is older than the 10th century BC but some are OBVIOUSLY taken from writing dating back to 1500 BC. The Negative Confessions date back to 1800 BC and might form the basis of part of genesis.

It's a real shame I don't know everything like most of the believers in science. I'd just love to have all the answers and have spent a lifetime just to find the tiny bit I have. I find it fascinating ancient people thought species changed based on behavior and some of this survives in the Bible.

 

[cladking]

I am telling you, there are no Bronze Age writings of the Bible.

And I believe that for most practical purposes almost everything in the Bible (especially OT) is based on misunderstanding of Ancient Language and science. We can see everything ancient written after babel is in Stinky Bumpkinese and simply assume everybody was sun addled.

I believe everyone makes perfect sense. The assumption that anybody, especially those for whom no real record exists, was a superstitious bumpkin is part and parcel of modern language. We think that if someone doesn't use abstraction as we do then they are just superstitious. This doesn't work at all if there is no real record.

 

[cladking]

...I trust includes helping out the earth and your fellow humans where you can

Lol.

I once saw a man on company time spend almost five minutes and 10c worth of supplies to wash an empty tomato can for recycling. The can after this processing was worth negative .05c making the entire operation a net loss to the commonweal of at least $10. Fortunately he didn't cut himself on the sharp edge and need medical attention as well. It's easy to get cut on those tiny little cans.

Of course some men only do a few minutes work per day so the calculation here is tricky. The same man wouldn't recycle $50 worth of company supplies that would require less than two minutes of effort because it was "too much trouble". Instead it was scrapped on a continuing basis.

in my experience there is a lot of correlation between the greenest people and the largest footprints. Your assumptions are probably going to prevent communication. You are simply going to parse my words to be nonsense and then lecture me about your beliefs. You believe in some sort of magical "natural selection" but somehow I can't say "naturally selected" as a past tense!!! You assume science has all the answers and nature is beholden to its laws. You have extrapolated experiment to not only cover all of reality but also to be correctly interpreted at this time. It's impossible to argue with people who don't see evidence or talk about premises. I KNOW what your premises are but you simply ignore all of mine or assume ones that don't even exist.

 

[cladking]

So what?

So nature unfolds logically and binarily from initial conditions in virtually infinite series of events that derive from harmonic and chaotic processes. It is not beholden to laws nor is there any goal. These are magical thinking. They are derived from interpretation of experiment based on faulty assumptions such as that mathematics governs physical law. They are derived from the numerous false assumptions I've delineated over these pages. We are not the crown of creation. We are not even the most advanced species in in the last 5000 years. What we don't see and don't known is many many orders of magnitude greater than what we can see.

 

[cladking]

So nature unfolds logically and binarily from initial conditions in virtually infinite series of events that derive from harmonic and chaotic processes....

...And this applies to both cosmology and slime molds. There is and always has been a single reality and homo omnisciencis has eight billion different ways to perceive it. We are simply wrong and experiment and evidence are being misinterpreted.

There are other characteristics of reality I could include but it seems we can't even discuss these simplest ones or how they apply to Darwin's false assumptions.

 

[cladking]

...And this applies to both cosmology and slime molds.

Life is consciousness and free will. Reality still unfolds from initial conditions but life exercises free will. It is consciousness and free will that sustains all life and NOT fitness AND NOT natural selection. It is consciousness that underlies change in species because there is no fitness and no goal.

Darwin's conclusions are ordinary enough but his assumptions are quite extraordinary and do not stand to scrutiny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've previously mentioned four of the basic assumptions for Darwin's formulation of the theory of evolution in post #5719. As a reminder those are:

1. Heritable variation (asymmetrical) with reproduction.
2. Non-random mating. Successful mating varies with fitness.
3. Unstable populations. A continual struggle for resources in varying environments.
4. Time. Evolution occurs gradually over time.

Given that there has been a lot of misinformation, belief and denial regarding Darwin and the theory of evolution presented on this thread, I thought it important to raise the topic up from beating on a dead man and moving it into the present and discuss the modern theory. Taking the opportunity to post on this, the 300th page of this thread, seems a long overdue need to post the basic concepts of the modern synthesis (MS) and burn some of the straw that has been laid down in the place of facts. For those interested, these concepts can be found in more detail in the review by Futuyama (2017).

1. Evolution occurs at the population level and not at the individual level. The change is in the frequency of heritable variation within populations from one generation to the next.

2. The basic unit of heredity are the genes represented by RNA and DNA. The individual experiences of organisms do not affect the transmission of these genes.

3. Variation arises primarily by mutations that are random with respect to their usefulness and are not directed to some perceived need. Claims of directed mutation have been demonstrated to be groundless.

4. Gene frequencies in a population are altered by mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection. Evolution can be and has been defined as change in gene frequencies of populations over time and those four mechanisms are the cause of that change.

5. Natural selection is a consistent, biased difference in the production of offspring by living things and the sole cause of adaptive change.

6. Species of sexually reproducing organisms arise gradually over time through allopatric (geographic isolation) and non-allopatric mechanisms.

7. Higher taxa evolve through the accumulation of small changes evolving gradually over time.

Thus, the MS is the current theory derived from Darwin's work with the addition of all we have learned through genetics and population biology where it acts as the foundation for modern biology. The theory itself has been in a steady state of revision and any new revision will still be a theory of how life is related, changes and diversified over time.

Futuyma, D.J. 2017. Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis. Interface focus. 7(5), 20160145.

 

[blü 2]

Life is consciousness and free will.

You think viruses have consciousness? Bacteria? Lichen? Stinkweed?

You think those things have free will? I define free will along the lines of "the situational ability to apply your brain's decision-making processes free from external coercion". Is that what you mean? If not, what?

Reality still unfolds from initial conditions but life exercises free will. It is consciousness and free will that sustains all life and NOT fitness AND NOT natural selection.

In my terms, sometimes I'm conscious ─ awake and aware ─ and when I'm asleep, or under anesthetic, I'm not conscious.

I still need your definition of "consciousness" to understand what you're saying.

It is consciousness that underlies change in species because there is no fitness and no goal.

When you've defined "consciousness", talk me through an example of how it can change species in ways I didn't mention in my earlier post.

 

[cladking]

"the situational ability to apply your brain's decision-making processes free from external coercion".

This definition is highly flawed. "Brains" neither make decisions nor are conscious. Organisms make decisions. We merely imagine that our consciousness lies in the brain. This might not be too far off the mark in humans but I keep telling you humans are the odd man out. Our consciousness is built around language for 4000 years and other life form have their language built around consciousness. But even humans aren't being "coerced"; we merely factor in the broken arm or reeducation camp we are promised for the "wrong" decision.

Simple organisms have simple consciousness and make only simple decisions. I have no doubt they can be far more complex than you might imagine.

In my terms, sometimes I'm conscious ─ awake and aware ─ and when I'm asleep, or under anesthetic, I'm not conscious.

You are always conscious. More accurately where there is life there is consciousness. When our higher brain functions are shut down or asleep we won't be aware of it unless we remember a dream. Even in a coma there is some consciousness but it is harder to see other than in the medulla.

When you've defined "consciousness", talk me through an example of how it can change species in ways I didn't mention in my earlier post.

Life is consciousness and free will. It strives to survive, procreate, and succeed. It is always making decisions to improve its odds, comfort, and status. Only homo omnisciencis experiences consciousness as "thought" so we are always slightly removed from our own consciousness. We can't see what other life can see and everything we can see is determined by our beliefs. We are very different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Homo habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, H. heidelbergensis, H. sapiens. That's it. No other listed.

Here's some recent scientific papers on Homo sapiens evolution.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2015.0237
It is a discussion and summary of fairly recent evidence on the evolution of humans.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta.../1531360850966/Galway-Witham+Scinece+2018.pdf
Here is another, slightly more recent article on the evolution of Homo sapiens. We've been around for a while and still going strong.

 

[blü 2]

This definition is highly flawed. "Brains" neither make decisions nor are conscious.

When organisms have brains, brains are simply part of the organism. When organisms are capable of consciousness, brains create conscious states and non-conscious states. You = your brain+your body. Indeed, your body has 'sub-brains' as well, largely independent neural systems, notably one for the heart, and another for the gut, though they don't create consciousness.

Our consciousness is built around language for 4000 years and other life form have their language built around consciousness.

Where on earth do you get that "4000 years" from? We have writing ─ cuneiform, hieroglyphs, perhaps proto-Chinese characters, for instance ─ from more than 4000 years ago. Protowriting existed in Sumer 5,500 years ago, as well. We have no reason to doubt that language existed a long time before civilization ─ all known human groups worldwide have language, and it appears to be a distinguishing characteristic of modern H sapiens, and so may have something like 150,000 years or more of history. Whether that's accurate or not, modern humans left Africa some 70,000 years ago and were in Australia arguably 60,000 years ago, and each of those emigrant groups have language in common form ie brains skilled in symbolic communication, vocal chords, specialized tongue, coordinated throat and lips.

Simple organisms have simple consciousness and make only simple decisions. I have no doubt they can be far more complex than you might imagine.

So amoeba are conscious, you say?

Then once again I have to ask you: WHAT is your definition of "consciousness"? WHAT are you actually talking about? WHAT test will tell me whether a fly, a flower, a fluoride toothpaste, has consciousness or not?

Life is consciousness and free will.

And where's that definition of "free will" I asked you for?

Do you actually know what you're talking about?

 

[LIIA]

Yeah, but you are special, because you are neutral and we are never neutral, but you are not a part of that we. Got it.

”We’re never neutral”. When I said “we”, did I claim myself to be the exception? “We” means all of us. I’m no exception but at least I’m aware of it. Got it.

 

[LIIA]

we also are aware that the creationists cannot come up with a model for their beliefs. They do not have to come up with a model that says how God did it, but they still have to come up with a testable model that explains all of the evidence and that does not appear to be possible for them.

First, whether creationism provides a model or not, it has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the ToE. You’re playing a false dichotomy.

Second, as I explained many times, you are under the illusion that you have a model that explains the observations which is absolutely false. From the largest scale to the smallest scale known to mankind, do you really think you have explanations? Do you have a model that explains how dark energy drives cosmic objects apart? Do you have a model that explains how the strong nuclear force holds together the fundamental particles to maintain the stability of matter? All what you really have is some given names of unknowns that exert influence on matter in an unknown way yet you think you have an explanation! Your typical explanation is “The unknown force did it in an unknown way” How is that an explanation? It’s really pathetic.

Even if you are happy with your model “the unknown force caused the observed influence in an unknown way” then why don’t you go a step further and ask what entity/force caused these unknown forces itself (we know that it’s not a brute fact). Our inquiry for causes can never stop till we reach a brute fact. God is the brute fact that gave rise to every contingent entity.

As we approach the fundamental levels of reality, no explanations are possible. We can only observe an influence and infer that a cause exists. The hierarchy of relative causes must end at the absolute first cause. The absolute cause is causeless, yet its existence is logically necessary to explain every caused entity. No other explanation is possible or logical.

 

[LIIA]

Here is the formal problem. For all cases of X is Y and not Z, it is not universal if I can do Z.

Your model is this: For all humans(cases) all thinking is as mine/LIIA(Y) and not different(Z). I just do Z right here in this post.

1+1=2 (Y)
Go ahead and do (Z), I guess you can if you’re irrational, but it will be logically false.

 

[LIIA]

Good, then learn when we can do differently.

Sure, we can do differently. But when it comes to “1+1”, there is only one logical Answer. We cannot answer differently unless you are irrational and since you already acknowledged that you are irrational, then go ahead and do differently but it will be false from a logical perspective.

We’re all different but the quality of being different or the ability to do differently has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of ideas. The validity is governed by logic (if you’re rational and acknowledge logic as the reference).

 

[LIIA]

If you were correct, you could verify it here. You could show your sound, evidenced argument that shows that natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations did not produce the tree of life. But you can't, because the theory is correct, and correct ideas cannot be falsified.

I did many times. It’s not even an argument. I stated facts and provided the resources. That’s it. You’re in a state of denial that blocks your ability to understand it. And again, genetic variations as in the so-called “microevolution” do not give rise to the alleged “macroevolution” over generations.

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

Yes, I know. The crisis is with creationism and has been since the repudiation of the ID program by the Dover trial, and a series of embarrassing debunkings of false claims of irreducible complexity in biological systems.

This is an illusion. The examples of irreducible complexity are endless and impossible to be debunked unless you provide a satisfactory explanation for each case. Here is an example for the interdependency of biological systems that cannot function if a single component is removed.

Can the muscles function without neurons to convey motor commands from the brain to precisely control the specific muscle movements?

Assuming that the neurons/brain exist and functional, can the muscles function without a structural frame to support it (endoskeleton/exoskeleton)?

Assuming that the structural frame exists, can the muscles function without a system to supply energy utilizing oxygen and nutrients from the specific environment?

Assuming that the metabolic functions exist to supply energy, can the muscles function without a system to remove toxins/waste from the body?

If all of that somehow exist and functional can a mammal survive a single day without the “Epiglottis” to prevent food and drink from entering the windpipe?

If you ignore everything I said and just provide a satisfactory explanation for how the “Epiglottis” allegedly evolved or how can a mammal survive a single day without it, then I’ll accept that irreducible complexity is debunked.

A random organism missing any of the interdependent biological functions necessary for survival would not survive a single day let alone millions of years waiting to somehow get the essential system that it needs for survival. If it doesn’t have what it needs from day one, it will not survive to day two.

Take only one of the interdependent functions out and the entire system becomes nonfunctional, a nonfunctional system will neither survive to leave offspring nor get naturally selected.

You have to understand that the concern here is survival (staying alive). Survival is a product of numerous extremely complex interdependent functions. You may argue that every individual function can play different role and eventually change but you fail to understand that these alleged different roles would not support the collective goal of survival. No function can develop or change further unless it’s already a component of a surviving system (If it doesn’t survive, it doesn’t evolve). To achieve the goal of survival, the organism must have all necessary interdependent systems functioning from day one otherwise it will not have any chance of survival. Again, if it doesn’t survive, it doesn’t evolve. Do you understand?

Truth is already resonating in me. I've found my path, and it doesn't involve god beliefs or religions. I have no reason to believe that you have truth, but I do have reason to believe that a god belief meets some need in you not present in those who are comfortable with one.

The absolute truth is independent of our relative needs.

[1] Science assumes nothing.

Really! Every hypothesis is an assumption. abiogenesis is an assumption that was elevated to an axiomatic status.

[2] We *have* a growing body of evidence in support of naturalistic abiogenesis, but not enough yet, and none for creationism.

False. See the article below if you want to know.

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

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

Every observation of purpose/design is evidence for creationism. It’s everywhere around us. It’s impossible not to see unless you are blind.

[3] That's not the definition of axiom. Your definition - belief independent of sufficient supporting evidence - would include the creationist worldview and all faith-based beliefs.

Axiom means self-evident truth. “Self-evident” means that the axiomatic status is not dependent on evidence.

Not for you, perhaps: All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites

Again, I said “there is no evidence that nucleotides, nucleic acids or self-replication exist in "nature" outside the living cell”.

Your article is taking about “nucleobases” in space rocks. Do you understand?

To avoid confusion, the main point is specifically that self-replication doesn’t exist in "nature" outside the living cell.

Sure it does. How are you going to stop it?

You wish. You don’t understand what you’re talking about. Accumulation of changes (variants) never causes a new family to emerge.

If that were true, you could demonstrate how you know to be so. If that were a fact, interested students of the sciences would know it the way creationists would have learned it - from science.

Neither adaptation nor Artificial selection gives rise to new family. Again, I’m specifically saying “family” because the definition of species is controversial. The inability of natural interbreeding is not enough delineation of a species. Variants of the same species may not naturally breed yet they are still the same species. (Such as the example of different variants of dogs).

Variants of the same species do not give rise to macroevolution, Neither adaptation nor Artificial selection gives rise to the alleged macroevolution.

If you don’t agree, go ahead and provide evidence that artificial selection can create new “family”.

No god can be the conscious creator of consciousness.

How do you know that? What is your reference? You’re making an assumption based on nothing but your own limitations but why would that be a factor at all?

Consciousness, feelings, thoughts, sensations, desires, love, hate, joy, pain are not physical. No interaction of matter can give rise to “qualia”.

That's not an argument against a materialistic understanding of consciousness.

You didn’t get it. Again, the materialistic realm has nothing but waves, lots of waves of varying length/frequency/strength vibrating in every direction. There are no images, colors or sounds only vibrating waves. Only consciousness allows “qualia” of all kind. “qualia” is not possible beyond consciousness. qualia” is not physical.

If they can't interbreed, then they are a different species technically.

False. Ring species variants are technically the same species. The variants are not different species, they are “subspecies”.

Again, the definition of species is controversial. The inability of interbreeding is not enough delineation of species. We discussed that many times. Why can’t you get it?

You just made an implied argument against an omnipotent intelligent designer for the universe. Just as this deity would need to discover how its own consciousness arises in order to create conscious animal life, it needed to discover the laws that nature imposed on matter and set parameters accordingly.

False logic. The absolute is not subject to the laws that control the contingent. Do you understand?

One needs to learn English and Venter's substitution code to interpret his inserted sequences, which do nothing except serve as watermarks to protect his patents, but no intelligence is necessary to translate natural sequences into proteins.

Its an irony that you see intelligence in these pathetic watermarks and don’t see it in something like the human genome.

The process performed by the cell machinery (the hardware) to translate the coded info (the software) into proteins is nothing but intelligence at an unimaginable magnitude beyond any intelligent process achieved by man (see #5554).

The natural genome doesn’t need a substitution code to translate it to some other language known to us. The natural genome itself is the language. The words of this language are translated into body plans as well as all interdependent internal systems of the organisms. Once you understand the translation, you get the message, do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

You still do not know what a peer reviewed work is. Yes, Elsevier is a well known publisher. And they seem to have quite a range of journals that they publish. Some of them are well respected. Some of them are not. In fact I should say quite a few are not well respected. In fact so many of Elsevier's journals are not only not well respected but thought to be predatory that the publisher is now widely viewed as predatory publisher:

Elsevier now officially a “predatory” publisher

For a number of years now, publishers who expect losing revenue in a transition to Open Access have been spreading fear about journals which claim to perform peer-review on submitted manuscripts, but then collect the publishing fee of a few […] <a class="more-link"...

bjoern.brembs.net

But even if that was not true, it still would not be a peer reviewed article. Not everything that you read in peer reviewed journals are peer reviewed. They often have letters and opinion pieces. Nature for example has invited researchers to publish works for lay people in their journal. Jack Szostak, a Nobel Prize winning biochemist wrote an article for them on abiogenesis. It was not peer reviewed, It was never presented as being peer reviewed. Yet at least one chemist, James Tour a at one time well respected synthetic chemist, claimed that it was in a series of his talks. He of all people should have know that it was an informal piece. That is what your article was, It was not peer reviewed, it was just that man's opinion.

This was already explained to you and yet you continue to defend it and worse yet try to appeal to the large numbers of Elsevier rather than to how well respected a publisher is. This only confirms that your knowledge of science is very low. And I can say that because mine is only slightly higher. And I have at least an inkling of how little I know.

Wow! A long post with an attempt to be rational and you provided your source for a change!! Amazing, this is not your style! Who wrote this post for you? But regardless of the nice attempt, it’s still pathetic.

So, you acknowledge that the journal is well known peer-reviewed publisher, Peter A. Corning is a highly qualified scientist but his specific article that you don’t like is merely an opinion!! How pathetic? Peer-reviewed articles are accessible via the academic databases. Here is another link to the same article via one of the Academic Databases for the Health and Biomedical Sciences (PubMed)

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

Your denial is beyond pathetic. But again, the sources provided in #4087 were not limited to the work of Corning on Elsevier but also many other prominent scientists such as Noble, Müller, Steele, Crkvenjakov, Heng, Gorczynski, Lindley, Tokoro and may others as published on multiple well known publishers. See #4087

Darwin's Illusion