Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

It has been raining a lot in Missouri this summer where I am.

The rain in Spain comes mainly from mars, maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what does all that prove? O no, sorry, I mean what is that evidence of? Brains, no brains?

They show that brains evolved. There are still very simple animals with no brains. We can find brains at all sorts of levels of development. There is nothing magical about the evolution of the brain.

 

[Audie]

The rain in Spain comes mainly from mars, maybe.

You're confused.

I have it on what says it's good
Christian Authority that it's Neptune.

Not Mars.

And water went the other way.

Excess flood water was wafted to
Neptune where it serves to this day,
shining bright as a warning Beacon.

Against incoming rogue angels.


Don't believe me? Reference available
on request

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're confused.

I have it on what says it's good
Christian Authority that it's Neptune.

Not Mars.

And water went the other way.

Excess flood water was wafted to
Neptune where it serves to this day,
shining bright as a warning Beacon.

Against incoming rogue angels.


Don't believe me? Reference available
on request

Hm, I wonder if an Alfred E. Neumann face has anything to do with it.

 

[LIIA]

So all the Islamic states we see around the world at the moment have abandoned "the true spirit of Islam" and instead their citizens live lives in an economic rather than a religious reality, you're saying?

I was addressing the declination of the golden age (from the 8th to the 13th century), at that time, the Islamic world was one of the largest empires in history. it was a Muslim empire that initially embraced “the true spirit of Islam”, the final end of that era was the Ottoman Empire that gradually got corrupted, grew weaker, and eventually suffered multiple military defeats and territorial losses till it finally came to an end in 1922.

The dynamics of the fragmented Muslim world today are quite different than the Islamic empire of the golden age, but the short answer is yes, most or all these individual countries/regimes today have cut ties with” the true spirit of Islam".

But it's important to understand that the Islamic way of life is not a religious reality vs. an economic/materialistic reality, not at all.

Islam acknowledges the duality of the body and spirit of the human being. The Islamic way of life is based on establishing the balance between both the physical and spiritual aspects of reality.

Islam teaches Muslims to pursue the materialistic means of life as if life has no end and at the same time pursue the spiritual values/responsibilities as if life ends tomorrow.

A Muslim who pursues the materialistic means of life at the expense of the spiritual values has failed to embrace the spirit of Islam. Similarly, a Muslim who pursues the spiritual values at the expense of the materialistic means of life has failed to embrace the spirit of Islam.

The true spirit of Islam must achieve the delicate balance between the materialistic means and the spiritual values.

That balance requires both the understanding of the Islamic principles and the belief, which emerges through that understanding. Both are almost nonexistent today. Yes, Muslims are many today but it’s never about the number. A Muslim who practices Islam is not the same as a Muslim who embraces Islam.

 

[LIIA]

I agree, but am not sure why you cared to make that point.

Agreed, the point is closed.

Is this part of an irreducible complexity argument?

Sure, irreducible complexity postulates that the functionality of every single constituent of any living system is dependent on the other constituents and vice versa. It’s neither possible to exclude a constituent nor a constituent can be functional or evolve in isolation of the other interdependent constituents.

No, but I believe that it likely occurred in the past.

Agreed, the point is closed.

“Likely” implies doubt but regardless, if you believe it occurred in the past, why couldn’t it happen again in the future through the same mechanisms? Give the bacteria some time, random mutations, natural selection and voila “elephant”! Or a “dinosaur”!

 

[LIIA]

But it didn't adequately support that position. The central tenet - that genetic variation occurs across generations and that environments decide which variants will dominate a populations gene pool - is still intact.

No, the article adequately supported that position, the central tenet is not intact.

a) The article provided a summary of the MS assumptions on page 2 (P#1236). Here is the quote of third assumption.

“Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population. Those variants are said to confer an advantage in terms of fitness on the individuals concerned, which therefore increasingly dominate the population. By this process and other mechanisms, including genetic drift and geographic isolation, new species can arise.”

Then the article concluded on the same page.

“All these assumptions have been disproved in various ways and to varying degrees,”

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

b) If you think the article above was not clear enough, here is another one,

2021 paper titled “Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis” by Radomir Crkvenjakov and Henry H. Heng and was published on “ScienceDirect” said,

“MS's key concept, that gradual accumulation of gene mutations within microevolution leads to macroevolution, requires reexamination”

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

c) Microevolution is basically about the adaptation process (not random) that we see in nature such as microorganisms resisting the drugs designed to kill them. Simple changes within a population occur due to change to the frequency of gene variants (alleles). “Allele frequency” of a population is not new or increase of information, but rather alterations to information/genes that already exist.

Macroevolution is about hypothesized changes that occur at higher taxonomic levels such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera. I.e., changes that allegedly give rise to whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. Such alterations are associated with vast increase of genetic info.

The DNA replication/synthesis is controlled by the cell’s DNA repair mechanisms, which proofread the DNA replication to maintain the integrity of its genetic code. Errors of the coding sequence are extremely low. If a random mutation escapes the proofreading mechanisms, in most cases it causes genetic diseases. Mutations can change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information but cannot increase information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect.

The Macroevolution hypothesis is derived from the observed adaptation process, but to the contrary Macroevolution can neither be observed nor there is any mechanism that gives rise to a new taxonomic family.

 

[LIIA]

I told you that I'm not interested in discussing this topic unless you let me know why you think it's relevant, and you chose not to.

It’s relevant because you are the one who insisted that the ends of ring species are different species and you claimed it to be evidence of evolution. Simply, It’s not.

But we do, just as we have a mechanism for macro-orbiting to proceed. What's needed to say that it won't or can't proceed is a mechanism to stop it. You see an icicle growing from your eave. Will it grow forever? No. Mechanisms exist to prevent that. It will eventually hit the ground if it doesn't fall from its own weight, and spring will come to thaw it. But you don't have that with evolution or Pluto orbiting until you get to the end of Pluto or of life. Nothing less will prevent either from going on and on and on and on indefinitely.

Pluto orbiting the sun is not an evolutionary process but rather a stable/fixed phenomenon that follows the rules of gravity (why gravity itself take effect is another issue) but regardless, even planets and stars may come to an end for various reasons.

We do observe Pluto orbiting the sun at the very edges of our solar system. Our general observations of planetary systems and knowledge of the laws of gravity give us an understanding of the phenomenon. But how is that relevant? We never see a species transforming into a new taxonomic family nor we know a mechanism that allows such transformation to take place other than speculations.

Even so artificial breeding may allow the controlled selection of specific traits and to a great extent expedite the selection process, but as seen in the example of dog breeding, even so the process produces variants that are a lot different, and some can no longer interbreed but regardless, it always stays the exact same species. Neither random natural means nor controlled artificial means can cause alleged transformation to a new taxonomic family. Macroevolution is false.

You cannot equate a stable phenomenon that we observe and understand such as Pluto orbiting the sun with a hypothesis that can’t be seen, without a mechanism and contradicts observations as explained above.

If you really believe that nothing can prevent evolution from going on and on and on and on indefinitely, then why don’t you believe that the bacteria on/within your body would transform to elephants at some point in the future? What would prevent the transformation? Can you see the contradiction?

I don't look at orphan links. You'd need to summarize its salient points in a sentence or two for me to decide if it's worth reading. What is your best reason for one to change his mind about consciousness being compatible with naturalism?

I did that before in # 7673. See the link and quote below from the 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)

I don't see a contradiction there even if you change it to what I actually did say - that I have no reason to believe that consciousness isn't an epiphenomenon of physical reality (physicalism - roughly the same as naturalism and materialsm)

How is physical reality different from physical process? If you acknowledge that physical processes don't imply consciousness, why you insist that consciousness is physical?

That's an unsupported claim.

It’s totally supported by the fact (as clarified in the article above) that there are no known physical processes/mechanisms to account for thoughts/self-awareness/consciousness.

I judge by behavior.

The observed behavior is the same, which is “input processing/decision making”.

The input and decisions may be different, but the behavior is not. The behavior in question is always the selection/implementation of the specific complex actions that benefit the organism based on accurate awareness of the variables of the surrounding environment.

I've said that you must be redefining cognition, which in its first definition implies consciousness. "Decisions" in an unconscious entity are like the "decisions" of a toe to grow nails.

I didn’t redefine anything. The article stated, “Cognition is a basic feature of life”. I didn’t select the word “cognition”, Shapiro did.

All living cells are cognitive - ScienceDirect

The article below titled “Fractal Evolution” tried to address consciousness of the living systems from an evolutionary perspective. Here is a quote.

“By consciousness, we refer to a process that occurs in any organism, from the prokaryotic cell to the human being--the process of receiving signals (from outer environment and inner domain) and translating those signals into appropriate biological responses.”

Fractal Evolution

See # 7724

Darwin's Illusion | Page 387 | Religious Forums

It might be. The problem is that it appears that we can never know

Didn’t you already acknowledge that physical processes don't imply consciousness; did you change your mind? do you think that processes that run within the robot are not physical?

No matter how sophisticated a robot could be, but the input processing ability is limited due to the limitation of the hardware and software. The robot may have sensors for light, sound, temperature and even smell but it's merely data that get translated to the machine language and processed based on the specific programming. The output/actions are controlled by the program/software not through self-awareness /consciousness. The system cannot have qualia, feelings, or thoughts. And definitely, conscious experiences or concepts such as love, hate, happiness, sadness, pain, desire, beauty, ugliness, etc. have no meaning to the physical system.

 

[LIIA]

It seems that your persistent m.o. is to attack anyone whom you disagree with and accuse them of ignorance. Maybe if you actually studied you would understand that you're all too often not right, and this is a place you can start even though it's not a scientific source per se: Evolution - Wikipedia

I didn’t accuse you of anything, I’m only asking you to respond to logic by logic. If your response is simply that this is the way you believe it (energy is involved) period. Then it’s not a rational argument. Would it make sense to you if I do the same?

You as well as other fellow Darwinists always fail to engage in a rational argument and always find your comfort in the typical escape route through nonsensical claims that “all is well” and the opposite side is wrong simply because they don’t know. Even scientists and scientific sources are no exception to these silly claims. This specific issue was addressed by Gerd B. Müller in his lecture in the royal society conference in 2016. See #7742

Darwin's Illusion | Page 388 | Religious Forums

But whether it’s an intentional escape tactic or some baseless presumptions; you should know that your source adds nothing. I know what evolution is, what it is not and more importantly why it’s a false concept.

Thanks for the wiki link and your input.

 

[LIIA]

It's dishonest and / or brainless.

Which says what it says of the religion and
it's sponsors.

Didn’t I advise you before to resist the urge to attack a person to compensate for your feelings of insecurity/inadequacy. Yet you as well as other fellow attackers insist to expose your vulnerabilities to everyone to see how pathetic you are.

The person’s attributes, intellectual level, honesty, background, character, motive, religion, etc., are none of your concern. Your concern is the argument itself. The argument is what you need to attack (in a rational/logical manner) to defend your point not the person. Do you understand?

Back to the argument, would you explain to us how the ToE is not the MS? And how Islam is not creationism? Just try not to be pathetic.

 

[LIIA]

You appear to hate the idea that you are an ape.

you appear to love the idea that you are an ape and that you couldn’t find the vaccine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you appear to love the idea that you are an ape and that you couldn’t find the vaccine.

you appear to love the idea that you are an ape and that you couldn’t find the vaccine.

I am not the on in need of such a vaccine. I need to remind you that you are the one that denies reality.

Of course I love the fact that I am an ape. Unlike you I do not think that I am a giraffe. Or do you think that you are a lichen? It is hard to get a straight answer out of you at times. I would never deny that I am a human. Yet you seem to do it quite often.

 

[LIIA]

I went over it at least twice. Would you pay attention the third time? You can't try to insult others when you were the one that ignored the explanations given to you.

So, your “contemporary sense” is that even if the essential qualifier for the ring species concept to have continuous gene flow around the ring cannot be satisfied, it doesn’t matter for you, it’s merely a little negligible matter but the populations complex would still quality as ring species? Are you serious?

Your “contemporary sense” doesn’t make any sense. In fact, it qualifies as the third most ridiculous claim ever made on the thread. The first one was also yours. Congrats.

 

[LIIA]

I am not the on in need of such a vaccine. I need to remind you that you are the one that denies reality.

Of course I love the fact that I am an ape. Unlike you I do not think that I am a giraffe. Or do you think that you are a lichen? It is hard to get a straight answer out of you at times. I would never deny that I am a human. Yet you seem to do it quite often.

what?

try again. I mean keep searching for the vaccine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, your “contemporary sense” is that even if the essential qualifier for the ring species concept to have continuous gene flow around the ring cannot be satisfied, it doesn’t matter for you, it’s merely a little negligible matter but the populations complex would still quality as ring species? Are you serious?

Your “contemporary sense” doesn’t make any sense. In fact, it qualifies as the third most ridiculous claim ever made on the thread. The first one was also yours. Congrats.

It is a negligible matter. You do not understand the important criteria for ring species to exist. You, as all creationists do a t times, are only clutching at straws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what?

try again. I mean keep searching for the vaccine.

Maybe your ignorance is due to extreme forgetfulness. You seem to have forgotten who is in need of your vaunted vaccine.

Now I understand how the perceived threat of hell can cause Christians to hold ridiculous beliefs where they have to deny reality. What causes some Muslims to do the same? What threat are you under?

 

[LIIA]

It is a negligible matter

Per whom? You?

Keep searching.

 

[LIIA]

What threat are you under?

It’s not a threat but rather the consequences of our actions. We make the choice.

But in your case, I know the threat “shortage of vaccine".

 

[LIIA]

The decline had its roots in Islam itself.

It’s the other way around. The rise of the golden age had its roots in Islam itself.

Ease up on the projection please. The only dogmatic hostility has come from you. But, I do thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.

Do you really believe that when Gerd B. Müller was talking about “dogmatic hostility” in the royal society conference in 2016, he was talking about me?

This definitely qualifies as the fourth most ridiculous claim ever made on the thread. Or actually it could be number one. I’ll leave that to others to decide. But don’t worry; in any case, you are still the winner.

 

[LIIA]

In fact, one of his basic ideas is that there is no such thing as cause and effect: there is only God's will. As such, the very essence of scientific investigation is denied as un-Islamic. This had an entirely negative effect on subsequent intellectual life.

Not at all, let me explain some Islamic concepts.

Islam teaches that the entire causality chain is initiated by a first non-contingent brute fact, i.e., the necessary being/God. (No other option is logically possible)

The concept works as follows:

A caused B caused C caused D, etc.

Islam teaches that the influence of A is a continual influence along the chain. Meaning, the influence of A doesn’t stop at B but rather continues to C and D and every single entity along the chain. It’s true and logical that A is the cause for C or D or any other effect/entity as well as the entire chain but that doesn’t contradict the fact that D is caused by C and C is caused by B.

To the contrary of your understanding, Islam not only teaches but also mandates that if we encounter the effect D, we must pursue the cause C and B. It doesn’t take us away from God but rather takes us directly to him. I.e., the ultimate end of the scientific route/endeavor is God. The scientific investigation is our means to God. That is the spirit behind the scientific achievements of the golden age and the Muslim scholars of that era.

Also, it is hardly the case that the golden age extended to the 17th century. The intellectual innovations of the early centuries (up to the 9th century) were mostly done by non-muslims. When Islam took a firmer hold, the advances in math and science stagnated. Of course, the mongol destruction of Baghdad and the Bayt al Hikma was a major blow as well. After that, the primary advances in math and science were done in mongol lands, not in the heart of Islam. If you include their work, you *might* be able to argue that intellectual advances happened in Islamic lands up to about the 14th century, but that is really pushing it.

History acknowledges the golden age era to be from the 8th to the 13th century. But I’m not the one who claimed that the golden age continued to the 17th century, (long after the death of Al-Ghazali on 1111), the wiki link did. See the link below under “decline”.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

Regardless, I never denied the fact that other civilizations had their contributions to science or that major incidents such as the barbaric Mongol destruction of Baghdad and the Bayt al Hikma (House of Wisdom) was a major blow to the golden age.

Sure, the Ottoman empire had some military successes after that (including the destruction of the Byzantine empire), but intellectual creativity had already died.

the Ottoman period spanned more than 600 years (1300 - 1922), the Ottoman empire was the most powerful states in the world during the 15th and 16th centuries and came to an end in 1922.

Even so the Ottoman empire had their great scientific achievements such as the invention of currently used surgical instruments, the early practical steam turbine engine, advances in medicine, mining and military technology (See the link below), But when we talk about the Islamic golden age (from the 8th to the 13th century), it's not really about the Ottoman empire.

Science and technology in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia