Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Pathetic. The article is not about refutation of the ToE it was about genetics in computational systems biology and was published by the Royal Society.

View attachment 79730

View attachment 79733

Oh you are back to Denis Noble. So what? It was interesting. It was not taken seriously so it was probably full of errors. The reason I say that is that parts of his work appears to be in areas outside his area of expertise. It is extremely easy for nonexperts to make areas outside of their own specialty. His specialty is not genetics. When an expert in genetics agrees with him then I will sit up and notice. But seeing a non-specialist claim a scientific revolution is all too common and almost always wrong.

I am not claiming to refute his work. I am mere pointing out how badly you failed at supporting your claims.

 

[LIIA]

Why do you think that the Greeks didn't? When it comes to the modern scientific method that was fleshed out in Europe. Some Arabs were well on the way to developing the scientific method, but one fundamentalism took over that knowledge was lost. It was never formalized by the Muslims Certain individuals were following something close to the scientific method but it was missing a key part. Which is why the info was lost.

How many times should I repeat? the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” established the basis of the modern scientific method. see what Sarton & Briffault wrote and the link below.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science wrote "Perhaps the main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages, was the creation of the experimental spirit ... This was primarily due to Muslims down to the end of the twelfth century”

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)

 

[LIIA]

was probably full of errors

who can make such claim? You? Pathetic.

provide a reference of an expert claiming such errors, your mere claims have no value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times should I repeat? the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” established the basis of the modern scientific method. see what Sarton & Briffault wrote and the link below.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science wrote "Perhaps the main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages, was the creation of the experimental spirit ... This was primarily due to Muslims down to the end of the twelfth century”

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)

No. Thatis

How many times should I repeat? the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age” established the basis of the modern scientific method. see what Sarton & Briffault wrote and the link below.

Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science wrote "Perhaps the main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages, was the creation of the experimental spirit ... This was primarily due to Muslims down to the end of the twelfth century”

Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”

https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf

The making of humanity (archive.org)

No, that is not the case. Once again they may have been the first to follow many aspects of the modern scientific method, but they failed at one crucial part or it. Their work was not properly published. As a result many findings were lost. The Arabic civilization took a huge step backwards due to fundamental Islam. It was during the European Renaissance that the scientific method took on its modern form. Publishing not only allows one peers to confirm or refute one's work. It also preserved it for future generations.

That is why Europe far outstripped the Muslim countries in warfare. Technology is a must in warfare and the Arabs had lost their edge.

 

[LIIA]

I often ponder how the first life arose without consciousness. Of course there are many possibilities and life/ consciousness might have evolved together. Perhaps it was so effective at the simplest levels that nature worked on creating ever more complex organisms with ever more complex consciousness. Nature "wants" her every creature to survive which is why they are all equally fit. She wants species to survive which is why "fitness" is defined differently in every individual. I'm neither striving to exclude nor include a Creator, but as you say at some point we will have to ponder the "ultimate (initial) cause". In the meantime I just don't know but I sure do know almost everybody from ditchdiggers to peers misunderstand science and theory. Humans misunderstand the nature of consciousness because we are different than other life forms.

You know better than anyone else here that consciousness/cognitive capacity is an essential aspect of life. The ability of input processing/decision making establishes the fundamental difference between living organism and dead matter. As previously discussed in #6001.

All living cells are cognitive - ScienceDirect

 

[Debater Slayer]

I feel like humans will have evolved a fifth limb before this thread is settled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

who can make such claim? You? Pathetic.

provide a reference of an expert claiming such errors, your mere claims have no value.

Not at all. I am sorry, but only the scientifically illiterate would make such a mistake.. I have seen scientists make this sort of error again and again. That paper was quite a while ago and does not appear to have been adopted by those that understand this the best.

It looks as if you have no idea of how you failed.

Now the question is, why do you oppose the fact of evolution so much? Even the most extreme person that you refer to still knows that we are apes. And since you appear to hate the fact that you are an ape I do not understand why you refer to them. Oh wait, except for the truly pathetic Disco Toot. That you do not understand that they are a laughingstock is rather amazing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel like humans will have evolved a fifth limb before this thread is settled.

Oh that will never happen. Not the limb. I was not talking about that. The problem is that the science deniers will not learn from their mistakes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh that will never happen. Not the limb. I was not talking about that. The problem is that the science deniers will not learn from their mistakes.

When I first joined this forum in 2011, I didn't accept evolution. Realizing that it wasn't a fringe theory or "hoax" (thanks to debates on RF) as I had believed kick-started the most difficult period of doubt in my life, and I was scared of going to Hell for being unable to reject evolution any longer after finding the evidence too convincing to dismiss.

I know what it's like to be a creationist and see evolution as a threat to one's worldview, and that's partially why I harbor no negative feelings toward most creationists. I just find it unfortunate that decades of anti-scientific campaigning have led us to the point where a scientific fact is fought against tooth and nail in many parts of the world.

 

[LIIA]

That is why Europe far outstripped the Muslim countries in warfare. Technology is a must in warfare and the Arabs had lost their edge.

yes, they did and yes, the Arabs lost their edge but that is irrelevant to the fact that the “Islamic Golden Age" established the basis of modern science and to a great extent contributed to the betterment of humans.

I never claimed that the Golden Age is still ongoing. as you said the Arabs lost their edge, but they did have that "edge" and it did contribute to the betterment of humans.

 

[blü 2]

creationism equals purpose/design. Purpose/design explains everything, alleged randomness explains nothing.

Other way round. The question is, how did life arise in the universe? The beginning of the answer is to point out that, some 11bn years after the universe began, when the earth had existed for something like a billion years, it came into being here.

How? Through natural processes, the identification of which is a work in progress. Speaking of which, have you bothered to inform yourself about the state of research into abiogenesis? Doesn't sound like it, but correct me if that's wrong.

If instead (as appears to be the case) you want to say God brought life into being, the first question is, What real thing do you intend to denote when you say 'God'? The problem with gods is that they're only known to exist as concepts and things imagined in individual brains, which is why there are no videos of them, any more than there are videos of a real Superman or Donald Duck. And they get described in imaginary terms like omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, eternal, infinite, blah blah ─ for instance how does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

And when you've done that, please explain how this real God came into being? Created by an überGod who was brought into existence by an überüberGod who was &c &c?

And thirdly, by what means, do you say, did this real God create the first self-reproducing cell? Describe the process so that the people exploring abiogenesis can say, Ah! I see! and look for another job.

 

[YoursTrue]

More denial and nonsense.

Where is your evidence for a "necessary being"? Even if there was a necessary being all of the evidence tells us that life is the product of evolution.

I'm going to say no it isn't. You will tell me to back up my claim. I have many times. Because DNA is similar in many respects of chimpanzees and humans does not mean each evolved. You may think so but that doesn't make it so. The differences are profound between the two. That's why. Profound to the point that one cannot cross over to the other. A chimp stays a chimp and humans stay as humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I first joined this forum in 2011, I didn't accept evolution. Realizing that it wasn't a fringe theory or "hoax" (thanks to debates on RF) as I had believed kick-started the most difficult period of doubt in my life, and I was scared of going to Hell for being unable to reject evolution any longer after finding the evidence too convincing to dismiss.

I know what it's like to be a creationist and see evolution as a threat to one's worldview, and that's partially why I harbor no negative feelings toward most creationists. I just find it unfortunate that decades of anti-scientific campaigning have led us to the point where a scientific fact is fought against tooth and nail in many parts of the world.

I often try to point out to theists that evolution does not refute God. For Christians I often try to point them to Biologos. That is a Christian site with world famous Christian scientists that accepts evolution. Rarely does it help.

 

[LIIA]

Oh that will never happen. Not the limb.

demonstrate why not from an evolutionary perspective, isn't the evolutionary process is random? a fifth limp may randomly appear then selection may keep it or eliminate it, right? I guess it may help you when you try to climb a tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going to say no it isn't. You will tell me to back up my claim. I have many times. Because DNA is similar in many respects of chimpanzees and humans does not mean each evolved. You may think so but that doesn't make it so. The differences are profound between the two. That's why. Profound to the point that one cannot cross over to the other. A chimp stays a chimp and humans stay as humans.

It is far beyond being similar. It shares the exact nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. It is strong evidence for evolution. But then you probably don't understand the concept of evidence either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

demonstrate why not from an evolutionary perspective, isn't the evolutionary process is random? a fifth limp may randomly appear then selection may keep it or eliminate it, right? I guess it may help you when you try to climb a tree.

No. It is not random.. You just told us that you do not even have a high school level of scientific literacy. You forgot about natural selection.

 

[LIIA]

only the scientifically illiterate would make such a mistake.. I have seen scientists make this sort of error again and again

So only the scientifically illiterate would make such a mistake but you have seen scientists make this sort of error again and again. I guess scientists are scientifically illiterate. its not only your argument but also your ad hominem is pathetic.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Considering the number of genes in a genome and possible combinations that can be randomly produced in nature for each single species, there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out all the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the alleged evolutionary process, even for a single species"

I see you error. Evolution doesn't try out all possible interactions. It goes with what works at the time.

What works? The small difference of DNA between chimpanzees and humans shows evolution is out of the picture. If you want to believe humans and chimpanzees evolved from an Unknown Common Ancestor, that's your choice. But it no longer makes sense to me. The difference is profound.

 

[LIIA]

No. It is not random.. You just told us that you do not even have a high school level of scientific literacy. You forgot about natural selection.

really? shouldn't the random change appear first before selection would play any role? pathetic

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, they did and yes, the Arabs lost their edge but that is irrelevant to the fact that the “Islamic Golden Age" established the basis of modern science and to a great extent contributed to the betterment of humans.

I never claimed that the Golden Age is still ongoing. as you said the Arabs lost their edge, but they did have that "edge" and it did contribute to the betterment of humans.

And sincezas3,calmost all of that knowledge was lost we had to start all over. That also means that though the Arabs may have been first in many areas that knowledge was lost and we had to start all over again. That early work was lost. It no longer counted as a step.