Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

I'm still having trouble seeing how mutations are not random where it counts. If we cannot predict them and the organisms are not anticipating selection and causing them, they remain absent as evidence of the action of an agency.

We do predict and know 'how' mutations take place. It is basic genetics.

We cannot predict the individual timing and occurrence of mutations. We predict the range of when, how, and why different types of mutations and how they possibly can take place. This is basically true of all possible outcomes of cause-and-effect events in nature particularly when there are many variables such as the weather. Actually, weather is more complex than the how, what, and why weather happens than genetic mutations. Contemporary weather predictions require many runs of a number of different weather predictive models, and of course to remains the predictions are still within a range of possible outcomes. Today weather predictions are very accurate for one to 3 days, the further into the future the predictive ability decreases but is still useful.

Both mutations and weather have fractal relationships as to how, what, and why things happen.

 

[Audie]

Yes, those different interpretations, as indicated by the evidence, easily explained away, make little if any sense or are laughable in terms of what even the creationists acknowledge are facts.

It's sad to see earnest people stoop so low.

 

[wellwisher]

The theory of Evolution is relatively new in terms of human knowledge; 170 years old. Genesis has been around for much longer; 6000 years. Creation was not designed to refute evolution, since that new theory was not yet around. Genesis was built on a positive as an innovation in thinking. Evolution is more derivative and stands as much on a negation of the past, as it does on its own merit. To Atheism, Creation is yucky while the proof of evolution is still not able show, obvious enough proof, to make a Creationist pause to think. Politics is important to evolution since without it, there is not yet any smoking gun obvious.

Let me reason something through to show where evolution falls short based on science.

Tests were run in the 1950's connected to early experiments for the creation of life; abiogenesis, and the theory of life on other planets. They took single cells, dehydrated them, and then added all types of solvents, speculated to be possible for life to form on other planets, to see what would happen.

What was found was none of the cells functioned properly in any of the other solvents, often down to no protein working property. None exhibited all the characteristics of life, except in water. DNA did not work in other solvents besides water. Only water allowed all things in the cell to work properly, simultaneously, including the DNA, allowing life to appear.

This tells me DNA is not the key variable, even though it is very important. DNA is dependent on water. DNA without water is useless. Water is not dependent on the DNA, and can do many other things besides life; weather. How does evolution take into account water? What does water have, that the other solvents and DNA lack and need?

Statistical science is still being used to maintain the DNA centric theory. Water is placed in the black box, which makes the modern theory of Evolution and DNA centric suspect. Such a key variable, needed by the DNA, should be up front and not hidden.

There is sort of a parallel universe inside cells and life, based on the majority molecule of life; water, that touches all things inside life. Water is the drive for evolution, since it animates and integrates all the organic stuff. Politics is often needed when theory is soft. The religious often sense this as an alternate religion, especially when the key variable is ignored in a black box.

For example, all proteins are forces to fold based on minimizing the potential of the water. Water is like the task master that forces the protein to assume the proper shapes, so they can function as needed. This is so, because the organics evolved in water, from day one, and had to learn to coexist with water; be selected. If we scale up to cells and entire organisms, water is still calling the shots, since all the current organics were chosen to coexist. This has a vector to the future; genuine evolution.

Evolution could have gone down a different path in the 1950's but detoured into a black box.

 

[Audie]

The theory of Evolution is relatively new in terms of human knowledge; 170 years old. Genesis has been around for much longer; 6000 years. Creation was not designed to refute evolution, since that new theory was not yet around. Genesis was built on a positive as an innovation in thinking. Evolution is more derivative and stands as much on a negation of the past, as it does on its own merit. To Atheism, Creation is yucky while the proof of evolution is still not able show, obvious enough proof, to make a Creationist pause to think. Politics is important to evolution since without it, there is not yet any smoking gun obvious.

Let me reason something through to show where evolution falls short based on science.

Tests were run in the 1950's connected to early experiments for the creation of life; abiogenesis, and the theory of life on other planets. They took single cells, dehydrated them, and then added all types of solvents, speculated to be possible for life to form on other planets, to see what would happen.

What was found was none of the cells functioned properly in any of the other solvents, often down to no protein working property. None exhibited all the characteristics of life, except in water. DNA did not work in other solvents besides water. Only water allowed all things in the cell to work properly, simultaneously, including the DNA, allowing life to appear.

This tells me DNA is not the key variable, even though it is very important. DNA is dependent on water. DNA without water is useless. Water is not dependent on the DNA, and can do many other things besides life; weather. How does evolution take into account water? What does water have, that the other solvents and DNA lack and need?

Statistical science is still being used to maintain the DNA centric theory. Water is placed in the black box, which makes the modern theory of Evolution and DNA centric suspect. Such a key variable, needed by the DNA, should be up front and not hidden.

There is sort of a parallel universe inside cells and life, based on the majority molecule of life; water, that touches all things inside life. Water is the drive for evolution, since it animates and integrates all the organic stuff. Politics is often needed when theory is soft. The religious often sense this as an alternate religion, especially when the key variable is ignored in a black box.

For example, all proteins are forces to fold based on minimizing the potential of the water. Water is like the task master that forces the protein to assume the proper shapes, so they can function as needed. This is so, because the organics evolved in water, from day one, and had to learn to coexist with water; be selected. If we scale up to cells and entire organisms, water is still calling the shots, since all the current organics were chosen to coexist. This has a vector to the future; genuine evolution.

Evolution could have gone down a different path in the 1950's but detoured into a black box.

Creation myths come from all over the world
and deeply predate " genesis".

And like many old things, it and the others are
crude ignorant attempts to explain.

As for " negaring" the creation myth, that's silly.
It's no more about that than the study of electrinity
was to disprove Thor throwing lightning.

In China we do science with not the least concern
or knowledge, usually, of what religious myths
the Eskimos or yecs have.

Those ignorant notions are not yucky. They are just
meaningless.

And we, unlike the shockingly ignorant yecs, know
that "proof" does not exist in science. But they keep
right on with " unproven theory".
And want respect for their nonsense.

All your " reasoning" adds up to zero.

FACT is, nobody has even one datum point
to use in evidence to disprove evolution.

Nothing. Zip.

The way it is like this: all relevant to data from
every relevant branch of science supports ToE.

Zero contrary data.

If you find a theory yucky, too bad for your connection
to reality.

If you are so sure it's wrong, disprove it. Get your
Nobel.

Meantime, you're being ridiculous

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So humans did or did not evolve from fish?

Yes, they did. Humans had ancestors that were obligate marine vertebrates with heads, tails, mouths, brains, fins and gills - creatures that you would call a fish.

somehow intelligence got mixed into the mix after a while...

Yes. It originated in conscious animals that first solved problems and took deliberate action to evade danger or pursue goals. Much later, intellect appeared in humanity, intellect being the use of symbolic thought (language, mathematics).

the proof of evolution is still not able show, obvious enough proof, to make a Creationist pause to think.

Empiricists don't find much value in the opinions of people with a faith-based confirmation bias or how they processes evidence. Nor, as we have seen in this thread, should they expect creationists to learn from them.

Evolution could have gone down a different path in the 1950's but detoured into a black box.

Yet another Cassandra warning us of where science has gone wrong. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It is possibly incomplete, and more may be added as punctuated equilibrium and modern genetics were, but the idea that the tree of life resulted from the application of natural selection to genetic variation over generations is here to stay just like the heliocentric theory of the solar system and the germ theory of disease.

 

[Audie]

Yes, they did. Humans had ancestors that were obligate marine vertebrates with heads, tails, mouths, brains, fins and gills - creatures that you would call a fish.

Yes. It originated in conscious animals that first solved problems and took deliberate action to evade danger or pursue goals. Much later, intellect appeared in humanity, intellect being the use of symbolic thought (language, mathematics).

Empiricists don't find much value in the opinions of people with a faith-based confirmation bias or how they processes evidence. Nor, as we have seen in this thread, should they expect creationists to learn from them.

Yet another Cassandra warning us of where science has gone wrong. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It is possibly incomplete, and more may be added as punctuated equilibrium and modern genetics were, but the idea that the tree of life resulted from the application of natural selection to genetic variation over generations is here to stay just like the heliocentric theory of the solar system and the germ theory of disease.

Obligate.

How long since I heard anyone speak of creatures in terms of being
"obligate" or "facultative" in their requirements.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Obligate.

How long since I heard anyone speak of creatures in terms of being
"obligate" or "facultative" in their requirements.

You must have a good education in biology. As you likely know, some bacteria and some parasites are described in such terms depending on how adaptable they are. Here, obligate refers to be able to live only in a marine (I probably should have said aquatic) environment to distinguish them from aquatic creatures able to breathe air as well.

 

[Audie]

You must have a good education in biology. As you likely know, some bacteria and some parasites are described in such terms depending on how adaptable they are. Here, obligate refers to be able to live only in a marine (I probably should have said aquatic) environment to distinguish them from aquatic creatures able to breathe air as well.

Yep.
And
I noticed that it should be " aquatic" esp as the
actually transitional ones were fresh water.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We do predict and know 'how' mutations take place. It is basic genetics.

I don't disagree. I would call that describing of the mechanisms and the chemistry of the genes as I learned in genetics.

I can know how cards are made, the history of a deck of playing cards, the odds of drawing a particular hand, but I can't predict every card I will get in a deal.

We cannot predict the individual timing and occurrence of mutations. We predict the range of when, how, and why different types of mutations and how they possibly can take place. This is basically true of all possible outcomes of cause-and-effect events in nature particularly when there are many variables such as the weather. Actually, weather is more complex than the how, what, and why weather happens than genetic mutations. Contemporary weather predictions require many runs of a number of different weather predictive models, and of course to remains the predictions are still within a range of possible outcomes. Today weather predictions are very accurate for one to 3 days, the further into the future the predictive ability decreases but is still useful.

Both mutations and weather have fractal relationships as to how, what, and why things happen.

I think you are missing my sole point of all of this, because I really don't disagree with you conceptually or even in some of the details. I just want to differentiate what you are saying from the claims of directed mutation, of living things anticipating events that haven't happened and forcing mutations that wouldn't naturally have occurred to anticipate and address the unrealized selection.

I'm not even against the idea of looking for agency in biology. If there truly was valid evidence for such a thing, it should be considered. So far, none. But I think we should be careful how we present the facts and theories, because these things are easily co-opted into narratives against science by those with personal agendas to see their subjectivity prevail over reasoned objectivity.

 

[John53]

Don't you think I haven't tried. But all I have found is that ribs are delicious.

We've all tried

 

[Audie]

I don't disagree. I would call that describing of the mechanisms and the chemistry of the genes as I learned in genetics.

I can know how cards are made, the history of a deck of playing cards, the odds of drawing a particular hand, but I can't predict every card I will get in a deal.

I think you are missing my sole point of all of this, because I really don't disagree with you conceptually or even in some of the details. I just want to differentiate what you are saying from the claims of directed mutation, of living things anticipating events that haven't happened and forcing mutations that wouldn't naturally have occurred to anticipate and address the unrealized selection.

I'm not even against the idea of looking for agency in biology. If there truly was valid evidence for such a thing, it should be considered. So far, none. But I think we should be careful how we present the facts and theories, because these things are easily co-opted into narratives against science by those with personal agendas to see their subjectivity prevail over reasoned objectivity.

Who knows. A code at the trillions decimal of Pi.
Actual irreducible complexity.
What fool would look away?

 

[LIIA]

there is no theory in science that says fish transform into elephants, as you know perfectly well.

Yes there is. It’s called the ToE.

Don’t you know that per the ToE, Tiktaalik is considered the transitional ancestor form fish to four-legged creature (tetrapods) including elephants, giraffe and also humans? Yes, the ToE assumes that fish transformed into elephants.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

No, I’m a Muslim

 

[LIIA]

That’s not how Jews see “the soul”.

I had started a very old thread, asking what Jews think about the soul and the afterlife.

One of them had reply, and said that the soul is the “breath” that give life to the body, but it belonged to God, not to the people who live and die.

The soul is not anyone’s spirit, the soul don’t contain your personality, your thought, your memories.

The soul is indestructible and immortal. So when you die his breath or the soul returned to God. You don’t go to heaven or to hell, because the soul doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to God.

So the soul only housed in these temporary bodies, while we are alive, but once we died, the soul would to God.

As far as I understand it (and any Jews can correct if I remember this incorrectly), there are no heaven or hell awaiting us. We only get one life, here.

The idea of the people having afterlife were foreign to early Jews. Jews began adopting and adapting pagan beliefs from the 4th to 1st centuries BCE Egyptian, Persian or the Greek religions, where the spirits of the departed being judged, and either been sent to paradise (eg Field of Reeds, Elysian Field, etc) or tartarus-like hell…which in turn, were promoted by Christians and later by Muslims.

The very idea of spirit or soul being judged, and ascension, actually have pagan origins from much older polytheistic religions, from Bronze Age Egypt and that of Sumer and Babylonia. Christian and Islamic religions have been influenced by these polytheistic religions.

Even so we are generally not on the same page, but I don’t recall that I ever saw you intentionally twisting the facts to advance a false narrative or impose an opinion merely because you said so. I appreciate your ethical debate. Compared to others, you’re honest and knowledgeable. These qualities are rare on this thread. I appreciate it.

Back to the subject, I’m not a Jew. I’m a Muslim. Islam teaches that all divine revelations are the same message and from the same source, the one and only God. Revelations have been sent to humans throughout history starting with Adam himself who was actually the first prophet to mankind. Many of the revelations got distorted, altered or totally vanished over the centuries; even pagan beliefs or ancient polytheistic religions may have deep roots in older divine revelations that have been altered to a great extent. Islam teaches that Judaism and Christianity as well even so are originally divine revelations but it was not immune to human manipulations/alterations.

That is why the final message of Islam was revealed to correct/restore the original message of older divine revelations that got distorted over the centuries. The difference this time is that the revelation of Islam through the Quran is entirely preserved intact and can be entirely memorized by heart and not a single letter is allowed to change, not even the specific pronunciation of a letter.

Islam teaches that God promised to preserve Quran and make it easy for remembrance. You can find 7 years old kids in the Islamic world who literally memorize Quran entirely by heart (even at Muslim countries that don’t speak the language of Quran/Arabic). It’s a living miracle; the same is not humanly possible with any other book of a comparable size. Imagine if I give you a comparable size book of a foreign language (Russian or Chinese) and ask you or any one else to memorize it entirely by heart, would that be possible?

Back to the spirit, Islam teaches that the spirit is from the command of God and we have not given knowledge, save a little. The nature of the spirit is beyond us but we know that the spirit is the source of human life. Without it, nothing remains other than a physical dead body without consciousness, thoughts or memories. A pile of physical earthly matter that can only decompose/disintegrate back to earth.

The spirit in the temporary physical body is like the driver in the car. The car appear to be alive as long as the driver is in charge, the characteristics of the car impose specific physical limits on the driver but the driver controls the car, if the body of the car is damaged, the driver can no longer use it, once the driver leaves, the car is a pile of dead matter. “Choices/actions" during the ride is not purposeless; it’s all about getting to the final destination.

See the link and quote below from a relevant article published by The New York Academy of Sciences about the nature of consciousness.

“Traditionally, researchers had proposed that mind or consciousness – our self - is produced from organized brain activity. However, nobody has ever been able to show how brain cells, which produce proteins, can generate something so different i.e. thoughts or consciousness. Interestingly, there has never been a plausible biological mechanism proposed to account for this.

Recently some researchers have started to raise the question that maybe your mind, your consciousness, your psyche, the thing that makes you, may not be produced by the brain. The brain might be acting more like an intermediary. It's not a brand new idea. They have argued that we have no evidence to show how brain cells or connections of brain cells could produce your thoughts, mind or consciousness.

The fact that people seem to have full consciousness, with lucid well-structured thought processes and memory formation from a time when their brains are highly dysfunctional or even nonfunctional is perplexing and paradoxical."

Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)

Wiki article below about the spirit is generally in line with the Islamic perspective.

Rūḥ - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

As if you had the capacity to " debunk" ToE.

I do but you don’t have the capacity to understand it. It’s not even an argument. It’s the fact that latest scientific finds disproved the central assumption of the Modern Synthesis. See # 4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

The ToE is the Modern Synthesis, the MS being disproved means that there is no scientific theory of evolution today that is consistent with the empirical evidence of latest science. The scientific theory is gone, the axiom remains.

If you disagree, go ahead and provide a single credible scientific source that rejects any of these articles. If you don’t and you will not, then keep your personal emotions of disbelief to yourself.

You may also want to see post # 2266 by an informed/ethical evolutionist (I know it’s hard to believe).

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

You might as well claim you jump over the moon.
When convenient.

I didn’t make such claim, but if others did a similar claim, can you verify or confirm beyond doubt whether it did happen or not? The fact is you can’t even if you claim otherwise.

 

[LIIA]

A slight rephrasing of k- cosmo isn't clever.

It’s not about being clever or claiming personal credit. When you deny something that was never an issue on the table to begin with, you’re the one who brings such thought/idea out; such action exposes the thoughts in your mind and may actually confirm it rather than deny it. Do you understand? I guess not.

Regardless, being clever or claiming credit is irrelevant to my argument. If you want to make your words relevant, tell us your take on the argument not the person who is making it. What is your take on k-cosmo?

Adding a flaw of two isn't, either.

Forget who is clever or not. Enlighten us and demonstrate these flaws if you will.

 

[LIIA]

As you don't understand the difference
between a religious concept and a religion
we feel much of your defrctive thinking
is explained by such a disability.

Forget about my “defrctive thinking”. Demonstrate how Islam is not creationism!

Belief in creationism (magic) is profoundly anti science.

How can creationism be anti science if the Islamic golden age is what brought the modern scientific method to existence?

See #7382

Darwin's Illusion | Page 370 | Religious Forums

& # 7523 (not my post)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 377 | Religious Forums

So is rejecting ToE for religious reasons.

I never claimed that I’m a Muslim then the ToE is false. I provided the scientific sources that disproved the Modern Synthesis. See # 4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

As for singling out ToE to reject while respecting science, that can only done via deep ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Or both.

Again, I didn’t reject the Modern Synthesis, the 21st century empirical evidence of latest science did (see above). If you have something of substance that justifies your disagreement, then bring it to the discussion; otherwise keep ignorant subjective opinions to yourself.

All relevant data from every field of science supports ToE. If you wish to deny / disprove all of it, go have fun.

It’s a matter of false interpretations of the data not the data itself. To the contrary, all relevant data from every field of science supports purpose/design. Every observation that can be witnessed in the real world proves that the hypothesis of randomness is false, and gradualism is non-existent in the geologic record. See # 1992

Darwin's Illusion | Page 100 | Religious Forums

Evolutionists ignore the facts that can be witnessed and insist on an imagined myth.

But if that's too demanding try to find for us ONE fact that disproves ToE.

I did many times; maybe you wouldn’t read long posts. How about the simple fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a single random body plan from the earliest body plans of the Cambrian period till now. Where is the alleged gradual transition from randomness to perfection/design (which can be clearly witnessed in all body plans)?

The Nobel will be among the least of
your honors for what may be the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time.
Until / unless you provide such data,
all you anti ToE talk is nothing but
silly ignorant blather.

Why is that? Is that because Noble is not a credible scientist, or the publications of the Physiological Society are not credible? What is credible to you? Is it your personal subjective nonsense? I provide the scientific resources; you provide personal opinions as if it has a superior credibility higher than any scientific source? It’s really ridiculous.

If you’re interested to be informed about the credibility of Noble see the first paragraph of # 2266 post by an informed evolutionist.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums

That said, even so Noble is such a prominent scientist but he is not the only scientist that disproved or rejected the Modern Synthesis. He is one of many. See # 4087

Darwin's Illusion | Page 205 | Religious Forums

You and others say subjective nonsense about Noble, Corning, Müller and others merely to defend your personal opinions, forget about the person and demonstrate your legitimate reasons for your disagreement with his argument. A mere opinion because you said so is meaningless and pathetic.

 

[LIIA]

From the Naturalist perspective, there is no problem with Natural Laws and natural processes being the ultimate cause of everything and always have existed.

No, Natural Laws and natural processes have not always existed.

Refer to Lawrence Krauss book “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”

The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself”

Per Lawrence Krauss science suggests that the universe came from nothing. No particles, no radiation, no space, no time, no Natural Laws, nothing.

A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

By the evidence, it is speculation based on the 'belief' that anything exists that causes Natural Laws to exist.

"Natural Laws" itself is a contingent entity with a beginning, it didn’t always exist (it didn’t exist beyond the BB), hence its existence must be caused.

The Kalam argument is circular based on the assumption that God exists, and not justified logically. I believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), but I would not use bad arguments to justify my belief.

No, Kalam cosmological argument is based on deductive logical reasoning from general idea to specific conclusion as follows:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Then continues as follows:

4) spacetime and Natural Laws came to being with the universe after the BB.

5) The cause of the universe is beyond spacetime and Natural Laws.

6) The cause is supernatural that is neither subject to the confinements of spacetime nor the influence of any Natural Laws.

As clarified above k cosmo is not circular based, on the other hand the notion to explain a contingent with another contingent is indeed circular based. A true explanation should not be in need for another explanation, i.e., should be non-contingent. The first cause must be a brute fact that exists by virtue of its mere essence.

See #490

Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums

There is no evidence that 'absolute nothing' ever existed. It is a philosophical/theological concept with no basis in reality.

No, a “Universe from Nothing” is neither philosophical nor theological concept; it’s a scientific concept as explained above. The theological concept (per the Islamic view) of the existence beyond the BB is not 'absolute nothingness' but rather a necessary existence that is not natural/physical, i.e., supernatural, which is consistent with the scientific view that every natural entity came to being with/after the BB.

The present evidence fits best that there is a boundless Quantum World based on Natural Laws that underlie our physical existence.

It’s a subjective opinion that is not consistent with the scientific view. Even Quantum World and Natural Laws are physical entities that reside within spacetime. The scientific view is that there is no natural/physical existence of any kind beyond the BB.

Even the various Bib Bang hypothesis' depend on a Quantum existence prior to the expansion of our universe.

No, the BB standard models are firmly grounded in Einstein's theory of general relativity; they are not based on a quantum theory of gravity. There is no reliable theory of quantum gravity that can yield reliable predictions for the very early universe.

 

[LIIA]

According to anyone that has studied the topic. Yes we got words from the Arabic language. And it was known that at one point that Arabic people were making advances. But your own ignorance of the scientific method shows why the Arabic people failed and much of their knowledge was lost. It is why Europeans are rightfully accredited with developing the scientific method. Are you aware that before the Arabs the Chinese were at the forefront? And worse yet you keep ignoring where our modern numerical system came from. The shape of our numbers are Arabic. But the concept of the decimal system is Indian.

A lot of ideas did survive the effects of Islam on Arabic societies. But the ability to point to specific Arabs that were far ahead of anyone else then does not help you. The scientific method has one step that was key to its development. And it also tells us that you do not understand the scientific method at all. It also explains why you and so many other creationists fail when they attack Darwin. I even told you why they failed.


So what important part of the scientific method did the Arabs not develop?

You are not that ignorant; you intentionally twist the facts to win a false argument. You know I don’t buy such nonsense, so what is your goal? Is it to get the uninformed readers confused? But before you confuse them, you confuse yourself, See #7523 by @ shunyadragon. I appreciate his ethical debate. Try to learn from him.

I provide sources such as George Sarton, Robert Briffault, and Collins Dictionary and you provide empty assertions as if your personal nonsense has a higher credibility than these sources. It’s really pathetic.

Yes, the Chinese were at the forefront before the Muslims but how is that relevant to the fact the Muslims acquired the knowledge of older civilizations, made unprecedented scientific advancements and conveyed the knowledge to the whole world?

Yes, the concept of the decimal system is Indian but how is that relevant to the fact the Muslims advanced mathematics to an entirely new level not known to older civilizations and conveyed the knowledge to the world?

And no, it was not the Arabs it was the "Islamic Golden Age" including scientists from the “Islamic Empire" both Arab and non-Arab scientists.

List of scientists in medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Those who are interested may refer to the book below.

“The Genius of Islam: How Muslims Made the Modern World” by Bryn Barnard (Author)

Amazon.com: The Genius of Islam: How Muslims Made the Modern World: 9780375840722: Barnard, Bryn: Books

 

[LIIA]

That article both explained why the sited examples are not perfect versions of ring species

If you acknowledge that the article explained why these examples are not perfect versions of ring species, then why do disagree with my statement in #7048 “ring species is an over a century old concept with no good examples in the classic sense today”?

it also explained why the idea is still valid

Again, it’s an idea/concept without good examples as clearly stated by the article. Same as above, which part of what I said that you disagree with?

My point was the lack of examples not the validity but if your concern is the validity, then sure the concept itself is invalid and without evidence/examples.

The concept necessitates a continuous uninterrupted “gene flow” end to end to establish the specific relationship between the ends (which can’t interbreed). Without the continual gene flow, the assumed relationship between the ends is false. Even if you want to argue that any of these intermediate sporadic isolated populations would constitute the second end of the ring, it wouldn’t qualify sense the continual gene flow relationship with the opposite end is not there.

The entire concept of ring species collapses without the continual gene flow all the way (end to end) since the hypothesized relationship between the ends becomes nonexistent and without examples in nature. Do you understand?

There are "good examples". The ensatina salamander is one of them. It is not a perfect example.

No, “Ensatina eschscholtzii" is neither a good nor perfect example.

Again, studies on the molecular data concluded that the data do not support the ring species hypothesis.

Is Ensatina eschscholtzii a Ring-Species? on JSTOR

The same article titled “There are no ring species” specifically said,

“What about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii? Or seagulls in the genus Larus? Aren’t those good ring species?” My answer was that those had been shown not to be ring species in the classic sense”

There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True