Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly what claim am I supposed to support?

Wow! The same claim that you have made endlessly about how more positive than negative mutations are needed. That only shows a total lack of understanding of natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? Because by definition natural selection can only act upon beneficial (or negative) mutations

Neutral mutations by definition are invisible for natural selection……………… that is literally the definition of “neutral” in this context.

Do I really have to support this?

That is not exactly what you have been claiming.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why? Because by definition natural selection can only act upon beneficial (or negative) mutations

Neutral mutations by definition are invisible for natural selection……………… that is literally the definition of “neutral” in this context.

Do I really have to support this?

From the previous citation:

nucleotide changes that do not alter the encoded amino acid, have often been assumed to be neutral, but a growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. We used site-directed mutagenesis coupled with direct measures of competitive fitness to estimate the distribution of fitness effects among synonymous mutations for a gene under directional selection and capable of adapting via synonymous nucleotide changes.

Neutral is not always neutral in function.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh now selection is not instantaneous? No...it is said to mutate for generations. The same or continually adaptable mutation. Like the supposed breakaway from the ape's "unknown common ancestor," perhaps maybe?

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly what claim am I supposed to support?

First you have to agree, then you're allowed to ask questions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh now selection is not instantaneous? No...it is said to mutate for generations. The same or continually adaptable mutation. Like the supposed breakaway from the ape's "unknown common ancestor," perhaps maybe?

No, the selection is not instantaneous of course it takes place over millions of years. Yes environmental change and new environments drive evolution over time. There is no such thing as 'break away?' whatever that is. Science is developing a good tree of life-based on fossil evidence and genetic evolution over time. Of course, it is not complete, but there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is falsified beyond any reasonable doubt.

It remains that no one not even you has presented an alternative explanation for the billions of years of the history of life.

 

[shunyadragon]

First you have to agree, then you're allowed to ask questions.

There is no problem with coherent relevant questions. So far they are not forthcoming, nor are any competent relevant references that support an intelligent argument.

 

[LIIA]

To a certain extent, I was jerking your chain on your agenda issues on your phrase; mutations do not lead to new genes. Your agenda is the rejection of evolution on religious grounds not in science.

It’s good that you made some effort to understand the “context” but why do you call it “agenda”? I thought we agreed to have an argument based on reason not nonsense. I don’t make argument about the ToE based on religious ground; the Islamic view is a reference for me not for you, the argument can only be supported by references that you acknowledge, that is why I only provide the scientific references from mainstream (pro-evolution) sources.

But, yes, absolutely, I reject evolution and I have my reasons and I embrace Islam and I have my reasons. I have my reasons for my view and have the right to defend it; the same is true for you. This is what this forum is about. This is why you and I are here. So, please let’s try to keep a rational argument and leave the nonsensical accusations aside.

The problem with Your use of terms is your simplistic statement mutations do not lead to new genes. is a terribly misleading, generalization,

I was quoting you word for word from your post #7943! Not because you’re a credible source but to specifically avoid nonsensical arguments. Obviously, it didn’t work but yes, mutations do not lead to new genes. You know that don’t you?

and what you call 'new genes.'. Mutations do not lead to new genes in and of themselves, they lead to NEW INFORMATION. You are neglecting other factors of evolution of changes in the environment and time.

It is a faulty logic. You fail to understand that not all info is equal. Are group of letters arranged in a specific manner (a statement) to convey a very specific meaning, equal to random letters that don’t have any purpose? What happens to the “purposeful arrangement” of letters if you start to randomly change the letters? Simply the first thing that will happen is that the specific meaning will be gradually lost. The more letters you change the more damage to the meaning. What would happen to the “paragraph", if the important "statement" lost its meaning? Would the paragraph still perform its purpose? Even for the sake of argument if somehow the random letters managed to make a new meaningful statement, would it serve the purpose of the paragraph?

To put the randomness notion in perspective, if we assume a statement that serve a specific purpose/meaning includes 13 total letters that are different (ignore all other letters of the alphabet other than these 13 letters), If we consider this specific phrase as a code for a function, then the chance of this phrase to appear randomly among possible random arrangements of only 13 letters is 1 in 6.2 billion.

When I talk about a gene, I talk about a code that directs a very specific function (purposeful information). When you talk about new information, you’re talking about random changes to this existing purposeful info. Significant or accumulation of random change would render the specific function of the purposeful information void before it gets any chance to randomly progress further towards a new function. The negative impact on fitness because of the loss of the original function would lead to the elimination of the new random info by selection. Even for the sake of argument if the accumulation of random info manages somehow to give rise to a new meaningful function, the loss of the original function would still negatively impact the organism and trigger elimination by selection.

You cannot equate info with very specific purpose to random info (junk).

Even if you argue that mutations that may randomly happen in non-coding DNA wouldn’t have a negative impact or alter protein functions, it’s still totally false. First, non-coding DNA is now known to contain many types of regulatory elements involved in controlling gene activity, to determine when/where genes are turned on and off to control the transcription of proteins in addition to other vital functions. Second, Scientists have determined that changes in regions of DNA that do not contain genes (non-coding DNA) can also lead to disease.

Can changes in noncoding DNA affect health and development?: MedlinePlus Genetics

In the short term mutations increase the genetic diversity of populations.

What kind of diversity a random change can give rise to? Do you mean the diversity of junk? Unless the change can translate to a genetic function such as encoding a three-dimensional complex protein structure that is capable of performing a specific purpose in the body, then such random changes are no more than a damage to original code or some purposeless junk that gets cleaned out by selection. Right?

The resulting genetic drift due to genetic diversity can lead to the evolution of new species over time

If you talk about species, first you should know what a species is. Sure, you think you know but you really don’t simply because scientists never stopped debating about it.

You think Ernst Mayr biological species concept based on the ability of interbreeding/reproductive isolation (the textbook standard till today) is a satisfactory delineation of species but it cannot be further from the truth, such delineation has led to more than a half century of controversy that didn’t end yet.

Dogs that greatly vary in size and phenotypic traits and CANNOT interbreed are still the exact same species. Yes, they have very different traits and cannot interbreed but that doesn’t render dog variants as distinct species. It’s merely a pool of different traits rotating among the same species not new species. These traits may appear very different or new, but it didn’t come out of nowhere, such pool of various traits is simply the existing info that were originally encoded in the parents DNA and passed from the parents to the offspring. IOW, the observed variants didn’t emerge due to new info. It’s all existing from the parents DNA.

Before you claim an evolution of a new species, you first need to DEFINE what a species is. I know you wouldn’t agree but you’re wrong.

Actually, mutations that cause disease and repair contribute to the survival of a species in the short term but are NOT directly related to the genetic mutations

What do you mean? Is there such thing as mutations that are not related to genetic mutations? Are you implying a new definition/category of mutations that is not genetic related? What are you talking about?

and the development of genetic diversity leads to the adaptation to changes in the environment and new environments over time that leads to evolution.

No, Adaptations are encoded in the genes (preprogrammed) and cause the specific change to appear when needed to addresses environmental change. It’s not random, such as the clear example of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), which is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed. We know for a fact that microorganisms will always and very quickly develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Such resistance is not a matter of random chance that may or may not take effect. It will happen every single time. Nothing about the adaptation process is random.

How Antibiotic Resistance Happens | CDC

The famous Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment is another clear example that provides evidence for the previously encoded adaptation. The experiment shows an adaptation event mediated by gene regulation that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter through the precise placement beyond an aerobically expressed promoter to allow for the expression of the existing silent citrate transporter. It was not new info but rather an existing inactive info that was activated as an adaptive response to the specific variables within the environment. The ability to utilize citrate is a new adaptive trait and it didn’t give rise to new species.

Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature

As I always say, the problem is never the data but rather the subjective interpretations of the data that is greatly influenced by presuppositions (bias). Unless you get rid of the colored glasses, you can never see the true colors.

Bad terminology also in your statement the mutations are rare. Again you misrepresented the source you cited. Also, mutations that cause disease and repair of genes are only marginally relevant to the genetic mutations that lead to genetic diversity and genetic drift that leads to the adaptation to environments and evolution over time.

I cited the source word for word for the specific definition of mutation to avoid such arguments. But do you know what is really nonsensical terminology? It’s your claim that mutations are only marginally relevant to genetic mutations as if the first one is not genetic mutations? What are you talking about?

And what is your big point about genetic drift? The essence of the evolutionary concept is “change”. Genetic drift doesn’t create new alleles; it’s only about how already-existing alleles are passed down. So it neither can increase genetic diversity nor create new information.

How some random frequency shifts of existing allele (that get passed from parents to offspring) is an argument for an evolutionary change based on increase of info?

It appears that you typically involve some terminology (such as fractal geometry and Chaos Theory, etc.) with no purpose but to make your argument appear to an uninformed reader as legit or have actual explanatory merit but it’s not. What is the mechanism through which fractal geometry exerts influence over matter or life? How it controls the outcome of mutations? You explain nothing by throwing in some terminology. You need to demonstrate how it supports your argument otherwise, it’s meaningless.

 

[LIIA]

It's you playing word games here. Gene pools evolve continuously. There is no known mechanism preventing this process from as long as there is life

Allele frequency changes continuously. Alleles are variants of the same genes that already exist. There is no mechanism that creates new genes. I’ll clarify further below.

You also don't define what you mean by a new gene, so on what basis are you saying that this process cannot produce new genes? How many base substitutions does it take to say that NOW it's a new gene.

A gene is analogous to a statement that conveys a meaning, even if you randomly substitute all letters of the statement, it doesn’t mean that you now got a new statement, it means you transformed the statement into random junk.

A gene is distinct segment of the strand of DNA with specific length/sequence (a statement in a paragraph) that constitute a unique code to perform a specific function such as encoding the configurations of the three-dimensional protein structures to direct specific purposes in the body. Each gene is a unique code for function. Even if you randomly substitute all bases, it doesn’t mean that you now encoded a new function; it only means that you damaged the existing code. The more the random bases you substitute, the more the damage till you reach the point that original code can no longer perform its function.

A pile of random junk is not a new gene. a new gene is about encoding a new meaningful function not merely a random/purposeless new sequence.

That's what the sorites paradox was addressing.

The sorites paradox is about “when X can no longer be defined as X”. the answer is simply when the definition of X no longer applies.

The only way you can apply the sorites paradox to the specific context of my argument (with respect to the alleged process of gradual change to the gene), is to ask, “when the gene would no longer be a gene?", simply when the sequence can no longer perform its coded function. Random mess is not a new gene.

Yet prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes which became multicellular animals which became vertebrates which became mammals, primates, and then man. The evidence for that is compelling.

It’s a construction of a historical narrative (Geisteswissenschaften ) as Ernst Mayr said. Mere imagination based on false interpretations of observations. The problem is not the observations but rather the false interpretations emerging from prior false suppositions. There is no route that gives rise to the new genes that are necessary to encode for new complex functions, (random scrambling of base pairs doesn’t give rise to these codes, it’s really a ridiculous idea), you may imagine or insist that there is such route, but the fact remains, there is not. it’s mere imagination.

Let me ask you a question that I bet will challenge you. Imagine that the theory of evolution were falsified tomorrow - perhaps a man's skeleton found in a dinosaur belly under circumstances that rule out fraud. Now what? The theory has to be replaced by a new paradigm. What would it be? My suggestion and Occam's: another naturalistic explanation if one is logically possible, and I can think of one (can you), but at this time, it seems extremely unlikely that evolution will be falsified and that either another naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanation will ever be required to account for the tree of life. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, but still, if it were falsified, unlikely becomes necessarily true, but less unlikely hypotheses (naturalism) are still preferred over more unlikely hypotheses (supernaturalism).

The MS as scientific theory is already disproved, and the proposed new paradigm (EES) is not agreed upon. That is “yesterday” not “tomorrow”. See #7947

Darwin's Illusion | Page 398 | Religious Forums

The dilemma is what is “naturalistic”. How do you define it? Is it an entity within your domain of perception and intellect? What if an aspect of reality is beyond that limited domain? Or can’t be explained through limited knowledge from that domain? Does it mean that such aspect doesn’t or can’t exist? Is that logical?

You don’t understand what “naturalism” means. the essence of naturalism is the principle that naturalism is intended/promoted as a “posteriori” view. It's not and should not be a commitment in advance to certain ontology. It’s not an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.

You want to exclude what you consider as non-naturalistic. But what are the criteria that define the “non-naturalistic”? Is it being unknown, unseen, or being of a nature that cannot be understood? Isn’t this exactly the case with all natural forces? How is it different from the so-called “supernatural”? Is there such thing as “supernatural”? Or is it simply another “unknown”?

The question to you is why should the explanation be within your direct domain of perception/intellect?

Do you understand how/why/what it means that time emerged from a reality with no time, or space emerged from a reality with no space, or a universe from nothing? Do you have a naturalistic or can you have a naturalistic explanation for a domain without time, space or physical matter? The fact is that you don’t, you only have observations and logic that tells you that time, space and the universe happened/started regardless of your inability to understand how it came into reality. How the beginning of life is different or why should it be different? Similar to time, space and the entire universe, Life did happen, it’s fact even if the so-called naturalistic explanation doesn’t exist or doesn’t apply.

Naturalism (as a posteriori view) should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be. No assumption of any kind should be established as a priori tell the data is first examined.

Naturalism is not a classification of entities being natural or not, such classification is only a conception or rather a misconception that tries to impose imaginary confinements on reality. Naturalism is only about data logically pointing to conclusions, that’s all there is.

Evolution doesn't depend on organic molecules persisting indefinitely. Nor does life. You might contain none of the original matter born to your mother. The hemoglobin molecules in you now aren't the ones you were born with.

Let’s not confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Even so both are about “change” but the process is different. The cells/molecules of a living system may get replaced but the context was abiogenesis, I said that the nonliving organic molecules can’t persist long enough to sustain the hypothesized change towards a complex macromolecule and eventually complex living system without getting disintegrated very early in the process.

Yes, living cells regenerate/replace damaged or dead cells, but the nonliving organic molecules may only disintegrate very quickly without any chance for the alleged very slow increase in complexity as postulated by abiogenesis.

No. I accused you of committing an ignorantium fallacy: "You've made this claim to me, but it's an ignorantium fallacy. Add the word "known" as in "no known route," and the statement is correct. The precise pathways haven't been elucidated and may never be, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't or didn't happen." Did you want to address what I wrote this time?

You don’t understand the fallacy; I’m not the one who is claiming a view to be true on the basis that it was not proven false. You are.

Regardless, you’re not making any sense! "no known route" necessarily means that the route is unknown, " The precise pathways haven't been elucidated and may never be” also means that the precise pathways are unknown. Hence your notion is merely a choice to believe and defend what you don’t know.

Do you understand the distinction between "no route" and "no known route," and why the latter but not the former is correct?

The first is a claim of knowledge; the second is an acknowledgment of a lack of knowledge. You acknowledged that the route is not known.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Tiktaalik was a Epistostaglia, an extinct species of fish from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago), having many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).
It is not an ancestor of elephants, giraffes or humans.
Of course, it is related by being a 'chordate' like them.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"All chordates possess, at some point during their larval or adult stages, five distinctive physical characteristics (synapomorphies) that distinguish them from other taxa. These five synapomorphies are a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, an endostyle or thyroid, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail."

Chordate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LIIA]

So, it's not hard to extrapolate back to a single substance manifesting as reality manifests including as mind and matter. This is neutral monism, and while gods may be possible, they aren't necessary and even if they exist, might be another manifestation of this prior super substance and not ultimate reality.

Monism is about the ultimate unification of the constituents of reality. Priority monism postulates that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them.

The Big Bang as a change that came into being at a specific point in time must be caused (contingent being). Beyond the Big Bang there is no time, space or physical matter. The cause is beyond time, space, and physical matter. Beyond time means that the district cause is without start or end (eternal fact), beyond space means that the cause is not subject to the limitations/confinement of space, beyond physical matter means that the cause is of unique nature different from any physical nature. The “cause” always exists and not subject to any influence or limitation. Nothing precedes it, (“precede” doesn’t apply given the absence of time).

What you call a “super substance” is the brute fact/entity of which subsequent realities were emanations.

Yes, the extrapolation back to a single entity is logical and scientific but your understanding of it is faulty. You fail to understand that the essence of the distinct source is its absolute uniqueness in every way. When you call it “super substance”, you try to impose characteristics of the subsequent realities (the physical realm) on the distinct source, which doesn’t apply. An appropriate name would be “necessary being” not “super substance”.

Here are some logical attributes of the necessary being:
- Absolute.
- Always exists (by virtue of its mere essence).
- Unchangeable (exert its influence down the causality chain, yet not subject to any influence or any limitation)
-Of a unique nature different from all subsequent realities.
- Non-Contingent.

All observable entities are probabilities, probabilities are changes that may or may not materialize, changes are only changes relative to a prior state and can only emerge due to an exerted influence. Probabilities don’t give rise to itself, i.e., it’s not possible without an existing state that gives rise to it. Reality exists/must exist; hence reality cannot be only probabilities. An aspect of reality must be a necessary existence (cause) to give rise to all probabilities.

The necessary existence is not a probability, not a change or a contingent existence but rather a cause, an origin that gives rise to every probability. The necessary existence is the only absolute existence.

The absolute existence is absolute in every way, eternal existence beyond any limits, there is nothing to exert an influence, a change or impose any limitation of any kind on the absolute origin/source, nothing dictates or controls how/when the “necessary existence” exerts its influence on subsequent realities. Any action from the necessary being down the chain of causality is only from within his being not a response to any influence, i.e., a choice. There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the authority/freedom of the necessary being to exert his influence on subsequent realities, but his mere will.

(I know you may think/argue that actions of the “first cause” is merely a response to an influence but the point made is that there is no influence. You would be imposing a process from the physical domain to another domain where such process doesn’t apply. IOW, you try to impose the characteristics of the physical effect on the first cause and imply that another cause precedes the first cause; you would be postulating a fallacious infinite regression)

All contingent entities must be rooted in the non-contingent origin. All consciousness must be rooted in greater consciousness, power must be rooted in higher power, intelligence must be rooted in higher intelligence. The absolute is greater than everything relative. Relative entities get its definition only as it relates to the absolute. The distinct source is the reference that gives meaning to everything.

The necessary being is not a manifestation of any substance. All existing things of all kinds go back to the necessary being (the distinct source). The greater does not come from the lesser. The lesser is rooted in the greater.

I’ll elaborate further in a separate post.

 

[LIIA]

I have rejected neither possibility,

If both natural and supernatural are acceptable possibilities to you then, you merely have an inclination towards the natural, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t know.

Agreed. Did you think this contradicted my position? That is my position. The other mind problem is intractable, and it is reasonable to assume that other evolved vertebrates are also conscious but cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed.

Your position is about your personal inability of direct verification. The logical position is that it can be reasonably concluded based on the assessment of observations.

I said more than I don't know. I wrote, "mind MAY be "an outcome of some physical mechanism." Please assimilate that and rebut if you can" Do you really agree with that? If so, you are acknowledging that it is logically possible that mind is an epiphenomenon of physical reality (materialism, physicalism, naturalism), and I thought you had ruled that possibility out the way you ruled macroevolution out.

“MAY be” is an acknowledgment of possibilities, which necessarily mean that you don’t know. I get you're inclined towards one possibility vs. the other. On my end, I never acknowledged mind as physical, observed physical manifestations of mind (physical responses/reactions) may give us knowledge of a specific state of mind but the specific qualia are a total ownership of an individual. No one can ever know how your qualia is like other than you.

Mind/consciousness is totally independent of the physical body as demonstrated through the NDE research.

This is a nice analogy, but I think it supports the idea that just because we see the cars appearing to run by conscious drivers, if we can't see into the car, we don't know if it contains a living driver.

Exactly, the analogy is about the limitation of a perspective. We can't see into the car, then we try to speculate based on what we already know and ignore what we don’t or what is not directly visible. The birds may not see the driver from their perspective, they wouldn’t contemplate the fact that their perspective is limited but we can do better.

Agreed. Once again, are you thinking that this is a refutation of my position? I don't. This IS my position.

Yes, evidence may not be direct or conclusive but as long as it’s reasonable enough then it can establish the logical basis to draw a conclusion.

Statistically significant observations of responses with high level of appropriateness are reasonable enough/logical to draw the conclusion of consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Each gene is a unique code for function. Even if you randomly substitute all bases, it doesn’t mean that you now encoded a new function; it only means that you damaged the existing code. The more the random bases you substitute, the more the damage till you reach the point that original code can no longer perform its function.

Genome: The genome is the total genetic material of an organism and includes both the genes and non-coding sequences.
Genetic engineering: Genetic Engineering is the modification of an organism's genome through biotechnology. Since the 1970's, a variety of techniques have been developed to specifically add, remove and edit genes in an organism. Recently developed genome engineering techniques use engineered nuclease enzymes to create targeted DNA repair in chromosome to either disrupt or edit a gene when the break is repaired.

Gene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LIIA]

So, it's not hard to extrapolate back to a single substance manifesting as reality manifests including as mind and matter. This is neutral monism, and while gods may be possible, they aren't necessary and even if they exist, might be another manifestation of this prior super substance and not ultimate reality.

Yes, the extrapolation back to a single entity is logical and scientific.

Monism is about the ultimate unification of the constituents of reality. Priority monism postulates that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them. That specific view of reality imposes a duality of “all existing things” and the “distinct source” as two distinct domains. But why the source is not an entity under the overarching domain of “all existing things”, simply because the “distinct source” is not a thing but rather a distinct category by itself that doesn’t fit in the second category of “all existing things”. Even so all existing things are emanations from a distinct source, yet all are different from it and can’t be compared to it. The question would rise, at what point such distinction take effect and in what sense the source is distinct?

Conceptually, a zero is absolute nothingness yet it can be broken into positives and negatives (things). If you allow these opposites to come together, they annihilate one another. A physical example is two equal forces of opposite directions. If you allow them to come together, they cancel each other out into nothingness (zero force).

Hence, conceptually, if you want to create something out of nothing, you need to break it into “opposites” and you must exert an influence/force to prevent the opposites from coming in contact and annihilate each other, otherwise you go back to physical nothingness.

Hence at a fundamental level, a system from nothing equals “opposites + controlling force”. The “opposites” are the constituents of “all existing things” but the controlling force belongs to the “distinct source”. Even so the origin of all things goes back to the distinct source, but the source is quite different. The source is always a fact even at the domain of physical nothingness. The influence of the controlling force (of the source) must continue all the time to maintain the specific relationships among the constituents of reality; otherwise, the opposite constituents of the physical reality would cease to exist.

Matter and antimatter particles (the opposites) are always produced as a pair. The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. Astronomers don't reject the possibility of the existence of entire antimatter galaxies as long as they're completely cut off by some force from regular matter. Matter and antimatter cannot coexist because they collide with and annihilate each other, releasing large quantities of pure energy in accordance with the equation E=mc2. Meaning, the fundamental unit of physical reality is “matter + antimatter + energy”, i.e., “nothing + energy”. In that sense, energy can be seen as an aspect or a manifestation of the controlling force that holds the dynamics of the constituents of reality (the opposites) and prevent it from annihilating each other.

The universe may have emerged from nothing but what is really holding its constituents together and giving the universe its observed characteristics/dynamics is the energy of the controlling force. Such force controls everything from smallest known fundamental particles to the largest known galaxies. Different manifestation of the force may be understood as different forces, but the more we know, the more we understand that it’s only different manifestations of the same force.

Everything in the physical realm exists in pairs of opposites; the sum of all opposites adds up to nothing, the only fact that remains is the “distinct source”. Nothing compares to the source. The source causes and continuously controls everything, yet its eternal absolute existence is not caused by anything. The necessary being exists by virtue of its mere essence.

The Islamic perspective is that nothing is of the likeness of God (distinct source), God created all the pairs of what we know and what we have no knowledge of. God is the force that hold the entire universe lest it cease to exist. And his authority extends to everything.

“Exalted is He who created all pairs – from what the earth grows and from themselves and from that which they have no knowledge.” [Ya-Sin: 36]

“Indeed, Allah holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease to exist. And if they should cease, no one could hold them after Him. Indeed, He is Forbearing and Forgiving.” [Fatir: 41]

“To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth; and Allah has power over all things.” [Al-Imran: 189]

“Nothing is of his likeness, and He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” [Ash-Shuraa: 11]

“Say, "He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal; He begot no one nor was He begotten; and there is not any one comparable to Him" [Al-Ikhlas: 1 to 4]

That said, I don’t claim that I know how the universe was created, not at all. But since the context here is “unification”, then this view is a reconciliation of philosophy, science and religion.

God is the only one absolute fact. 'The One', of which subsequent realities were emanations.

 

[LIIA]

Genome: The genome is the total genetic material of an organism and includes both the genes and non-coding sequences.

yes

Genetic engineering: Genetic Engineering is the modification of an organism's genome through biotechnology. Since the 1970's, a variety of techniques have been developed to specifically add, remove and edit genes in an organism. Recently developed genome engineering techniques use engineered nuclease enzymes to create targeted DNA repair in chromosome to either disrupt or edit a gene when the break is repaired.

How is genetic engineering relevant to random mutation/evolution? what is the point?

 

[LIIA]

So what? That is evolution. You do not seem to realize that gene variants are different genes.

No, it’s the same genes with different alleles. Any given gene may have multiple different alleles.

Same genes with different alleles pass from each parent to offspring, different alleles are only variants of the same genes not new genes. Such as the example of the alleles for brown, green or blue eyes, these different alleles are passed from parent to offspring, but it’s merely different alleles of the same genes, never new genes.

Also you do not seem to know how genetics works. Genes can very often be repurposed. Once used elsewhere they can follow a different evolutionary path than before

A gene that takes on an additional role is not a new gene, it’s an additional function of the same gene not a change to the DNA sequence.

Your arguments are self refuting. When you admit that there are "variants' you are admitting that there are new genes.

Not at all, a gene is analogous to an arrangement of letters in a statement to convey a specific meaning (perform a function). "Random alterations to the letters (variants)” is merely damage to the original meaning of the statement not a creation of a new statement. The only transformation that may take place due to such random alterations of the letters, is a transformation from a meaningful statement to random mess.

In any case, an allele variant is neither a new gene nor gives rise to new gene.

And you made the exact same error that I pointed out earlier. Variation is the "creative force". Variation makes all sorts of changes. Both good and bad. Natural selection is the mechanism where the beneficial changes are kept and the bad ones are lost. Why did you use a strawman arguemtn.

Again, there is no route to the creation of new genes that perform a very specific function (encoding a very specific protein for a very specific functions in the body), random alterations would render original function void which trigger elimination by selection.

Yes, Natural /Selection, by itself, cannot generate new genes

Agreed, Natural Selection cannot generate new genes.

Random Variation, but itself, only leads to chaos.

Agreed, Random Variation only leads to chaos.

But they never work by themselves. They are always working together

Since Random Variation only leads to chaos then the only options available to selection is to clean the random mess, selection cannot create something meaningful out of random mess. Selection is not a creative force.

Selection and Random Variation working together is analogous to a deaf and a blind joined forces to have new abilities, regardless, there still no mechanism for them to be able to hear or see.

 

[LIIA]

Tiktaalik was a Epistostaglia, an extinct species of fish from the Late Devonian Period, about 375 Mya (million years ago), having many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).
It is not an ancestor of elephants, giraffes or humans.
Of course, it is related by being a 'chordate' like them.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"All chordates possess, at some point during their larval or adult stages, five distinctive physical characteristics (synapomorphies) that distinguish them from other taxa. These five synapomorphies are a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, an endostyle or thyroid, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail."

Chordate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is your point? If you reject the alleged evolutionary line from fish to humans, then I agree.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh now selection is not instantaneous? No...it is said to mutate for generations. The same or continually adaptable mutation. Like the supposed breakaway from the ape's "unknown common ancestor," perhaps maybe?

Yes, once again, natural selection occurs over the course of many generations. Mutations happen from one generation to the next.

So, yes, for a larger change to occur, you have to have many mutations over many generations.

This has been explained to you many times. Evolution doesn't happen from one generation to the next. It is a process of change over a much longer period of time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A pile of random junk is not a new gene. a new gene is about encoding a new meaningful function not merely a random/purposeless new sequence.

OK. Still vague as to how much change constitutes new and meaningful. But why introduce "random junk" into the discussion? Sure, some genetic variations will be neutral or harmful, but some will confer a competitive advantage in the phenotype, and these are selected for and accumulate. How many such improvements make a change new or meaningful? I'd say all of them, but you can define them differently if you like.

The sorites paradox is about “when X can no longer be defined as X”. the answer is simply when the definition of X no longer applies.

The paradox refers to the fact that with gradual transitions as with night to day, sleep to wakefulness, unbearded to bearded, or from with hair to bald, no sharp line can be drawn between these before and after states. This is the problem we're having with new genes - no clear definition of what constitutes new, which is quite important for somebody who claims new genes don't arise naturally to provide. If you can't do that - and it seems you can't - then what are you claiming can't happen exactly?

The only way you can apply the sorites paradox to the specific context of my argument (with respect to the alleged process of gradual change to the gene), is to ask, “when the gene would no longer be a gene?", simply when the sequence can no longer perform its coded function.

Disagree. It applies to when a gene has become a new gene and when change becomes meaningful.

There is no route that gives rise to the new genes that are necessary to encode for new complex functions

Disagree. You don't need to keep insisting on that. You haven't made the necessary case to support that conclusion.

The MS as scientific theory is already disproved

It's still in good standing in the scientific community. It will likely never be overturned, just tweaked to accommodate new discoveries. But it will undoubtedly always be about natural selection generating the tree of life when applied to genetic variation in populations across generations.

The dilemma is what is “naturalistic”. How do you define it?

Roughly, "the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."

the essence of naturalism is the principle that naturalism is intended/promoted as a “posteriori” view. It's not and should not be a commitment in advance to certain ontology. It’s not an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.

OK. Naturalism is an a posteriori position. One comes to such an opinion based in experience, or should.

You want to exclude what you consider as non-naturalistic.

What most call supernaturalism. Not excluded. Just not included before needed to account for observation. When I need to invoke the supernatural, I will, but not before.

Do you understand how/why/what it means that time emerged from a reality with no time, or space emerged from a reality with no space, or a universe from nothing? Do you have a naturalistic or can you have a naturalistic explanation for a domain without time, space or physical matter? The fact is that you don’t, you only have observations and logic that tells you that time, space and the universe happened/started regardless of your inability to understand how it came into reality.

Why not? However nature is is how nature is. I don't accept the idea of anything existing outside of time or space, although not necessarily the time and space that began with the Big Bang. T=0 might be just another moment in a multiverse's history occurring at a point in its extension. If gods exist that can impact our reality, they're part of nature, too.

The substance of the multiverse makes a good candidate for the supersubstance from which our universe may have arisen in a series of symmetry breaks creating feature and physical laws. It, too, is part of nature as long as it remains causally connected to our universe.

I’m not the one who is claiming a view to be true on the basis that it was not proven false. You are.

No, I am not. I never do that. Never. If you thought you read that, read it again.

Regardless, you’re not making any sense! "no known route" necessarily means that the route is unknown, " The precise pathways haven't been elucidated and may never be” also means that the precise pathways are unknown. Hence your notion is merely a choice to believe and defend what you don’t know

No. I'm stating what I DO know. Those pathways may never be elucidated. Do you disagree? Nor is it necessary to know them, just desirable. We may never know beyond an educated guess which hominin forms are ancestral and which are branches (cousins) that eventually went extinct.

The absolute existence is absolute in every way, eternal existence beyond any limits, there is nothing to exert an influence, a change or impose any limitation of any kind on the absolute origin/source, nothing dictates or controls how/when the “necessary existence” exerts its influence on subsequent realities. Any action from the necessary being down the chain of causality is only from within his being not a response to any influence, i.e., a choice.

OK. Can we assume that you think this absolute existence is conscious and named God? Craig made that leap of faith in his Kalam argument.

If both natural and supernatural are acceptable possibilities to you then, you merely have an inclination towards the natural, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t know.

OK. I'm an empiricist. I have an inclination toward what can be discerned with the senses, processed by the reasoning faculty, and which conclusions can be tested empirically.

Your position is about your personal inability of direct verification. The logical position is that it can be reasonably concluded based on the assessment of observations. evidence may not be direct or conclusive but as long as it’s reasonable enough then it can establish the logical basis to draw a conclusion.

We're in agreement there. We cannot experience any consciousness directly but our own, and it is reasonable to assume that other apparently wakeful beings are conscious as well, but only to the extent that these beings are organic, developed through a gestation process from a fertilized egg, and manifest the behaviors requiring consciousness in ourselves. I gave you an example of seeing people opening their umbrellas as it begins to rain. That's a behavior we recognize in ourselves, but only when we are conscious that the rain has just begun and we're getting wet.

Mind/consciousness is totally independent of the physical body as demonstrated through the NDE research.

You're ignoring all of the evidence that points to the opposite. This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy - placing too much emphasis on the evidence one likes while downplaying the significance of the rest of it.

The Islamic perspective is that nothing is of the likeness of God (distinct source), God created all the pairs of what we know and what we have no knowledge of. God is the force that hold the entire universe lest it cease to exist. And his authority extends to everything. God is the only one absolute fact. 'The One', of which subsequent realities were emanations.

OK. My perspective doesn't include calling ultimate reality God. I don't name it and I don't imagine it's like a person aware of our existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it’s the same genes with different alleles. Any given gene may have multiple different alleles.

Same genes with different alleles pass from each parent to offspring, different alleles are only variants of the same genes not new genes. Such as the example of the alleles for brown, green or blue eyes, these different alleles are passed from parent to offspring, but it’s merely different alleles of the same genes, never new genes.


A gene that takes on an additional role is not a new gene, it’s an additional function of the same gene not a change to the DNA sequence.


Not at all, a gene is analogous to an arrangement of letters in a statement to convey a specific meaning (perform a function). "Random alterations to the letters (variants)” is merely damage to the original meaning of the statement not a creation of a new statement. The only transformation that may take place due to such random alterations of the letters, is a transformation from a meaningful statement to random mess.

In any case, an allele variant is neither a new gene nor gives rise to new gene.

Again, there is no route to the creation of new genes that perform a very specific function (encoding a very specific protein for a very specific functions in the body), random alterations would render original function void which trigger elimination by selection.

Agreed, Natural Selection cannot generate new genes.

Agreed, Random Variation only leads to chaos.

Since Random Variation only leads to chaos then the only options available to selection is to clean the random mess, selection cannot create something meaningful out of random mess. Selection is not a creative force.

Selection and Random Variation working together is analogous to a deaf and a blind joined forces to have new abilities, regardless, there still no mechanism for them to be able to hear or see.

No, you are confused again. You have a creationist version of evolution where changes are sudden. An allele is a different gene. We can detect them. It is not this simple, but there is a blue eye gene (there are as usual several) they are alleles. Small changes add up. The gene can begin take on new functions.

And once again your bold statements at the end are wrong. You forgot the qualifiers to those statements. That makes them all false. Why is it so hard for you to consider natural selection and variation working together? I know, you hate the fact that you are a human and really really want to be an ostrich, that must be it, since you hate the fact that as human being you are also an ape.