Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

The system is necessarily organic molecules that must persist and gradually increase in complexity over an extremely long time. Without such molecules, there is no such thing as chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don’t take place in isolation without the molecules.

You do not see your error here.

 

[LIIA]

I already have. You need to show that there is a chance of your ability to understand it.

I can understand why you are reluctant. Most creationists seem to understand that if they understood the concepts of the scientific method and scientific evidence that they would have to openly lie to continue with their nonsense. And they do not want to openly lie.

Again, forget about the person and state your case. you can do nothing beyond some pathetic personal attack. I'm not your concern, your concern is the argument, but again, why I would even waste time explaining that to someone like you? you're not serious. you're here to merely kill some time.

 

[LIIA]

Nope, you need to demonstrate that you can be an honest interlocutor. It is really not that hard. You will only be limited by being force to be honest.

And the only "pathetic" thing is you running away. I have no doubt that you will continue to run. Ironically you could easily prove me wrong here by learning what is and what is not evidence and why but you would rather run away.

if you bring something of value to the discussion, then let's talk, otherwise, have fun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, forget about the person and state your case. you can do nothing beyond some pathetic personal attack. I'm not your concern, your concern is the argument, but again, why I would even waste time explaining that to someone like you? you're not serious. you're here to merely kill some time.

Why? I have no need to do so. Those that understand the scientific method and the concept of evidence already understand this. And someone that refuses to understand the basics of science can never understand. When you act as you do you relieve others of the burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if you bring something of value to the discussion, then let's talk, otherwise, have fun.

Oh my, such projection.

Sorry, but you cannot be rude and make demands. I have been overly polite with you. You should try to be polite and rational some time. You might be amazed at the results.

 

[LIIA]

And even if we follow one of the alternative timelines, the intellectual decline of Islam is still very much the case. In those alternative descriptions, the Golden age is a result of military, not intellectual, might,

The specific timeline is irrelevant to the fact that the decline did take place and the golden age did make great contributions to humanity.

But such contributions didn’t end or stop with the decline but rather continued for many centuries after, as previously discussed.

Credible sources of history attributed the golden age to the influence of Islam itself not merely a large empire with a military might, such might is merely an effect, and the cause was Islam itself.

See the link below under “Causes.”

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

Together with the rise of a fundamentalist mindset that discouraged philosophical and scientific investigations,

If the claim is that Muslims stopped embracing the true spirit of Islam, then yes, that did happen and is still happening till today but the specific claim about Al Ghazali are not true.

The destruction of Baghdad the capital of the Islamic empire and the cultural/scientific hub of the Islamic world, killing hundreds of thousands of its population including the Muslim scholars along with the destruction of the “Grand Library of Baghdad” and its huge wealth of knowledge that had accumulated through centuries of work by the Muslim scholars of the era, it was the milestone event that started the decline.

Siege of Baghdad (1258) - Wikipedia

House of Wisdom - Wikipedia

You don't need to do a basic history lesson. We weren't talking about the military might of Islam, but rather the decline in intellectual investigations. And that decline started long before the Ottomans came to power.

Yes, the decline started long before the Ottomans came to power but the point here has nothing to do with the military might of Islam but rather the contributions of the Muslim world for the betterment of humanity that continued for centuries even after the decline.

Later advances under the Ottomans was due to European influence, not a native growth of intellectual discoveries.

That is merely an empty claim; the fact is that the Ottomans made great advancements in science and technology. Even if some base ideas originated in other areas, but the major technological advancements were made by the Ottomans themselves. In fact their military might was related to such technological advancements especially the Ottomans military technology. See the link.

Science and technology in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

Gunpowder empires - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

You might be amazed at the results.

I'm amazed already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm amazed already.

That does not appear to be the case. You appear to have locked your bakes. You are afraid to learn.

 

[LIIA]

That is questionable,

It’s only a baseless presupposition. The driving force that gave rise to the Islamic golden age was Islam itself. See the wiki link below under “Causes”

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

at least. The translations from Greek into Arabic were done by Nestorian Christians.

The Islamic state embraced the Islamic principles of openness and tolerance, even so Muslims were the majority but non-Muslim minorities worked along side with Muslims and made their contributions especially with respect to translations to the Arabic language.

Most of the early math and science was done by non-muslims

Irrelevant, what is the point about early science?

The route of knowledge always starts by acquiring available earlier knowledge of others then you build on it. To get your PhD, first, you must acquire available knowledge of others. Second, you start your own research/inventions. There is no other way. Did you ever hear of a scholar who ignored all earlier knowledge of others and started his own knowledge from scratch?

You must start by getting the knowledge from available sources, from that point you may advance to the next level. This is exactly what the Muslims did.

(there were early restrictions on who could convert to Islam)

There was no such thing as restrictions on who could convert to Islam. It was up to the citizens of the unified territories to convert to Islam if they wish or pay taxes to the Islamic state, which is equivalent to the Muslim citizens obligation to pay zakat.

The elimination of the Persian empire and the (brief) unification of a large territory certainly had a lot to do with intellectual (and economic) growth under the early caliphates. What isn't so clear is the influence Islam itself had.

Remember that, at first, there weren't very many moslems in the Islamic lands. The elite were moslem, but the vast majority of the populace was not.

People of the unified territories were free to embrace Islam if they wish, at the time of the golden age the majority of the population were Muslims. The Islamic state embraced the Islamic principles of openness and tolerance; it was not about Arabs but rather about Islam and the Islamic state. The scholars of the Muslim world were both Arab and non-Arab, Muslims and non-Muslims, even so the elite including rulers, scholars, scientists were mostly Muslims but non-Muslim scholars worked along side with Muslims and made significant contributions especially with respect to translations of known classical knowledge of the world into Arabic.

See the link below. It provides knowledge about numerous scientists of the Islamic golden age. These Muslim scientists had overarching knowledge including multiple fields of science as well as Islamic theology.

List of scientists in medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

See the link below for the article titled “Early Islamic philosophy”. Here is a quote:

“The period is known as the Islamic Golden Age, and the achievements of this period had a crucial influence in the development of modern philosophy and science. For Renaissance Europe, "Muslim maritime, agricultural, and technological innovations, as well as much East Asian technology via the Muslim world, made their way to western Europe in one of the largest technology transfers in world history.”

Early Islamic philosophy - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

That does not appear to be the case. You appear to have locked your bakes. You are afraid to learn.

try something new, just for a change. try to forget about me. again, I'm not your concern, the argument is. do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

try something new, just for a change. try to forget about me. again, I'm not your concern, the argument is. do you understand?

No, others already know this. You cannot advance until you know this. There is no point to trying to help you until you understand what you should have known before you even started.

 

[LIIA]

The reason it is unlikely to occur on earth again is because we do not expect abiogenesis to occur in the presence of existing life. Abiogenesis occurred on pre-biotic earth with little free oxygen in the oceans or atmosphere. That world is gone.

Totally irrelevant, the transformation from bacteria into elephants has nothing to do with abiogenesis, it's about the alleged evolutionary process through random mutations and natural selection.

The claim was that all of the central tenets of evolution, which you refer to as MS (I presume that's short for modern synthesis) have been overturned. What I'm looking at these is the summary of one such central tenet followed by the claim that they have been disproved. Not here they haven't. Where's the falsifying argument for the claim in quotes? It's not here, and you know why I won't go to your link to find it if you can't summarize the argument in bullet points. That pretty much guarantees me that there will be nothing there, because even if you stumbled onto something worthwhile, how would you know that if you can't paraphrase it?

Latest scientific finds in the felid have nothing to do with my or your personal opinion/interpretation. It’s not a personal claim. I provided the scientific sources. It’s not me who gives credibility to the source; it’s totally the other way around. The source gives credibility to my claim. If you don’t accept the source, you must provide a credible source that refutes it not merely some subjective opinion.

The article included a summary on page 2 (P#1236) of all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (MS) followed by a conclusion that all of them have been disproved and then the article continued with a detailed explanation for each one under separate headings such as “Are mutations random?”, “Is genetic change gradual?”, etc. I may give you highlights of the introduction, abstract or the conclusions but there is no such thing as summarizing the entire article for you.

Here is a quote under the heading “Are mutations random?”

‘It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change”

It’s up to you if you want to read further, otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to help you.

 

[LIIA]

No, others already know this. You cannot advance until you know this. There is no point to trying to help you until you understand what you should have known before you even started.

again, forget about me, I'm not your concern. demonstrate some rational reasons for your disagreement, can you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

again, forget about me, I'm not your concern. demonstrate some rational reasons for your disagreement, can you understand?

Sorry, no can do. And of course you are my concern. You are the only one posting nonsense here right now.

Why are you so afraid?

 

[LIIA]

I still don't see an argument, much less the repudiation of every tenet of the theory.

The article did demonstrate the argument against the MS. If you don’t understand it, you should be able to understand the abstract or the conclusions.

The article addressed the concerns/conceptual problems with the gene-centric view in biological debates about causality and the relationship between genotypes and phenotypes, highlighted the diverse ways of transmission of genetic information and called the gene-centrism of the Modern Synthesis and its key concept that gradual accumulation of gene mutations within “Microevolution” leads to “Macroevolution” into question. Neither individual genes nor accumulated gene changes define new phenotypic traits. These assumptions previously seemed reasonable judged by evidence of the pre-genomic era but not anymore.

Latest studies showed that phenotype characteristic/differences are frequently driven by networks of molecular interactions, not differences in genotype/ the gene-by-gene info as assumed by the MS. The MS assumptions are not consistent with the evidence of Modern Genomics. The article made the case that modern Molecular Biology cannot be fitted within the confines of the MS anymore.

The genome has traditionally been treated as a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to change by copying errors and accidents. Latest studies showed that the genome is an intricately formatted Read-Write (RW) data storage system constantly subject to cellular modifications and inscriptions. The cell machinery does not just read the genome. It imposes extensive patterns of marking and specific expression on the genome to give rise to various required functions of the living system.

The genes are organized/controlled by unforeseen processes beyond the genes themselves; the living system interprets the genes. The interpretation process has a hierarchy that occurs at distinct times of cell reproduction and multicellular development and involves a variety of different processes at each time scale.

Regulatory homeotic genes start working early during embryonic development to control the orderly organization of specific body parts. The regulatory genes come at the very top as the first responder to the controlled interpretation process, no gene aside from that very first regulatory gene does anything until it's told when and how much to do it but it’s not known what is the process that activates that first regulatory gene itself. Gene switches regulate gene expression by controlling where, when, and to what degree a specific gene is activated. It regulates existing genes but it doesn't change the DNA sequence. The entire DNA replication/synthesis process is controlled by the cell’s DNA repair mechanisms, which proofread the DNA replication to maintain the integrity of its genetic code. Replication errors are extremely rare and if it happens, it would in most cases cause genetic diseases. Even genetic change was found to be the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA.

The genes don’t create the living system; the specific interpretations of the genes by the living system is what controls all aspect of the development process such as the body plan, gene expression, DNA replication/synthesis, phenotypic outcome/traits, and even genetic change/mutation. Control is always the rule; nothing about the entire process is random.

The MS gene-centric view is not supported by the evidence of latest finds of Modern Genomics/ Molecular Biology.

 

[LIIA]

Sorry, no can do. And of course you are my concern. You are the only one posting nonsense here right now.

Why are you so afraid?

hopeless case
you better hurry, you know what I mean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

hopeless case
you better hurry, you know what I mean.

Did I say that you were hopeless? I do believe that you must still have a fair number of neurons firing properly in the old noggin.

You just have to get over your fear. But it is a bit of a compliment that you are so afraid of me

 

[LIIA]

Here's more - a summary of the scientific position followed by a claim with no connecting argument.

I suggest you go back and read it again but let me try to summarize.

a) Changes within a population occur due to change to the frequency of gene variants (alleles). “Allele frequency” of a population is not a new or an increase of information, but rather alterations to information/genes that already exist.

(NO NEW GENETIC CODE)

b) DNA replication errors of the genetic code sequence are extremely rare due to DNA repair mechanisms that maintain the integrity the genetic code.

(NO NEW GENETIC CODE)

c) But if a random mutation escapes DNA repair, the outcome is mostly genetic disease or no known effect, random mutation errors can change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information but cannot create new information/genes.

(NO NEW GENETIC CODE)

d) Macroevolution changes that allegedly give rise to whole taxonomic groups requires a vast change/increase of genetic info.

There is no route that allows such massive increase of genetic info to emerge nor alleged accumulated gene changes define new phenotypic traits to begin with as previously explained. Macroevolution is a speculation that can neither be observed nor there is any mechanism that gives rise to a new taxonomic family.

Again, consider the example of dog breeding. Expedited selection of specific dog traits through artificial breading can never give rise to subspecies, new species, let alone new taxonomic family. YES, we can absolutely get variants with different phenotypic traits and YES, some variants would lose the ability of interbreeding, but they are always the same species. Yes, we may see huge differences between the variants but it’s not an evolutionary process but rather merely gene variants/alleles. Simply, the dominant alleles determine the traits.

 

[LIIA]

Did I say that you were hopeless? I do believe that you must still have a fair number of neurons firing properly in the old noggin.

You just have to get over your fear. But it is a bit of a compliment that you are so afraid of me

 

[LIIA]

OK. I disagree, but don't see any value in arguing the point beyond that.

you know what really has no value? It’s empty denial without any justification.

It’s not that you don’t see value in arguing, you’re not aware of any justification for your empty denial. That is why you can’t argue.