Darwin's Illusion

[blü 2]

Awareness of your internal being and external existence.

Mind.

I'm self-aware. As you'll know from your reading of modern research into brainmapping, self-editing occurs in the forebrain (which is why contrecoup, the rebound of shockwaves from a severe blow to the back of the head, can cause forebrain shearing and loss of self-editing).

I have no reason to think I'll exist eternally. The first part of my reasoning is that life is a function of biology ─ whether you're an amoeba, a fish, a spider, an ant, a snake, a bird, a mammal, a human ─ or grass or a rose or a sequoia ─ the works. And when your biology irreversibly ceases to function, you're dead and that's it.

The second part of my reasoning is, what's the point? Most critters, certainly mammals, are born with a sort of life-map built in─ for us, be raised, learn a language, the customs of your family and group, learn about your world, reach puberty, marry, have kids, grow old and (maybe) provide wisdom and be useful. The End. As a poet put it,

HEAVEN​

One hundred​

billion​

years on​

what will you say​

to your true love?​

To which we can add, 'and why?'

No examinable evidence contradicts me, or even raises doubt.

As for 'mind', it's a handy term, but a loose one. It can mean thoughts-and-feelings, it can mean intellect, it can mean oneself thinking, it can mean active self-awareness, it can mean imagination, or thoughts -and-imaginings, it can include memory, it can mean an idealized manner of thinking, it can mean sanity, on and on.

What particular brain functions do you say constitute 'mind'? Or do you agree it's a slippery term?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yet the accumulation of the neutral changes in the same gene would cause the loss of original protein-coding ability due to the significant random alterations to the original DNA sequence, hence a gene becomes a “pseudogene". See the link below for pseudogene.

Then the mutation that made that happen wouldn't be a neutral mutation.




Sheesh man, it's like you don't know what the word "neutral" means in this context.
It means "makes no difference".


Also quite funny how you now suddenly seems to acknowledge the previous point made that accumulation of neutral mutations might / will open up new pathways for non-neutral mutations to occur. ie, for specific non-neutral mutations that wouldn't have had the effect they have (good OR bad) if it wasn't for the accumulation of the specific neutral mutations prior to that.

Hilarious.

You creationists.... always having trouble keeping track of your own claims. That's what you get when your tactic is always to make sh!t up ad hoc to defend ancient myth beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I just entered the astonishment mode! How many times we talked about this?

Exactly.

The last time I addressed this was in my post # 8503 and #8108. You may also want to see #1245

this is unbelievable, really what is wrong with you guys? Here it is again:

Adaptations are encoded in the genes (preprogrammed) and take effect through cell-mediated processes not random change such as “Escherichia Coli” developing the ability to utilize citrate through a cell-mediated adaptive process that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter (Lenski’s experiment).

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

Did the function exist prior to the mutations?
Answer: no.

Did the function exist after the mutations?
Answer: yes.

Was the function activation the result of a combination of mutations?
Answer: yes.


Did you go into denial mode as predicted?
Answer: yes

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you are crying!

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

I am laughing. You are ignorant of even the basics of science. That along with your mythological beliefs explain your extreme Dunning Kruger that you constantly display.

And your question is poorly formed. You have also shifted the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis. People use that logical fallacy when they have lost the previous argument. If you can be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about evolution then we can discuss an even more difficult subject. If you do not have that minimal amount of honesty then you can pound sand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Individual neutral mutations are not subject to selection processes, but the accumulation of NEUTRAL mutations alters the DNA sequence of the gene to the point that it can no longer perform its original function and becomes a “pseudogene". see the link.

Pseudogene (genome.gov)

Dear lord, you grasp at anything don't you?
Did you even read your link?

You are horrendously misrepresenting what it says.

First, it doesn't say that it is the result of accumulating "neutral" mutations. A mutation that prevents a gene from functioning, would not be a neutral mutation btw.
Secondly, you make it look as if the accumulation of mutations will ALWAYS result in pseudo-genes. This is horribly false.
A pseudo-gene is the result of accumulation of mutations, yes (BOTH neutral and non-neutral mutations....)
But not all accumulation of mutations will result in pseudo-genes.

Your are being incredibly disengenous.
I wonder if you do it on purpose, hoping nobody will notice.

You insist on an outdated view and totally ignorant of the latest in the felid. It may not be your fault as much as it is the textbooks that were never updated for decades.

Says the person who apparantly can only argue their case by misrepresenting even the articles linked by him/herself.

No, The selection pressure (the algorithm) was intelligently programmed to aim for a specific future goal.

No. There is zero programming going on to end up with a specific picture.
All it does is mutate, test against selection pressure, select, reproduce, repeat.

Every change is evaluated based on its relevance to the future goal.

No. It is evaluated based on current performance against present selection pressures as compared to peers.
There is no "future goal" involved.

Without selection being aware of the future goal the change is meaningless.

Clearly that isn't true, as no such selection is going on and the change clearly isn't meaningless.
Against, there is no selection in context of any "future" thing going on.
It's always, consistently, about current performance as compared to peers and that, in context of the currently active selection pressures.

This is exactly my argument; natural selection cannot plan for a future goal.

It's also exactly your error / strawman: natural selection DOES NOT NEED TO plan for a "future goal". It only has to look at current performance as compared to peers and that in context of the currently active selection pressures.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to comprehend this simple difference.

Natural selection is not some intelligent programming for a specific future goal.

Indeed it isn't. Neither are GA's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I see that you are still ignorant and butt hurt. And you are still acting in a rather cowardly way. You could learn if you were not so afraid. Instead you post weak insults that only apply to you and run away.

Why are you so afraid? Am I really that frightening?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

What a simplistic view of genetics you have. Not to mention uneducated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, this is not the theory, this is you denying to see how ridiculous the theory is.

But sure, the theory allows such transformations to take effect provided you give the process time, random changes and selection pressures.

There's nothing in evolution theory that predicts humans would, or could, grow an extra set of limbs and have them become wings able to fly.

Nothing.

This again just you being disengenous and borderline dishonest.
It's completely ridiculous.

 

[Audie]

Then the mutation that made that happen wouldn't be a neutral mutation.




Sheesh man, it's like you don't know what the word "neutral" means in this context.
It means "makes no difference".


Also quite funny how you now suddenly seems to acknowledge the previous point made that accumulation of neutral mutations might / will open up new pathways for non-neutral mutations to occur. ie, for specific non-neutral mutations that wouldn't have had the effect they have (good OR bad) if it wasn't for the accumulation of the specific neutral mutations prior to that.

Hilarious.

You creationists.... always having trouble keeping track of your own claims. That's what you get when your tactic is always to make sh!t up ad hoc to defend ancient myth beliefs.

Being scientifically illiterate makes people such
easy targets, victims of fraudulent advertising and
ideology.

Then there's the feedback loop, and, the
defrauded joining in to deceive others.

As noted elsewhere, it goes readily into the ready
adoption any falsehoods that suit the need.
Making things up is standard practice.

This in the name of the God they claim to honour!


It's a sick sad thing to behold.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

That can't be it since you do that as a regular practice.

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

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

Mutation - Wikipedia

View attachment 81421

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

Pseudogene (genome.gov)

View attachment 81422

Okay, you are cherry picking from an article that you cannot understand. Yet that article tells you how you are wrong in just one sentence. "Changes" would have been a better more neutral term than "errors". They use the word error in the context of thinking of life as having an ultimate purpose. In reality it doesn't. Life has results that can look like a purpose, but that is far beyond you for now. They write these articles for honest lay people. They did not intend for the language that they used to be abused as you have done.


Let's get back to the one sentence that you somehow missed:

"Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection can act."

So clearly not "errors" in the sense that you use the word. Maybe English is not your first language, or perhaps you are just overly literalistic. That is a problem for many Christians and your inability to understand articles written for the layman indicates that may be the case.

At any rate that is why I offered to go over the basics of science with you. But I only expect more cowardice in the form of running away.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Evolutionary science is based on objectively verifiable evidence based on scientific methods supported by 95%+of ALL the scientists of the world in Biology, Geology, and related fields, and ALL the Major academic universities of the world,

ID and IC very very few fundamentalist Christian and Islamic Scientists support these Theist philosophies without scientific evidence whatsoever. They have never proposed a falsifiable a falsifiable hypothesis.

I repeat the challenge is on you to present just one recognized scientist who is not a fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Islamic and does not believe in a literal Genesis.

You have not responded to this problem of which scientists believe in ID.

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;

Mayr does not support ID. In fact, he was a pioneer in many modern concepts in evolutionary biology. He rightly challenged old concepts in evolutionary biology but did not challenge natural evolution.

Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although Charles Darwin and others posited that multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor, the mechanism by which this occurred was not understood, creating the species problem. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. When populations within a species become isolated by geography, feeding strategy, mate choice, or other means, they may start to differ from other populations through genetic drift and natural selection, and over time may evolve into new species. The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).

His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced), based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation, and was the theoretical underpinning for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. Mayr is sometimes credited with inventing modern philosophy of biology, particularly the part related to evolutionary biology, which he distinguished from physics due to its introduction of (natural) history into science.

As a traditionally-trained biologist, Mayr was often highly critical of early mathematical approaches to evolution, such as those of J.B.S. Haldane, and famously called such approaches "beanbag genetics" in 1959. He maintained that factors such as reproductive isolation had to be taken into account. In a similar fashion, Mayr was also quite critical of molecular evolution studies such as those of Carl Woese. Current molecular studies in evolution and speciation indicate that although allopatric speciation is the norm, there are numerous cases of sympatric speciation in groups with greater mobility, such as birds. The precise mechanisms of sympatric speciation, however, are usually a form of microallopatry enabled by variations in niche occupancy among individuals within a population.

In many of his writings, Mayr rejected reductionism in evolutionary biology, arguing that evolutionary pressures act on the whole organism, not on single genes, and that genes can have different effects depending on the other genes present. He advocated a study of the whole genome, rather than of only isolated genes. After articulating the biological species concept in 1942, Mayr played a central role in the species problem debate over what was the best species concept. He staunchly defended the biological species concept against the many definitions of "species" that others proposed.

Mayr was an outspoken defender of the scientific method and was known to critique sharply science on the edge. As a notable example, in 1995, he criticized the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), as conducted by fellow Harvard professor Paul Horowitz, as being a waste of university and student resources for its inability to address and answer a scientific question. Over 60 eminent scientists, led by Carl Sagan, rebutted the criticism.[18][19]

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.”

You do not even understand the citation provided. It has nothing to do with endorsing ID. Please note the excerpts from his biography which makes his views clear in support of natural evolutionary biology.

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.

Your ancient tribal beliefs are upfront in this thread and WILL remain so along with Fundamentalist Christians because it is ONLY a very few fundamentalist Christian and Islamic scientists that support ID out of tens of thousands of scientists.

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.

Not fallacious nor nonsensical sense I have documented the fact that only a very very few fundamentalist Christian and Islamic scientists support ID. Mayr DOES NOT support ID,

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.

I am a rational geologist with over fifty years of education and experience, What are your qualifications in the sciences of evolution? You obviously have a problem since you have misrepresented Mayr and do not understand his writings.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Local spacetime began with the big bang. If there is more to reality than that, then our universe's space time began and proceeded at a time and place in a meta spacetime.

Don't you know that multiverse is not a scientific theory?

Yes, thank you. I've taken a few science classes and read an article or two. Yes, it's a hypothesis like God, only more parsimonious, since it isn't described as conscious or aware of our universe.

It’s only a hypothesis

So what's your point? That makes it not worthy of consideration? Your god belief is also a hypothesis, and it's good enough for you. Why the double standard (rhetorical question)?

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.

I define multiverse as any unconscious source for our universe. We don't know that it had a source. Perhaps it has always existed in a banging-crunching cycle. Or perhaps it came into being uncaused. But if it had a source, that source also had to have existed infinitely int the past or arisen de no and uncaused. We can divide this latter category into conscious and unconscious sources, I call the former gods and the latter multiverses. That looks like this:

Candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

My guess is that you have chosen [6]. I haven't chosen any but put the multiverse hypothesis at the top of my list of candidate hypotheses, since it obviates the fine-tuning objection and is more parsimonious than a conscious multiverse (a god). I think that the correct answer must be on that list, as a creationist, I presume you agree.

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested?

I can't answer that. Is that an objection to the multiverse hypothesis - that we don't know how to test for it? We can't test for any of the candidate hypotheses above. It seems to me that one of those must be correct. How could it not be that case that the universe either had a source or didn't, that if it did that that source was conscious or unconscious, and whatever is the original substance of reality - our spacetime, a multiverse, or a god - is timeless or arose spontaneously and uncaused.

Can you add to that list? I can't I consider it exhaustive. If so, doesn't that mean that one is correct? And if so, doesn't that mean that something that we cannot test at this time and perhaps never is the case? And if all of this is sound this far, it means that untestability doesn't disqualify or even weaken the position of any candidate hypothesis.

Logically we can infer the need for the distinct source for everything, i.e., God, once we accept the logical necessity

Disagree twice. We CANNOT assume a source for everything, nor if there were one should we call it "God." And once again, you bring a double standard to the debate. You believe in a god with no distinct source, or do you believe that your god had a source?

it becomes clear that there is purpose for our creation and logical that God conveyed that purpose to humanity through the messengers.

Here's where the theist jumps the shark. Now you're on a flight of religious fancy. There is no apparent purpose to reality, and no reason to believe in gods or to listen to self-proclaimed messengers of them.

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.

My life falsifies that claim. I abandoned gods decades ago and have relied only on reason, skepticism, and empiricism to decide what is true about the world, and I have used that knowledge to navigate it. I reached my intended destination long ago (which includes comfortable and has been comforting) and intend to enjoy the fruits of that journey for as long as I can. I ask for nothing more from a world view.

Maybe you should be taking life advice from me rather than giving it. How's your life? Have you found and secured love, beauty, comfort, and happiness for yourself? Or maybe those aren't your goals. Maybe you're trying to please an imagined deity with suffering and prefer such an outcome. I saw that in hospice with suffering, dying Abrahamic patients who refused analgesia in order to purify their souls prior to meeting Jesus.

Refute what?

The claim I actually made. You didn't, so I assume that you couldn't and deflected instead. If you'd like another shot at answering, follow the arrows back to the source comment, look at it again, and refute it or don't. I don't think you can, and I suspect you agree.

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.

You wrote, "you get to believe whatever you want but you do not get to “set the rules" of what is true or false" and I answered, "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."

It seems you agree.

“Nor need they” means that you accept the fact that such physical explanation of mind was never established.

Yes. Materialism is one of four logically possible candidate hypotheses for the relationship between mind and matter, also exhaustive in my opinion, meaning one must be correct even if we can't say which it is.

Candidate hypotheses for the relationship between mind and matter (feel free to add another if you can think of one):

[1] Materialism - asserts that everything that exists is physical including mind, which would be an epiphenomenon of brains. That is, matter can exist without minds, but minds only exist in matter.

[2] Idealism postulates the reverse: mind is the primordial substance and is the source of the physical world, which is an epiphenomenon of thought, like a dreamscape.

[3] Cartesian dualism - both mind and matter are fundamental.

[4] Neutral monism - both are derivative of something that is the source of both, like space and time relative to spacetime).

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)

No, that hasn't been established. That's your religious intuition speaking. It wants idealism to be correct, declares it so, and then employes this Texas Sharpshooter fallacy where supporting evidence is given undue priority over contradictory evidence.

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.

But it does mean that they aren't receiving the same common signal as this idea of our brains being receivers of some external source implies. The signal you receive is the experience of physical reality whether that be of the external world or the body and brain. Consciousness is a theater of qualia of assorted types reporting on the objects and processes comprising physical reality including the neocortex, which electrochemical machinations we experience as higher order symbolic thought, and this includes what is called free will, which is also generated in the neural circuits and reported to the "self," which sees itself as their original source ('the illusion of free will').

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).

You chose a compass to illustrate that it's response to a source doesn't indicate that source's location?

The compass is not the source; you still need to find the source.

Were you looking for one of the magnetic poles? Follow the compass needle in one of the two directions it's pointing.

But I get your point. The original source is underfoot in the planet's liquid metal outer core, and the compass won't reveal that.

 

[YoursTrue]

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]

You bring out an important point (to me). While there is no temple for Israelites today where they used to offer sacrifices, there surely are sins we commit that we don't even understand or realize. The older I get the more able I am to understand but it's very little, however a lot more than when I was young-er. That is one reason I look forward to everlasting life (on earth) so I can see along with otheres so many important things resolved. Take care. (P.S. Your use of the English language is excellent, in my opinion.)

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not consider the multiverse is hypothetical that many. As far as what 'caused our universe, and the possible multiverse is simply by the evidence of Natural Laws and natural processes we see through the study of Quantum Mechanics. Any outside 'cause' would be very hypothetical and based on 'the subjective belief as to what the 'cause' of 'Natural Laws and the natural originating source is.

If the universe began expanding from a singularity, i.e. black hole which is at present the most likely scenario other than some cyclic version that follows the same reasoning. The process is natural for the formation and expansion of the singularity. It is easy to assume based on the evidence that if one object is found to follow the Natural Laws as we understand it the object isn't unique.

Our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and math models supports the above scenario.

 

[LIIA]

I'm self-aware. As you'll know from your reading of modern research into brainmapping, self-editing occurs in the forebrain (which is why contrecoup, the rebound of shockwaves from a severe blow to the back of the head, can cause forebrain shearing and loss of self-editing).

Neither myself nor the scientific sources I quoted deny the functions of the brain. Not at all, this is not the point.

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

Scientists say your “mind" isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body (qz.com)

The point is about the source of consciousness. A unique broadcast being manifested through the TV functions is analogous to a unique consciousness being manifested through the brain functions, even so the functions of the TV directly affect the viewing experience, but such functions can’t be taken as evidence that the TV is the source of the show. The source (the broadcast) is independent of the TV. The show is a manifestation of the source through the functions of the TV.

I have no reason to think I'll exist eternally.

If all what you know is phase 1, how can you possibly tell with any level of certainty about phase 2? Phase 2 is "after death". The rule is that people don’t return from that phase to tell, but this rule has exceptions. NDE research sheds light on phase 2 and the relationship between consciousness and the physical body/brain.

The research couldn’t provide physical explanations for the verified NDEs, such as the visual experiences of those who were born blind and never had any visual experience in their entire life except for their highly accurate and detailed visual experiences during the NDE. The research provided evidence that the phenomenon of “Qualia” is not physical.

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

The first part of my reasoning is that life is a function of biology

Or biology is a function of life.

when your biology irreversibly ceases to function, you're dead and that's it.

when your TV irreversibly ceases to function, it’s dead but that has nothing to do with the broadcast.

The second part of my reasoning is, what's the point? Most critters, certainly mammals, are born with a sort of life-map built in─ for us, be raised, learn a language, the customs of your family and group, learn about your world, reach puberty, marry, have kids, grow old and (maybe) provide wisdom and be useful. The End. As a poet put it,

HEAVEN
One hundredbillionyears onwhat will you sayto your true love?
To which we can add, 'and why?'

Exactly, there is a purpose. It’s not a game. I'll elaborate later.

When you say, “a sort of life-map built in”, implies “preprogramming”, which is evidently not possible. Enormous range of appropriate responses to stimuli proves the conscious processing of the variables not mere “preprogramming”.

No examinable evidence contradicts me, or even raises doubt.

There is, such as the example of NDE research but people with a specific mentality would willfully deny it without any justification, knowledge or understanding of its significance.

As for 'mind', it's a handy term, but a loose one. It can mean thoughts-and-feelings, it can mean intellect, it can mean oneself thinking, it can mean active self-awareness, it can mean imagination, or thoughts -and-imaginings, it can include memory, it can mean an idealized manner of thinking, it can mean sanity, on and on.

What particular brain functions do you say constitute 'mind'? Or do you agree it's a slippery term?

It a slippery term with respect to the fact that no physical brain functions constitute 'mind’. Interactions of matter don’t give rise to 'self-awareness'. Life in any shape or form is about self-awareness of the inner domain and outer environment, which is typically followed by appropriate responses of the creature to address survival needs. Life is a conscious endeavor for survival.

 

[LIIA]

Then the mutation that made that happen wouldn't be a neutral mutation.




Sheesh man, it's like you don't know what the word "neutral" means in this context.
It means "makes no difference".

Your “denial mode” is what blocks your ability to understand.

These random mutations are DNA replication errors. Even if the impact of a single error is negligible with respect to the gene function (NEUTRAL) but the accumulation of these errors will be damaging to the function.

Mutation - Wikipedia

Here is what you fail to understand:

Per the ToE, a beneficial change is not a single sudden change but rather the end result of accumulated random purposeless steps that take effect within an existing gene with an existing function.

These steps, even if each step is individually neutral but continuous accumulation cannot stay neutral. The accumulation of these random steps (DNA replication errors) will collectively impact the original protein-coding ability of the gene. You claim that the random accumulation of change can continue further as long as it takes to randomly and gradually (through trial and error) come across a future beneficial function, and you ignore the fact that the negative impact due to the loss of original function would trigger elimination by selection.

For example, if you randomly change the letters of a statement, first thing that would happen is the loss of the original meaning of the statement, then if you're allowed to continue indefinitely with endless possible arrangements of random meaningless letters, then you may come across a meaningful arrangement but how can you continue such lengthy process if the loss of original meaning would terminate it?

A new meaningful statement doesn’t just pop out randomly to replace the old statement. Also you cannot randomly/gradually proceed with changing letters towards a future meaning without damaging original meaning first. Such damage will cause the termination of the process and prohibit further changes towards a distant future benefit.

IOW, before any new meaningful gene function would emerge, the gene will lose its original function first. The impact of such loss will stop the process due to the negative impact on fitness.

And most importantly, any major new function is necessarily dependent on many other secondary interdependent functions. Even if an individual secondary function emerged randomly in isolation of the others, it would be totally useless, yet the loss of original gene function would have a negative impact on fitness and trigger elimination by selection.

 

[LIIA]

Did the function exist prior to the mutations?
Answer: no.

Did the function exist after the mutations?
Answer: yes.

Was the function activation the result of a combination of mutations?
Answer: yes.


Did you go into denial mode as predicted?
Answer: yes

The pre-coded function (citrate transporter) did exist before the mutation, but it was silent. see the link.

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

It’s neither new nor randomly evolved info. It's not an accumulation of random change but rather a cell-mediated adaptive process (not merely DNA replication error) and most importantly the ability to consume citrate didn’t give rise to a new species, it was a variant of the same species which is exactly the case with the phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). I.e., a cell mediated adaptive process.

The problem here is your inability to understand the difference between random DNA replication error/damage and the cell mediated adaptive changes, which are neither random nor gradual. Gradual accumulation of errors doesn’t lead to new meaningful functions.

The notion that just because the trait is new, then it must be due to the accumulation of random errors, is totally false and illogical. There is no evidence for such nonsense. It’s totally against the new scientific finds (adaptive changes are neither random nor gradual), See # 1245. This is exactly why the Modern Synthesis is false.

Also “New traits” doesn’t equal “new species”. If you consider the new traits that give rise to variants of dogs, all of these different traits previously exist (pre-coded) in the DNA of the species, it’s not new traits that emerged due to random accumulation of DNA replication errors. That is why no matter how the variants are very very different, it will never be a new species. Do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

I am laughing. You are ignorant of even the basics of science. That along with your mythological beliefs explain your extreme Dunning Kruger that you constantly display.

And your question is poorly formed. You have also shifted the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis. People use that logical fallacy when they have lost the previous argument. If you can be honest enough to admit that you were wrong about evolution then we can discuss an even more difficult subject. If you do not have that minimal amount of honesty then you can pound sand.

Useless projection.

Have fun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Useless projection.

Have fun.

I know, that is all that you have. When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you. Otherwise all of your posts will remain easily refuted.

 

[LIIA]

First, it doesn't say that it is the result of accumulating "neutral" mutations. A mutation that prevents a gene from functioning, would not be a neutral mutation btw.

If you follow your own logic, then the link didn’t say that the loss of function was the result of accumulated "harmful " mutations either. It simply said, “lost their protein-coding ability due to accumulated mutations”. Simply harmful mutations wouldn’t have a chance to accumulate since it would be eliminated by selection due to its negative impact on fitness.

And regardless, your argument is false. Accumulation of mutations (random DNA replication errors) would cause the loss of original protein-coding ability even if the individual mutations were neutral.

Secondly, you make it look as if the accumulation of mutations will ALWAYS result in pseudo-genes. This is horribly false.
A pseudo-gene is the result of accumulation of mutations, yes (BOTH neutral and non-neutral mutations....)
But not all accumulation of mutations will result in pseudo-genes.

Yes, continuous accumulation of random DNA replication errors within a gene must result the loss of its original protein-coding ability. The gene will be pseudogenes.

If you continue to randomly change the letters of a statement, the original meaning of the statement will be lost. The individual replacements of letters are meaningless or harmful to original meaning and unless you know which letters would serve a future meaning, there is no reason or pressure to keep it. Especially after you reach the point of significant damage to original meaning, such damage will not allow the process to continue as long as it needs to warrant an unintended future function. Do you understand?

No. There is zero programming going on to end up with a specific picture.
All it does is mutate, test against selection pressure, select, reproduce, repeat.

zero programming!! You can’t be serious! Are you?

Ask yourself why the end result was the Mona Lisa not Guernica or Irises? Was it a mere coincidence? Sure, it was not, it was simply because the process was specifically programmed for the Mona Lisa. If it were programmed for the Guernica, then it would have appeared instead of the Mona Lisa.

Give up on your denial, and then you would see the obvious.

No. It is evaluated based on current performance against present selection pressures as compared to peers.
There is no "future goal" involved.

Except that present selection pressures are programmed for a future goal (the Mona Lisa) otherwise it’s impossible for the individual current changes to be meaningful. Without the future goal, there is absolutely no reason to select or retain present meaningless changes.

It's always, consistently, about current performance as compared to peers and that, in context of the currently active selection pressures.

current performance as compared to peers is evaluated based on its relevance to the future goal, without the future goal, the change is currently meaningless.

It's also exactly your error / strawman: natural selection DOES NOT NEED TO plan for a "future goal". It only has to look at current performance as compared to peers and that in context of the currently active selection pressures.

Again, per the ToE, the new beneficial function is the end result of an accumulated numerous random steps, your claim necessitates that every individual step must have performance advantage compared to peers (reproductive success better than other peers), which is totally false. All these steps are meaningless at the time of its occurrence, presently active selection cannot impose a pressure towards an unknown future function (unless the selection pressure is preprogrammed accordingly, such as the case of the Mona Lisa)