Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant

How is the debate between punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism is relevant to Haeckel’s comparison of embryos that was proven to be fraudulent?

How was his work ever shown to be fraudulent? I know what he did wrong. I bet that you do not.

Again, irrelevant. What is your point? If you actually have one.

Must I remind you that you almost certainly do not get the point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Get the vaccine. You may not have another hope.

Have fun.

Aww, poor baby. . Are you still butt hurt because you do not even understand the basics of science?

 

[blü 2]

You haven’t shown that the flagellum is not IC. You haven’t shown that Behe is wrong

At the risk of repeating what's already been said, I quote from the judgment in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) highlighting some of the major findings. Of course you need to read the whole quote below, not just my highlightings, and you need to read the whole judgment too so that you understand not only what but why.

I confess to being rather surprised that you'd make claims for Irreducible Complexity without having first read the Dover judgment. Is it a secret in your part of the world that the Dover Trial was held in 2005, and after hearing evidence from both sides found that 'irreducible complexity' was nonsense?

The quote I've selected for you is as follows. For the specific mention of the flagellum, you can go to near the foot of Page 76 ─

Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;”​

​

̬Page 74 of 139​

​

however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).​

​

In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. (19:88-95 (Behe)).​

​

As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the​

​

̬Page 75 of 139​

​

subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function (16:146-48 (Padian)). For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. (17:6-17 (Padian)). By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning:​

​

Structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the ‘history’ of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. P-192 at 22.​

​

​

̬Page 76 of 139​

​

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.​

​

First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer-reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8- 20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a​

​

̬Page 77 of 139​

​

common ancestor. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). None of this research or thinking involves ID. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: “we’re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And it’s a legitimate scientific inquiry.” (38:16 (Minnich)).​

​

Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17- 854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. (1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition. (20:26-28, 22:112-25 (Behe)). The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied​

​

̬Page 78 of 139​

​

the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).​

​

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted​

​

̬Page 79 of 139​

​

it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)). Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design. (22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)). We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)).​

​

​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Spacetime is an intrinsic aspect of our universe. By your definition, if it’s outside spacetime, it’s not natural. Right?

What is said to exist outside of space or time is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

And space and time are not confined to our universe. That's local space and time. The birthday of the universe may be just another moment in a multiverse with no first moment.

The logical necessary first cause, the district source, the only non-contingent being, the absolute reference that gives meaning to every relative.

That's "God" to you? Why call it that? It seems like the first step toward winding up in a religion:

"What shall we say? Shall we call it by a name?
As well to count the angels dancing on a pin."

This belief invades minds and leaves them with a need they didn't have before, much like cigarettes do. I know from personal experience climbing out of both addictions. They were very similar, withdrawal from each lasting months before the nagging call, "Come back to me!" weakened to the point of no longer being a distraction. That's the exact description of an addiction. Religion is a need one is better off without. I actually had to withdraw from cigarettes twice because of a careless dalliance with them during a period of high stress in my life followed by five more years of tobacco addiction and a second self-rescue, so I don't mess with either god beliefs or cigarettes any more.

Your reasoning/assumption of multiverse as a "good candidate for the supersubstance from which our universe may have arisen" is a mix of leap of faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning

Not because you said so. You can't refute it. Go ahead and try. Explain why suggesting that the universe may have arisen from an unconscious prior substance is a "leap of faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning," and then explain how your god hypothesis avoids that. You can't can you?

your awareness that you don’t know is not knowledge.

Disagree. Awareness of any truth including recognizing one's perimeter of knowledge contributes to that knowledge. It is even more knowledge when one can begin to say what it is that he doesn't know - known unknowns.

you get to believe whatever you want but you do not get to “set the rules" of what is true or false.

We all decide such things for ourselves. Whatever your rules are for deciding - perhaps because something appears in scripture makes it true to you, or feeling certain that what you feel is a god and not just your own mind makes that truth to you - that's YOU setting the rules for yourself.

Yes, we know that that there is a relationship between mental processes and brain processes, and that different brain regions are responsible for different functions, but scientists never established any physical mechanisms that explain or prove that mental consciousness could be a product of physical processes in the brain.

Nor need they. If you claim that mind is not an emergent quality of matter, then you have something to establish.

Whatever you see on your TV was not originated from within your TV but merely a manifestation of external entities that don’t reside within your TV.

We can know that a TV broadcast does not originate in the TV set when every TV in town is playing the same show. Now if your TVs all had unique shows like our individual conscious content including dreams, you'd have to postulate a different broadcast for each mind shot from a different location or angle.

“Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body”

That doesn't mean that it does not arise from it. Earth's magnetic field isn't confined to earth, but we know it originates from it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again?

My religion is not your concern; your concern is the argument.

Yes it is!!!! It is your basis for an ancient tribal religious agenda rejecting natural evolution.

Judaism Christianity and Islam are indeed ancient, and tribal in their history and relationship with those who believe differently. Even the major divisions of Islam are based on tribal. divisions. Jews today rarely if at all invoke the ID argument or a literal Genesis since the Jewish Reformation.

Rather the foolish nonsensical speculations not the reality.

I didn’t say anything about any mouse trap, did I? Go back and read my post #8520 and try to address my specific argument. Hopefully without involving nonsensical talk about religious agendas. Try to be rational if you will.

Your rejection of natural evolution in favor of IC has definite descriptions of anti-science Behe beliefs that parallel Behe's mouse trap argument.

But guess what, from a conceptual perspective, absolutely, mouse trap is a design and similar to any other design, it can neither function with a missing component nor an individual component can function in isolation of the other interdependent components.

But guess what . . . yes, this is definitely the phony argument repeatedly refuted by science. I included a reference that in detail refuted it and you did not respond.

Stop your nonsense about “tribal agendas”, our background or religion is none of your concern. If you want your comments to be rational/meaningful you must address the argument not merely some fallacious attack on the person background or religion.

No nonsense nor fallacious!!! Simply a fact that it is only believers in the 'ancient tribal religions of Christianity and Islam that support the anti-science ID or IC argument proposed by Behe. This is not a coincidence. It is a fact.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

Can you provide a reference of scientists who are not Christian or Islamic that are supporters of Behe's IC;

After all I don’t think myself and @leroy share the same background, views or religion but even if we do, it’s not your business.

Your argument is the same at the root of the belief in ID orIC

You may have a point here. English is not my first language and it’s really hard for me to find the specific English words that would properly convey my thoughts in a coherent manner. I try to do what I can and apologize if it’s not coherent enough.

The content is the problem not your proficiency in English, It is well-understood that your anti-science ID or IC argument is based on the necessity of an Intelligent Designer ie God.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, we know that that there is a relationship between mental processes and brain processes, and that different brain regions are responsible for different functions, but scientists never established any physical mechanisms that explain or prove that mental consciousness could be a product of physical processes in the brain.

What definition of "consciousness" are you using here? What is it exactly that you say we need to demonstrate as the product of the brain's physical processes?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is what you fail to understand, the analogy of something gradually changing (while maintaining its intrinsic nature) doesn’t apply to the functionality of a gene.

The functionality is not measured as an amount that keeps changing. The code is either functional or not. Random alterations to the code don’t mean that the function is gradually growing. The accumulated damage to original code would first lead to loss of original function (the gene becomes a “pseudogene”). Second, considering the impact on fitness due the loss of function, the process will not have the chance to continue indefinitely to warrant a meaningful change. belief.

I didn't know about the functionality of a gene. Never thought about it but it's certainly an interesting concept.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again?

My religion is not your concern; your concern is the argument.


Rather the foolish nonsensical speculations not the reality.

I didn’t say anything about any mouse trap, did I? Go back and read my post #8520 and try to address my specific argument. Hopefully without involving nonsensical talk about religious agendas. Try to be rational if you will.

But guess what, from a conceptual perspective, absolutely, mouse trap is a design and similar to any other design, it can neither function with a missing component nor an individual component can function in isolation of the other interdependent components.


Stop your nonsense about “tribal agendas”, our background or religion is none of your concern. If you want your comments to be rational/meaningful you must address the argument not merely some fallacious attack on the person background or religion.

After all I don’t think myself and @leroy share the same background, views or religion but even if we do, it’s not your business.

You may have a point here. English is not my first language and it’s really hard for me to find the specific English words that would properly convey my thoughts in a coherent manner. I try to do what I can and apologize if it’s not coherent enough.

Don't feel too bad about that. English is my first and primary language and I have trouble finding the right words sometimes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't know about the functionality of a gene. Never thought about it but it's certainly an interesting concept.

Why listen to him? He has no education in the topic at all. All that he can do is to copy and paste using creationist sites as inspiration. By the way, did you notice the loaded language that he used. One does not get to assume that a mutation is damaging. Or that it always causes a loss of function. We know those claims are not true. That is why he tried to sneak them in.

 

[LIIA]

Why do you try so hard to make everyone else laugh?

Yet you are crying!

Again, which part of what I said that you don’t understand or agree with?

 

[LIIA]

How was his work ever shown to be fraudulent? I know what he did wrong. I bet that you do not.

Haeckel's embryo drawings of 1874 were fabricated. I did explain in # 8529. The fraud was already exposed more than a century ago. Ernst Haeckel sent a letter to the January 9, 1909, publication of "Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung", he confessed and tried to justify the fraud due to incomplete/insufficient material and that he was compelled to make assumptions to fill up the gaps to reconstruct the missing members.

How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies | New Scientist

In 1997, Michael Richardson et al photographs of embryos at similar stages of development further exposed the fraud of Haeckel's embryo drawings.

Michael Richardson's photographs | National Center for Science Education (ncse.ngo)

The irony is that now the proponents of evolution claim that the inference that earliest embryos of various groups must be similar if they shared a common ancestry is a claim of intelligent design proponents. Yet it still works the other way around on this thread. Do you understand? It’s really ridicules. I guess, for evolutionists “All roads lead to Rome”.

 

[LIIA]

Aww, poor baby. . Are you still butt hurt because you do not even understand the basics of science?

Newton’s third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. If we see your reaction, we know how and in what way you are hurt. Right?

you're pathetic. Get the vaccine. It may help.

Have fun.

 

[LIIA]

What is said to exist outside of space or time is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

And space and time are not confined to our universe. That's local space and time. The birthday of the universe may be just another moment in a multiverse with no first moment.

Spacetime came to existence after the Big Bang. It’s an intrinsic aspect of the universe. Whatever is beyond the universe or the Big Bang, is beyond Spacetime

Don't you know that multiverse is not a scientific theory? It’s only a hypothesis; it can neither be proven nor falsified.

In his 2003 New York Times article, "A Brief History of the Multiverse", author and cosmologist Paul Davies explained why the multiverse hypotheses are non-scientific. Paul Davies suggests that invoking infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see requires the same leap of faith as invoking an unseen Creator.

I don’t agree with Davies that multiverse is equal to unseen Creator in the sense that multiverse was proposed to offset the need for a creator to explain the fine-tuning of the universe. Move multiverse out of the equation and such need is a logical necessity. Here is a quote from his article:

“For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence, it requires the same leap of faith.”

Opinion | A Brief History of the Multiverse - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

That's "God" to you? Why call it that? It seems like the first step toward winding up in a religion:

Logically we can infer the need for the distinct source for everything, i.e., God, once we accept the logical necessity, it becomes clear that there is purpose for our creation and logical that God conveyed that purpose to humanity through the messengers.

This belief invades minds and leaves them with a need they didn't have before, much like cigarettes do. I know from personal experience climbing out of both addictions. They were very similar, withdrawal from each lasting months before the nagging call, "Come back to me!" weakened to the point of no longer being a distraction. That's the exact description of an addiction. Religion is a need one is better off without. I actually had to withdraw from cigarettes twice because of a careless dalliance with them during a period of high stress in my life followed by five more years of tobacco addiction and a second self-rescue, so I don't mess with either god beliefs or cigarettes any more.

Sorry to hear about the hard times in your life, but there is no life without struggle. It takes a strong will to get yourself out of addiction, great that you were successful with it. Addiction is merely a false escape route, an attempt to have a relief from the stress of life that only ends up with a much higher stress. And yes addiction creates a need that you didn’t have before but this is not the case with the need for God, it’s not a foreign need, you’re born with it. You only fulfill this need through true belief and when you do, it’s the only route that gives you peace with yourself and the world. You get to know the specific spot where your specific piece of the puzzle perfectly fit. Once it does, the struggle fades away. If you don’t find God, you would struggle chasing false routes all of your life, you will think it would take you to comfort but it will not.

That said, you’re free to choose or reject God, such freedom is the reason for our temporary journey on earth. We must go through the test and make our choice. If we choose God, we do it because we want to not because we have to, but it’s not a game. The choice will have consequences.

“As for the disbelievers, their deeds are like a mirage in a desert. The thirsty one perceives it as water, until he comes to it; he finds it to be nothing and finds Allah with him to settle his account. And Allah is swift in reckoning.” [An-Nur, 39]

Not because you said so. You can't refute it. Go ahead and try. Explain why suggesting that the universe may have arisen from an unconscious prior substance is a "leap of faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning," and then explain how your god hypothesis avoids that. You can't can you?

Refute what? It’s not even a scientific theory. The inability to falsify multiverse is actually an argument against it, not with it.

I already explained why multiverse is a leap of faith (see above). The notion of endless universes that supposedly explain each other and somehow explain our universe is definitely circular reasoning, and if you seek the cause for how multiverse in its entirety came into reality? You would be going back in infinite regression searching for prior causes (universes) unless you go back to square one accepting a first cause.

If the constituents of multiverse are universes, then each universe is a contingent entity, the sum of contingent entities doesn’t equal non-contingent reality. Multiverse is merely an attempt to explain the observed fine-tuning of the universe, but it doesn’t address the fundamental question “why there is something vs. nothing”.

I did explain that spacetime came into reality with the Big Bang, we agreed on a first cause, an entity that you call “supersubstance” from which our universe have arisen. Such entity is necessarily beyond spacetime, hence necessarily supernatural. The lack of prior influence means that the entire causality chain is controlled by this entity only, such control depends on nothing but the actions that may or may not happen depending on absolutely nothing but the will of the first cause. And if he wills, there is nothing to interfere. See #8556

Darwin's Illusion | Page 428 | Religious Forums

Disagree. Awareness of any truth including recognizing one's perimeter of knowledge contributes to that knowledge. It is even more knowledge when one can begin to say what it is that he doesn't know - known unknowns.

If you don’t know, you don’t know. It’s good that you acknowledge it or aware of it but such awareness doesn’t change the fact that you don’t know. What are you arguing about? You did admit that you don’t know, and I appreciate the honesty, the point is closed.

We all decide such things for ourselves. Whatever your rules are for deciding - perhaps because something appears in scripture makes it true to you, or feeling certain that what you feel is a god and not just your own mind makes that truth to you - that's YOU setting the rules for yourself.

Our subjective decisions/opinions for ourselves are meaningless to others or to the objective reality. Can I impose the rules that I set for myself on you? If I do, would you accept it? we need a common logical reference.

Nor need they. If you claim that mind is not an emergent quality of matter, then you have something to establish.

“Nor need they” means that you accept the fact that such physical explanation of mind was never established. Hence, it we go back to my point, evidence to the contrary (mind is not dependent on the brain) was already established in NDE research. (The only evidence)

We can know that a TV broadcast does not originate in the TV set when every TV in town is playing the same show. Now if your TVs all had unique shows like our individual conscious content including dreams, you'd have to postulate a different broadcast for each mind shot from a different location or angle.

You took the TV example literally and missed the point. Even if every individual TV had a unique show like our individual conscious, it doesn’t mean that these unique TV broadcasts originated in the TV. What you see on every individual TV is still a manifestation of a unique external influence. On your end, all what you can see is that the specific TV functions control what you see, but unless you find evidence or mechanism to prove that the show can originate from within your TV, such claim is false. On the other hand, if we see evidence that the show is not dependent on the TV, then we must accept it.

Here is another example. Did you see the movie “Avatar”? People looking at your avatar would think that it’s independently conscious, they have no way to see that you are the source of its consciousness, once the connection is broken between you and your avatar, the avatar is an unconscious or dead body.

Your body is the avatar of your spirit. Your body is not the source of your consciousness. Consciousness is a manifestation of your spirit on your physical body. I know you would deny the “spirit” but the point here is that the source of mind can be something other than the body, the manifestation of the source on the body is not evidence that the body itself is the source. Tell the mechanism is established as discussed above, you have no basis to make the claim. So far the only evidence is the NDE research.

That doesn't mean that it does not arise from it. Earth's magnetic field isn't confined to earth, but we know it originates from it.

The manifestation of a source is not evidence of the location or nature of the source.

If you see a compass following a direction, it’s not because the compass wants to follow that direction, what you see is the external influence of the magnetic field manifested on the compass, such manifestation is not evidence of the location of the source (cause). The compass is not the source; you still need to find the source.

 

[LIIA]

Yes it is!!!! It is your basis for an ancient tribal religious agenda rejecting natural evolution.

Judaism Christianity and Islam are indeed ancient, and tribal in their history and relationship with those who believe differently. Even the major divisions of Islam are based on tribal. divisions. Jews today rarely if at all invoke the ID argument or a literal Genesis since the Jewish Reformation.


Your rejection of natural evolution in favor of IC has definite descriptions of anti-science Behe beliefs that parallel Behe's mouse trap argument.


But guess what . . . yes, this is definitely the phony argument repeatedly refuted by science. I included a reference that in detail refuted it and you did not respond.


No nonsense nor fallacious!!! Simply a fact that it is only believers in the 'ancient tribal religions of Christianity and Islam that support the anti-science ID or IC argument proposed by Behe. This is not a coincidence. It is a fact.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

Can you provide a reference of scientists who are not Christian or Islamic that are supporters of Behe's IC;


Your argument is the same at the root of the belief in ID orIC


The content is the problem not your proficiency in English, It is well-understood that your anti-science ID or IC argument is based on the necessity of an Intelligent Designer ie God.

ID and IC are not anti-science. Both are anti-ToE. Evolutionary biology is not science. it's not my claim, yet it's very true.

Ernst Walter Mayr, one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists said that evolutionary biology is “Autonomous”, in the sense that it’s allowed to break free beyond the restrictions of the scientific method. Evolutionary biology is allowed to construct an imaginary historical narrative whenever evidence is not attainable. How convenient?

Here is a quote from 2004 edition of his book “What Makes Biology Unique?”:

“When drawing the borderline between the exact sciences and the Geisteswissenschaften it would go right through biology and attach functional biology to the exact sciences while including evolutionary biology with the Geisteswissenschaften.”

What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (wordpress.com)

Again, my religion, background, ancient tribe, etc. are none of your concern, whether your claims about it are right or wrong, it doesn’t make any difference, it’s still none of your concern, do you understand? Your concern is the argument.

Other than fallacious nonsensical attack on the person’s background, you need to address the argument, which you entirely failed to do and insisted on ridiculous personal attacks, it’s really pathetic.

First when I started to see your posts on the thread, I thought, “great, it appears that we will get a rational evolutionist to join the thread”, it proved to be too much to ask. Now, I know in advance what to expect from you, it’s not much different than most evolutionists on the thread, i.e., nothing of value.

 

[LIIA]

What definition of "consciousness" are you using here?

Awareness of your internal being and external existence.

What is it exactly that you say we need to demonstrate as the product of the brain's physical processes?

Mind.

 

[LIIA]

I didn't know about the functionality of a gene. Never thought about it but it's certainly an interesting concept.

Sure, what is a “gene” if not a “function”.

 

[LIIA]

Don't feel too bad about that. English is my first and primary language and I have trouble finding the right words sometimes.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

But it’s not exactly about feeling bad as much as it’s about admitting a valid point when I see it.

I would only feel bad if I didn’t do what I can but if I know that I did it in a sincere manner to the best of my ability then there is nothing to worry about.

From an Islamic perspective, our capacities are always limited, whatever is beyond it is not our responsibility.

“Allah does not burden a soul except [with that within] its capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned.” [Al-Baqarah, 286]

 

[LIIA]

Why listen to him?

Maybe because I wouldn’t lie to myself or others?

He has no education in the topic at all. All that he can do is to copy and paste using creationist sites as inspiration.

I appreciate if you give me links for these sites, it may come in handy sometime.

By the way, did you notice the loaded language that he used. One does not get to assume that a mutation is damaging.

Random DNA replication errors are, even when the individual errors are neutral, its accumulation is damaging. See the link.

Mutation - Wikipedia

Or that it always causes a loss of function. We know those claims are not true. That is why he tried to sneak them in.

Accumulation of DNA replication errors leads to loss of function. See the link.

Pseudogene (genome.gov)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mean there are missing links aren't there??

That would depend what exactly you mean by it. The "missing link" that creationists tend to refer to, aren't really missing or they are such rapes of the concept that they are just arguing a strawman.

Having said that, the term is used in context of paleontology, which deals in attempting to reconstruct evolutionary lineages of history based on the fossil record. A fossil record of which it is known in advance that it will be horribly "incomplete" as the VAST MAJORITY of species never fossilized.

You should learn the distinction between evolution the process and and evolutionary history.

If tomorrow all fossils would disappear, if we would have no fossils at all, we would know very little about evolutionary history and yet evolution as a process, as well as common ancestry of species, would still be as solid as it is today.

Fossils are nice and helpful in reconstructing evolutionary history, but as evidence for the theory / process of evolution, they are actually among the weakest of evidence.
Still strong evidence by any reasonable standard though, but still relatively "weak" compared to evidence like the genetic record.

So really, yapping about "the missing link" only shows us all how little knowledge you have concerning the various lines of evidence, many of which are in fact much stronger evidence then any fossils.

Don't ask me to say where -- you would know better -- but there ARE missing links, aren't there? Or maybe not. What do you think?

Yes and it makes no difference. There will always be gaps in evolutionary history.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what makes you think (believe, perhaps?) that there is a common ancestry?

Because we know how DNA is inherited during reproduction and what kind of pattern in collective genomes that would create.
The same way we know that you and your siblings and cousins share common ancestors.

And what would that mean?

That all life is related and thus share the same ancestral roots.

Two questions. What IS common ancestry regarding the beginning of the process of evolution and how does that work out in the long-er run? Please explain what you mean, if you will.

Your question doesn't make any sense to me.
More specifically this part:

What IS common ancestry regarding the beginning of the process of evolution

What are you asking exactly?