Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

And it's taken you over 2 months to respond?

I have other things to do and read through the thread whenever convenient.

No, I can't remember what this was about and have better things to do than read through all the correspondence, when ID is such a waste of space anyway.

Judging from your 18000 messages on the forum, you have some time to waste.

. I'll leave you in the capable hands of @Subduction Zone. [cue sepulchral laugh]

Is that your understanding of “capable”.

 

[LIIA]

LOL.Is your area of expertise not listening? And used the false accusation of an ad hominem again. Lastly we all know who is pathetic here.

You will never learn if you only parrot terms used against you in debates that you lost.

Yeah, right, scientists are scientifically illiterate. Fine, whatever you say. Pathetic

 

[LIIA]

Natural selection. Creationists can never deal with both natural selection and variation occurring together.

Only variations that affect fitness would trigger selection, otherwise selection wouldn’t play any role. Selection has no innovative capacity; Per the ToE, variations must take place first through some random means before selection may be triggered and eventually increase advantageous traits or reduce harmful traits among a population.

I.e., phase one is random change (not intended to achieve any purpose), phase two is the selection process. Randomness means non-purposeful changes of all kinds would emerge, mainly neutral or harmful with the exception of some changes that may happen to be beneficial within a specific environment.

Why don't we see examples of these random harmful changes that reduce fitness continually emerging in nature and get eliminated by selection? Why don't we see random dark colors that keep emerging among polar bears and then gets eliminated by selection. Or deformed limbs that randomly emerge then gets eliminated by selection. We don't see the alleged randomness in nature.

 

[LIIA]

and end up with kalam cosmo.

My argument is not based on the kalam cosmological argument, but the concept is very much the same.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. The cause beyond the beginning of the universe (BB) is beyond time and space. The cause beyond time has no beginning. The cause is a brute fact (causeless).

Absolute nothingness cannot cause anything. A brute fact must exist as the origin of all existence (absolute origin).

 

[LIIA]

No science and math in China?
Not a very thorough cut n paste.

How is that relevant? Again, I’m saying the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers, are you claiming that these numbers are Chinese? See the link below.

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia

But it was all a false response, as
Islam is not creationism.

Why is that?

Creationism is the belief that nature, the universe, and life originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In that sense, how is Islam not creationism?

The cause of the universe is beyond time and space, hence supernatural, i.e., of a unique nature that can't be witnessed or imagined. This is the Islamic view of God.

“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing."

Ash-Shuraa 11

“Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One. Allah, the Eternal. He neither begets nor is born. Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

Al-Ikhlas

Creationism itself is profoundly
contrary to science.

Not true, Creationism is contrary to some specific theories not science in its entirety. In the case of Islam, I can't think of any scientific theory that Islam rejects other than the ToE.

But as Ernst Mayr said, evolutionary biology is not an exact science, it should be included with the Geisteswissenschaften. In that sense, Islam doesn’t reject any aspects of science but rather the false historical narrative of the ToE. See #331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

 

[John53]

Individuals of the same species normally vary in how they look due to distribution of traits, gene flow, genetic/environmental factors or from chromosomes swapping sections during meiosis, which cause genomic variation among produced offspring of the same species. That is normal but it’s not what I am talking about.

Selection may work only on changes that affect fitness. If the changes are neutral with respect to fitness, selection wouldn’t play any role. Selection supposedly causes random advantageous traits to be more common in the population and eventually eliminate harmful random changes. I’m talking specifically about these kind of changes that affect fitness, per the ToE changes keep emerging all the time in a random fashion then selection plays the filtration role with respect to fitness.

So, lets ignore neutral changes that don’t trigger selection. Now, where are the examples of the random changes that reduce the fitness of the organism and get filtered out by selection? Such as dark color mutations among polar bears or maybe a fifth limb in the wrong location or eye on the leg of the creature (Such deformations/errors can simply be caused by random mutation of homeotic genes).

Homeotic genes are responsible for the orderly organization of body parts ensuring that the correct body parts form in the correct places of the body, Random mutation of homeotic genes would turn on the wrong genetic programs to cause random body segments growing out in the wrong locations of the body. If the hypothesis of randomness were true, then selection would be very busy filtering out all kinds of deformations/random errors that keep emerging randomly. It should be the rule not the exception. We don’t see that in nature.

Homeotic genes (article) | Khan Academy

Leucism is an example of a mutation that can adversly affect fitness. It's makes the bird or animal much more vulnerable to predation or unable to hunt because they lose the camouflage advantage, which is why we see a lot of white birds and animals in captivity but not in the wild.

 

[LIIA]

One clarification is a 'reality itself?' as used above includes a subjective claim of what may exist beyond our physical existence such as God and other spiritual worlds. If you define the 'reality itself' to be limited to the possible infinite extent of our physical existence okay.

Deep-sea fish under the photic zone, can never have a perception of the sun.

A relative domain of perception never constitutes a limitation to the absolute reality. Any claim otherwise is subjective.

One comment on 'infinite regression; is that it is a hypothetical closed set infinity that could not possibly apply to our physical existence.

“Infinite regression" is this context is not a mathematical concept but rather an infinite causality cascade. But yes, it could not possibly apply to our physical existence.

Our physical existence is best described as a potential infinity.

Define “infinity" in this context. What is being unlimited? Is it time, space or the causality cascade?

But no, our physical existence is limited at the threshold where time, space and physical matter no longer exist, the Big Bang.

The variations of the hypothesis of what may be called the Big Bang only provide options of the earliest history of the universe with the expansion of the universe and not a known beginning. The possible singularity is a beginning form in a preexistent Quantum World.

No, the universe is a physical existence. Beyond the Big Bang there is no physical existence. The Big Bang is the beginning of physical existence itself.

Any claims about preexistent physical world of any kind are false in the sense that it’s an illogical attempt to extend the physical world (and time itself) beyond its beginning. The word "Preexistent” itself is inapplicable given the absence of time. The existence or the causal influence of the beginning is of a nature that is not physical, free from the limitation of time, space and anything physical and cannot be known or understood. i.e., a supernatural brute fact.

The universe is possibly cyclic.

The assumption of cyclical event that combines both the Big Bang and the Big Crunch as part of an oscillating model has a logical challenge of how/when was the cycle itself initiated? But most importantly, the probability of an oscillating model is negligible because measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation show that the Universe will continue on expanding and the speed of the expansion is accelerating.

The pssibility of a 'Source' or a 'Mind?' some call Gods is based on subjective beliefs outside the defined realm of science.

It could be beyond the realm of science that is why the attempt to define it on scientific basis is totally subjective. (We cannot apply the scientific method beyond its domain).

The knowledge of God is based on the collective human knowledge not merely the limited scientific knowledge obtained through direct observation/experimentation.

 

[blü 2]

I did.

Then I must have been mistaken when I detected skepticism in your statements on the subject of abiogenesis ─ as though you didn't want to believe the path from chemistry to the first self-reproducing cell might be possible.

All fundamental forces of reality are concepts in individual brains;

To the extent that we represent them by abstractions and generalizations, yes.

To the extent that we name phenomena in the world external to us, which we perceive by our five senses, no.

For instance, you can drop a brick on your foot and notice how it fell downward. A phenomenon ─ which we generalize as gravity─ is at work, with objective existence, one that's there whether anyone's there to think it or not, is at work.

We can walk up to Bishop Berkeley and say, "George, when a tree falls in the forest, we have excellent grounds for thinking it will create vibrations in the air whether anyone's around to hear those vibrations as sound or not. And where we come from, we have instruments that will determine whether that's correct or not, even if there's no human mind within a hundred miles of the place."

we can only observe the effects, never the causes.

Of course we can observe the causes. You can drop a brick on your foot, and note that the cause was your releasing the brick in a position where it was free to fall, and this happened to be above your foot. And you might have foreseen this because you could feel the weight of the brick, the force acting on it, before you let it go.

Did you ever see a video of dark energy

Dark energy is presently the name of a problem, not a thing.

you can never see the causes

I showed you above that with gravity at least, you see them all the time. With the others you may need apparatus eg such as CERN has.

or know its fundamental nature

But to the extent that this may be true at present, at least science, and more generally, reasoned enquiry, are actively seeking to understand the fundamental nature of nature, while accepting there are no absolute statements, no statements protected from unknown unknowns.

Supernatural belief, on the other hand, isn't even looking. And it's all very well to stipulate that God is omniscient, but ─ given a real God ─ how does God in fact know that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know? Isn't omniscience an entirely imaginary quality, whereas 'weight' is a generalization about observable phenomena?

I’m only saying that part of reality must be a brute fact that always exist/uncaused, otherwise no caused entity can be explained.

I see no impediment there to our present procedures of learning what we can, and adding to it where we can, by systematic programs of enquiry.

God is not a physical entity within spacetime that reflects light so you may record it on a video.

Then the ONLY way God is known to exist is as an idea in a brain. No brain to imagine a god, or hold the concept of a god, then no god.

You can't even have a video of any fundamental force within spacetime for that matter; you can only observe the effects not the causes.

As I said, you can drop a brick on your foot, and watch the cause and the effect. And if you want to know what we presently think is the best way to account for the phenomenon of gravity, go to Wikipedia and see if anything has seriously displaced Einstein's curvature-of-space notion.

God as the initial cause for everything in existence (including the universe and spactime itself) is not subject to the confinements of spacetime or any physical law of any kind.

But God exists only in minds, like Superman. Search reality for them, and the only important difference is that if you find a candidate for Superman you'll be able to test for Supermanness, because it's much described, but you can't find a candidate for God because God has no description as a real entity ─ and there's no definition of Godness, the real quality that God will have and Superman (and Superscientist) will lack.

You’re making a logically fallacious “infinite regress” argument. I’m telling you the beginning must be a brute fact.

IF the universe MUST have been created by a sentient creator, THEN the sentient being in turn MUST have been created by a sentient creator, who ...

While IF the sentient creator does NOT require a sentient creator, THEN the universe does NOT require a sentient creator.

What fallacy are you speaking of?

 

[LIIA]

Leucism is an example of a mutation that can adversly affect fitness. It's makes the bird or animal much more vulnerable to predation or unable to hunt because they lose the camouflage advantage, which is why we see a lot of white birds and animals in captivity but not in the wild.

It’s actually a good example but I think it’s a very rare condition/disorder that may or may not pass to offspring and wouldn’t support “Randomness" as a rule. The statistical significance of the observations is what supports the assumption of a dominant rule, not some minor exceptions.

In fact, strange deformations can be seen in the fruit fly (such as legs growing out of their heads in place of antennae) but again, exceptions don’t prove a rule. Actually, such exceptions help us to understand and appreciate the rule.

Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns (utah.edu)

 

[LIIA]

Yes, Creationism as defined as the literal interpretation of Genesis by many if not most believers in Christianity and Islam, okay definition.

Creationism is the belief that the universe, and life originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. Even so Islam acknowledges Christianity and Judaism as divine revelations, but Genesis is not the basis of Creationism from Islamic perspective.

 

[LIIA]

The concept of randomness actually does not apply to cause-and-effect outcomes in the nature of our physical existence including the occurrence of mutations in life.

True, mutations are never random. See #1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

The occurrence and outcomes of mutations may appear random

No, even if the cause/mechanism is not known but neither mutations are random, nor the outcomes of mutations appear to be random. It’s mostly a response to environmental pressure or change that causes non-random adaptation such as the well-known ability of Microorganisms to survive against the drugs designed to kill them (Antimicrobial Resistance).

The possibility of a fifth limb is highly unlikely, because of anatomical symmetry.

How can a functional/atheistic purpose, such as anatomical symmetry constitute a driving force that controls a mindless random mutation process?

it would be more likely that mutations in the number of limbs would likely occur in pairs.

So, if mutations are random, we should see lots of examples of deformations or additional body parts such as limbs growing out in the wrong location of the body.

The only significant example that I'm aware of is the fruit flies, including strange deformations such as legs growing out of their heads in place of antennae or in place of mouth parts. Even so such deformations are rare exceptions but without the exceptions, we cannot understand/appreciate the rule. Without the sickness, we wouldn’t appreciate the health. Without the darkness, we wouldn’t appreciate the light.

Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns (utah.edu)

Nonetheless, there exists a mutation among a few human families with six fingers and six toes very anatomically proportional. It never has become common or dominant, because it has no survival value over the normal five digits. I have personally met members of a family where some members have six digits in Hillsborough, NC.

If mutations are random, then we should see a lot more of these incidents, not just anatomically proportional variations but also non- proportional deformations.

Per the ToE, the emergence of such random changes is the only route to what can be eventually perceived as purposeful design through the purification process of natural selection.

But in fact, earliest body plans since the Cambrian period exhibited the same anatomical symmetry without any evidence of random transitional forms towards the development of these body plans.

 

[LIIA]

I've solved the problem. Reciprocity. Ignore.

Fine, I’ll consider your posts as some random words evolving spontaneously in cyberspace; hence I could naturally select to dismiss it.

 

[LIIA]

Ok. I'm going by the Bible and the existence of the first man, Adam. His body was created first, then life was given him. That's for starters.

Yes, the lifeless body came first, then the soul is what made the body alive. Your body is not you. Your real being is your soul. Death of the body happens when the connection between the body and soul is broken. The soul doesn’t die.

 

[LIIA]

You should read and try to understand the articles that you link instead of grasping at straws. The reason that the ensatina salamander is not a ring species is not because the species can interbreed. No, it is because in a ring species there is supposed to be a continuous uninterruped gradient from both sides of the ring. Genetic analysis shows that there were times of clear disruption in the ring.

The basic ideas are still sound. It is just not a case where the evolution could be shown to be continual with the ring existing during all of he speciation events. This article that you linked makes it more obvious:

There are no ring species

TRIGGER WARNING: Evolutionary biology.A while back, when I said in the comments of an evolution post that there were no good "ring species," a few readers asked me what I meant by that. "What abou

whyevolutionistrue.com

So the classic, continual uninterrupted line "ring species" do not exist. Do you think that that little issue matters? You not only grasped at straws, you provided the ammo that refutes your beliefs:



"Based on these results, everyone has now concluded that the formation of this “ring” involved sporadic and important episodes of geographic isolation between populations, so it’s not the classic “continuous gene flow” scenario involved in making a ring species. As Wake himself said in his 1997 paper (reference below), “The history of this complex has probably featured substantial [geographic] isolation, differentiation, and multiple recontacts.” (You can read about the Ensatina story in greater detail at “Understanding evolution,” a great site produced by U.C. Berkeley.)"

Nice shooting. I do believe that you just shot off your little toe.

Irrelevant nonsense. You get off track very easily. What is your point? Go back and read my post #7408 and let me know which part of what I wrote that you don’t agree with and why.

Let me explain. @It Aint Necessarily So claimed that the ends of the ring are different species. In my post #7408 I said that the ring species complex is a group of subspecies and further clarified that ring species is an old concept with no good examples in the classic sense today. Now, let me know which part that you don’t agree with.

That said, in your case, whether these examples are true examples of ring species or not, different species or subspecies, it wouldn’t make a difference with respect to your axiom since you tend to interpret everything in light of that axiom regardless of what it is.

 

[LIIA]

You need to make your own arguments. Paraphrasing a source and linking to it if you want to offer your reader support for your claims is enough.

When it comes to the ToE from a scientific perspective, I mainly inform you of the latest in the field that you may not be aware of. In that sense, I provide info not an argument.

Yet, I do have multiple logical arguments that I discussed on this thread many times. But if the typical mindset is to reject/argue rather to understand/contemplate then the discussion wouldn’t be beneficial.

Again, here is an example of what we previously discussed:

1) Life/survival is a necessary prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. (If it doesn’t survive, it doesn’t evolve). Survival came first.

2) Survival (even in simplest life forms) is always contingent upon complex interdependent systems being functional. The functionality of these systems is contingent upon every individual system playing its specific role at the same time. Any single system wouldn’t be functional in isolation of the other interdependent systems.

3) If an individual system appears somehow randomly, it would not be functional in isolation of the other systems; hence it will not play a role for the survival of the organism. And even if we assume that the organism somehow survives, then selection wouldn’t retain a non-functional system. Meaning, there is no route through which the essential interdependent systems would develop to become collectively functional towards the goal of survival. But how can we claim a process to work gradually towards a goal (survival) if such goal is an absolute prerequisite for the process to begin with? (Circular reasoning), see #7403.

In conclusion, whether the entity subject to the alleged gradual change is an organic molecule or actually a living system, survival/persistence is an absolute prerequisite before any gradual change of any kind may emerge/materialize. Neither a living system can survive without the vital functions from day one (ToE) nor a biomolecule can persist for a long time without getting decomposed/disintegrated (abiogenesis). If survival/persistence of a system is not possible, then no evolutionary process of any kind is possible.

 

[LIIA]

Delineating pathways is not relevant unless it is to debunk claims of irreducible complexity.

I’m here claiming irreducible complexity as well, but you wouldn’t care to delineate pathways.

Many creationists demand pathways before belief, but the theory only provides the mechanism - natural selection of phenotypes subject to intergenerational genetic variation.

Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all central assumptions of the theory.

See #4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

 

[LIIA]

This is the sorites paradox. No subspecies that evolved from its neighbor is sufficiently different to preclude procreation between them, but the ends of the ring are different species by the fertility definition. It's analogous to saying that no human being was ever born to a non-human parent despite the fact that once there were no human being but now there are, but still, no first human. This is a consequence of the predicate human not having a precise definition that allows one to identify a parent as non-human and its offspring as human. A classic example is going from having hair to natural baldness. Bald is an imprecise predicate, and thus no first day of baldness can be identified.

Yet the argument was that the ends of the ring species complex are identified as subspecies not different species as you claimed. These variants are all considered subspecies even if they don’t interbreed in nature, that’s why populations that don’t interbreed in nature don’t necessarily delineate different species (like the example of Great Danes and Chihuahuas).

To avoid the confusion about what a “species” is, I always emphasize the fact that there is no process neither natural nor artificial that can produce new taxonomic family. It's always variants of the same species (subspecies)

Is this how you understand what unable to produce viable offspring means - any inability to conceive together including mechanical barriers to getting spermatozoan to ovum?

The size difference between the two prevents any part of the process from occurring naturally and if attempted artificially the offspring of Great Danes grow too large too quickly for the female Chihuahua to carry, usually both the mother and the puppy die. Yet both Great Dane and Chihuahua are the same species, (Canis familiaris), not even a subspecies.

Regardless how the variants of dogs differently appear and even if they lose the ability of interbreeding in nature, they stay the same species. No matter how hard we try to artificially breed dogs, the result is always the same species, not even a subspecies, and definitely never a new taxonomic family.

 

[LIIA]

This must be a new definition of cognitive. Cognition is, "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses." The literal meaning implies consciousness.

Do you actually acknowledge that the “mental action/ understanding through thought and senses, i.e., consciousness” is not a physical process? If you do, then I agree. If you don’t then you contradict yourself.

If cognition is a physical process (interaction of matter) so, why do you think the cognition of the living cell is “new definition”.

Tropism isn't cognition by this metaphorical definition. Nor is reflex. I suppose one can go further down that path and call a rock rolling downhill making a decision even though it is unconscious and passively reacting to its surroundings.

Again, if you’re pro-evolution, then you consider cognition as a physical process (interaction of matter), in that sense what makes cognition (in a fundamental sense) different in humans compared to living cells?

See the sources below for further info about microbial cognition.

- All living cells are cognitive
All living cells are cognitive - ScienceDirect

- "Bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than thought"
"We see now that bacteria are, in their way, big thinkers, and by knowing how they 'feel' about the environment around them, we can look at new and different ways to work with them."
Bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than thought -- ScienceDaily

- Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart
Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart (evo2.org)

- How bacteria choose a lifestyle
How bacteria choose a lifestyle | Nature

- How Do Bacteria Decide Where to Divide?
How Do Bacteria Decide Where to Divide?: Cell

-The intricacy of choice: can bacteria decide what type of myeloid cells to stimulate?
Editorial: The intricacy of choice: can bacteria decide what type of myeloid cells to stimulate? - PMC (nih.gov)

- Brainy bacteria could revolutionize healthcare
Brainy bacteria could revolutionise healthcare | Research | The Guardian

- "Researcher teases out secrets from surprisingly ‘intelligent’ viruses"
“Viruses are very intelligent. They can think. They do things that we do not expect. They adapt to the environment. They change themselves in order to survive,”
Researcher teases out secrets from surprisingly 'intelligent' viruses - USC News

- Microbial intelligence
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

I have other things to do and read through the thread whenever convenient.

Judging from your 18000 messages on the forum, you have some time to waste.

Is that your understanding of “capable”.

Yes I’m retired and have some free time. But as you will, or should, realise, keeping up a discussion or argument requires timely responses, or people lose interest and the trail goes cold. Only a full-time obsessive would imagine that an exchange can be kept live on the basis of 2 months intervals between responses, until the issue is of burning importance to the parties involved. Debunking silly ideas about creationism is something I do in odd moments, for fun. It does not consume me.

 

[LIIA]

Debunking silly ideas about creationism is something I do in odd moments, for fun. It does not consume me.

Fine, have fun. Debunking the ridiculous historical narrative (ToE) about fish transforming into elephants is something I do whenever convenient but it’s not for fun.

Have a good night.