Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

It is not.
Geneticists would wish that to be true as it would be far easier. But it isn't.
Reality is far more complex then that.

Don’t tell me what a gene is not. Answer the question and tell me what is a gene if not a function?

 

[LIIA]

Maybe in lala-land.

I.e., the ToE.

I guess you didn’t pay attention but the definition I wrote was the specific definition of mutation. Go back and read it.

There are no magic beans in biology.

There is. It’s called the ToE.

Ernst Mayr said that evolutionary biology doesn’t belong to the exact sciences. See #331

Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

Colugo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And bats don’t just glide, they fly. So now Answer the question, Monkeys jump from tree to tree everyday all the time, the selection pressure is there, do you think that monkeys would ever grow wings and fly through an evolutionary process?

 

[LIIA]

Says you.

Says logic. The beginning must be a source that have existed infinitely/uncaused.

Other options are either “infinite regress" or “circular reasoning". Both are logically false.

 

[LIIA]

The Wiki article on the Long Term E. coli Experiment claims this. Do you know what source they used?

You’re the one who shared the Wiki article. I shared the Nature article below which is also one of the many other references included in the Wiki article (not the only source) but sure, that article reflects the latest understanding of what happened in Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment. It was a cell-mediated adaptive change. I. e., Directed Mutation. Not merely a replication error/damage.

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

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

For more info regarding Directed Mutations see # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[gnostic]

If the alleged transformation of LUCA (single-celled organism) into elephants is possible, then why not the human wings? All what you need is a random replication changes in the arrangement of DNA that causes a gene to express itself differently, so simple, right? Just get stuck in traffic every day, wish for wings and leave the rest to random mutations and natural selection. Should the random advantageous change happens, selection would keep it. Right?

But if human wings appear so ridiculous (and it is), then let me ask you a simpler question. Monkeys may jump from tree to tree everyday all the time. Monkeys with some sort of membranes would glide longer and could jump farther, such adaptation would be advantageous, and it may even save their lives by giving them better chance to escape predators. Now, let's forget about humans, can monkeys grow wings and fly through an evolutionary process?

Is that how you think mutations and natural selection work? Making wishes?

Are you a child with over-active imagination or just simply deluded.

What you are claiming is just comic-book fantasy or fairytale. Are you taking the “Red Bull” tv ads just a tat too seriously? That have nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

You are making straw man scenarios that no biologists would say it is possible, not just about having wings, but about your ridiculous notions of wishes. It is childish and dishonest.

Humans as with many mammals are tetrapod, meaning they have “four limbs”. They cannot possibly grow new limbs for wings, as the shoulders can only accommodate 2 arms, not arms and wings. Humans will never grow extra limbs.

plus, as humans used their arms and hands as they usually do, I don’t see it occurring through natural selection, so the arms won’t transfor into wings.

But deformity can result with some birth defects, where some babies might be missing a limb or two. But that’s not common.

 

[LIIA]

The only one that did not inherit sin is Jesus Christ

First, do you think that there is no inheritance from the mother side? Wasn’t the mother (Mary) a human and according to your creed inherited the sin from Adam? Jesus, the son of Mary would have been also born into imperfection because of his mother.

Weekly Dose of Wonder: Why we get more genes from our moms : NPR

Second, if humans inherited sin and imperfection from Adam and Eve. Would such inheritance be Adam’s fault or God, considering the fact that God is the one who created the law of inheritance that control how traits are passed from parents to offspring? Adam didn’t create such law.

In that context, our imperfection is not due to Adam’s sin but rather due to the law of inheritance that God created and allowed imperfections to pass from parents to innocent offspring.

If we did inherit sin/ imperfections it would be the responsibility of the creator, i.e., God not Adam. Yes, Adam made a mistake, and he is responsible for it, but Adam is not responsible for the laws of inheritance that were created by God. Only God controls how such laws work not Adam.

If God created inheritance in a different way that doesn’t allow passing imperfections to offspring, then it would not have been possible that the entire humanity become a victim of a single man and live in pain and suffering (to the contrary to what God himself wanted for us).

I’m sorry if such questions cause any discomfort to you, and I know this thread is not about such questions, but I really believe these are honest, logical and very important questions that deserve answers.

And to be more honest, I’m not really looking for or expecting answers. There are no answers and I know exactly what your answer would be like. And we both know it's not a satisfactory answer. I also know that such questions are typically ignored. The question was only intended for your considerations.

In conclusion, if you believe in God, then you would agree that if God wanted earth to be our haven; then no single man can stop that plan not even for a single second. Not even the entire human race can stop or change God's plans. God is just and merciful. God wouldn’t hold us accountable for the choices of others or make us suffer the consequences for the result of his own laws that he created, (i.e., the laws of inheritance from parents to offspring).

God plan for us is to go through the temporary test of life and have the free will to either submit to him or deny him. Such choice will have eternal consequences.

We are here not because Adam changed God's plan for humanity but rather because this is the test of fee will that God ordained upon us. The choice is yours only and you shall not be accountable for the choices/actions of others (not Adam or any other human). But sure, the test will come to an end. Some will pass and some will fail. Then justice shall be settled, and every little thing counts.

I’m sorry if my questions above may cause any discomfort to you. My intention is not to challenge your view but from an Islamic perspective, we believe that the message of Islam is the final message of the Abrahamic religions. No other revelation would be sent to humanity; hence it became an obligation upon every Muslim to convey the message even with a single verse of the Quran. But you’re totally free to choose for yourself. The free will of this temporary life is ordained by God himself.

From the Islamic perspective, all religions are the exact same message from the same source. The essence of all religions is to believe in God and follow the righteous path. That’s it. The righteous path for the Jews was to embrace Christianity; similarly, the righteous path for both the Jews and the Christians was to embrace the final revelation of Islam. All religions are one and God is one.

“Nothing is of his likeness; and he is the all-hearer, the all-seer” [Ash-Shura, 11]

“Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” [Al-Ikhlas]

God bless you.

Peace

 

[LIIA]

Is that how you think mutations and natural selection work? Making wishes?

I don’t think random mutation (DNA replication errors) work at all other that damaging the original function of a gene. Regardless of any wishes/fairytales about LUCA transforming into elephants, such imagination doesn’t work.

Are you a child with over-active imagination or just simply deluded.

I’m neither a child nor an incapacitated adult.

What you are claiming is just comic-book fantasy or fairytale. Are you taking the “Red Bull” tv ads just a tat too seriously? That have nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

It has every thing to do with evolutionary biology, the ToE postulates that time, random mutations and selection pressures allowed all various body plans of all life on earth to appear. If no selection pressure exists for human wings, why don’t you go jump between trees every single day of your life and hope for the best? If you have created the selection pressure; now just wait for the random mutations. Good luck. But please be careful not to break your neck.

You are making straw man scenarios that no biologists would say it is possible, not just about having wings, but about your ridiculous notions of wishes. It is childish and dishonest.

Forget about wishes, we know it's not part of the theory but if you think about it, it may contribute to the selection pressure. So, if we forget about wishes, do you think human wings are possible through evolutionary means?

Humans as with many mammals are tetrapod, meaning they have “four limbs”. They cannot possibly grow new limbs for wings, as the shoulders can only accommodate 2 arms, not arms and wings. Humans will never grow extra limbs.

Considering all various body plans, why not gradual transformation towards a new body plan that support 2 more limbs?

plus, as humans used their arms and hands as they usually do, I don’t see it occurring through natural selection, so the arms won’t transfor into wings.

The Korowai tribe live in 140-foot high tree houses, the selection pressure is there, what are the chances to grow some membrane to help gliding between trees or fly like bats? Again, if from single celled organism to human is possible, why not gradual transformation to a new body plan that supports wings?

Meet the Korowai Tribe of Papua New Guinea | Culture Trip (theculturetrip.com)

But deformity can result with some birth defects, where some babies might be missing a limb or two. But that’s not common.

I’m not talking about deformity but rather an advantages gradual change towards a new body plan that supports wings, would it ever happen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s true that the accumulation of random error/damage is "harmful". See # 8606 and # 8613

Except when it isn't.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 431 | Religious Forums

Latest scientific finds proved that Beneficial changes are always due to a cell-mediated process (directed mutation) not simply accumulation of random errors.

See # 1245

This is false and pointing to your own claims to "prove your point" is not proper use of citation.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Your double standard is totally illogical. You clearly contradict yourself.

I'm not. No double standard at all.
Just you and your dishonest strawmen.

Don’t you insist that the accumulation of neutral mutations finally leads to non-neutral/advantageous change?

Non-neutral and advantageous are not synonyms.
More dishonest strawmen on your part.

You already acknowledged random mutation as a replication error

And I already explained how that is not necessarily a bad thing in phenotypical terms.
I already noted your dishonest insinuations.

Replication "error" only points to the fact that the copying of the DNA is imperfect. That is what mutation is.
It doesn't follow at all that the copying "error" is therefor by definition harmful to the phenotype as you keep insinuating. Not at all.

Why is it difficult for you to understand that the accumulation of such neutral mutations (replication error) finally leads to loss of original function?

Because it is not true.

If natural changes cannot do anything at all (cannot have any effect), why do you insist that such accumulation leads to new functions? Do you understand the contradiction?

You don't understand the process. There is no contradiction.

Let's review step by step.

5 neutral mutations. A, B, C, D and E.
All of them are "synonyms" in genotypical terms. They are thus neutral. They make no difference.
Along comes mutation 6.

Combined with those other 5, mutation 6 produces an effect.
This effect can be harmful or beneficial. In some cases (if not most) even both and it becomes a question of "does the good outweigh the bad?".

It could improve an existing function.
It could break an existing function.
It could introduce a completely new function.

Whatever the end result, mutations A to E are neutral mutations.
F is not a neutral mutation.

That F achieves whatever effect it has as a direct result of the combination of mutations A to F, doesn't change anything about the fact that A to E were neutral mutations when they occured.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s a naive and illogical oversimplification. As explained before, not all changes are equal. Random replication error is not equal to cell-mediated adaptive process. see #1245

Again, pointing to your own claims to "prove your claims" is circular nonsense and not a proper use of citation.
Meanwhile, the actual point remains unaddressed.

The other 11 population do not have the mutations and thus they do not have the new function.
The one population does have the mutations and thus the new function.

You can ignore and deny this all you want. It's not going to make any difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don’t tell me what a gene is not. Answer the question and tell me what is a gene if not a function?

Gene - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.wikipedia.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I.e., the ToE.

No. Maybe in your strawman version of the theory, but in the actual theory.

I guess you didn’t pay attention but the definition I wrote was the specific definition of mutation. Go back and read it.

As usual, your implications are ridiculous. As if a single gene duplication is going to give humans wings.
Your single statement was made in a specific context and didn't stand on its own.
In that context, it is just incorrect.

There is. It’s called the ToE.

Sure, if you mean the strawman version of the theory you have in your dense head.

And bats don’t just glide, they fly. So now Answer the question, Monkeys jump from tree to tree everyday all the time, the selection pressure is there, do you think that monkeys would ever grow wings and fly through an evolutionary process?

Your idea of selection pressures and evolution are so absurd, it's not even funny.

You are making a fool of yourself with these silly "arguments".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Says logic. The beginning must be a source that have existed infinitely/uncaused.

The universe is uncaused.
Causality is a phenomenon of the physics of the universe (and not even universal at that, as it gets rather spooky at the quantum level)
No universe = no physics of the universe = no causality

Other options are either “infinite regress" or “circular reasoning". Both are logically false.

False dichotomy while ignoring physics.

 

[Audie]

Is that how you think mutations and natural selection work? Making wishes?

Are you a child with over-active imagination or just simply deluded.

What you are claiming is just comic-book fantasy or fairytale. Are you taking the “Red Bull” tv ads just a tat too seriously? That have nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

You are making straw man scenarios that no biologists would say it is possible, not just about having wings, but about your ridiculous notions of wishes. It is childish and dishonest.

Humans as with many mammals are tetrapod, meaning they have “four limbs”. They cannot possibly grow new limbs for wings, as the shoulders can only accommodate 2 arms, not arms and wings. Humans will never grow extra limbs.

plus, as humans used their arms and hands as they usually do, I don’t see it occurring through natural selection, so the arms won’t transfor into wings.

But deformity can result with some birth defects, where some babies might be missing a limb or two. But that’s not common.

Said nonsense being unworthy of any attention given it.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, do you think that there is no inheritance from the mother side? Wasn’t the mother (Mary) a human and according to your creed inherited the sin from Adam? Jesus, the son of Mary would have been also born into imperfection because of his mother.

Weekly Dose of Wonder: Why we get more genes from our moms : NPR

Second, if humans inherited sin and imperfection from Adam and Eve. Would such inheritance be Adam’s fault or God, considering the fact that God is the one who created the law of inheritance that control how traits are passed from parents to offspring? Adam didn’t create such law.

In that context, our imperfection is not due to Adam’s sin but rather due to the law of inheritance that God created and allowed imperfections to pass from parents to innocent offspring.

If we did inherit sin/ imperfections it would be the responsibility of the creator, i.e., God not Adam. Yes, Adam made a mistake, and he is responsible for it, but Adam is not responsible for the laws of inheritance that were created by God. Only God controls how such laws work not Adam.

If God created inheritance in a different way that doesn’t allow passing imperfections to offspring, then it would not have been possible that the entire humanity become a victim of a single man and live in pain and suffering (to the contrary to what God himself wanted for us).

I’m sorry if such questions cause any discomfort to you, and I know this thread is not about such questions, but I really believe these are honest, logical and very important questions that deserve answers.

And to be more honest, I’m not really looking for or expecting answers. There are no answers and I know exactly what your answer would be like. And we both know it's not a satisfactory answer. I also know that such questions are typically ignored. The question was only intended for your considerations.

In conclusion, if you believe in God, then you would agree that if God wanted earth to be our haven; then no single man can stop that plan not even for a single second. Not even the entire human race can stop or change God's plans. God is just and merciful. God wouldn’t hold us accountable for the choices of others or make us suffer the consequences for the result of his own laws that he created, (i.e., the laws of inheritance from parents to offspring).

God plan for us is to go through the temporary test of life and have the free will to either submit to him or deny him. Such choice will have eternal consequences.

We are here not because Adam changed God's plan for humanity but rather because this is the test of fee will that God ordained upon us. The choice is yours only and you shall not be accountable for the choices/actions of others (not Adam or any other human). But sure, the test will come to an end. Some will pass and some will fail. Then justice shall be settled, and every little thing counts.

I’m sorry if my questions above may cause any discomfort to you. My intention is not to challenge your view but from an Islamic perspective, we believe that the message of Islam is the final message of the Abrahamic religions. No other revelation would be sent to humanity; hence it became an obligation upon every Muslim to convey the message even with a single verse of the Quran. But you’re totally free to choose for yourself. The free will of this temporary life is ordained by God himself.

From the Islamic perspective, all religions are the exact same message from the same source. The essence of all religions is to believe in God and follow the righteous path. That’s it. The righteous path for the Jews was to embrace Christianity; similarly, the righteous path for both the Jews and the Christians was to embrace the final revelation of Islam. All religions are one and God is one.

“Nothing is of his likeness; and he is the all-hearer, the all-seer” [Ash-Shura, 11]

“Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” [Al-Ikhlas]

God bless you.

Peace

Not all calling themselves Christian agree--that is quite clear from some posts here as well as life itself, with various groups and teachings among the churches. Jesus was (is) the son of God. Your questions do not cause me discomfort. You have been respectful and thoughtful. There are some things hard to explain. And some things are beyond human or scientific explanations. Since Mary’s child was to be a true descendant of her ancestors Abraham, Judah, and David, as God had promised, her ovum had to contribute toward her pregnancy. Please see Genesis 22:15, 18, Genesis 49:10 and 2 Samuel 7:8 and 16. God's holy spirit or invisible active force was used in transferring the perfect life of His Son, causing the conception. (Matt. 1:18) Logically considered, it would be understood that this canceled out any imperfection existing in Mary’s ovum and from the very start protected the developing embryo from anything hurtful. This, of course, would not be impossible with God, especially since the Bible explains Jesus came from heaven.

 

[gnostic]

Forget about wishes, we know it's not part of the theory but if you think about it, it may contribute to the selection pressure.

Yeah, like what? ...like with Aladdin's genie or the Twilight Zone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did, you don’t or rather consciously play your usual games to support a false argument.

I supported my refutation. All that you had was the abstract of an article. You did not read the entire article. Or if you did you clearly did not understand it. If you do not understand a refutation you need to ask questions about it in the response. If you ignore those corrections then you cannot demand that someone go back over them later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s a naive and illogical oversimplification. As explained before, not all changes are equal. Random replication error is not equal to cell-mediated adaptive process. see #1245

I need to remind you that referring to old arguments that you lost is just you admitting that you were wrong again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re the one who shared the Wiki article. I shared the Nature article below which is also one of the many other references included in the Wiki article (not the only source) but sure, that article reflects the latest understanding of what happened in Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment. It was a cell-mediated adaptive change. I. e., Directed Mutation. Not merely a replication error/damage.

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

View attachment 81742

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

View attachment 81743

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

For more info regarding Directed Mutations see # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

And that is just the work of Denis Noble. He does not appear to be taken very seriously in the world of biology. You need something stronger than that. He apparently can only convince the ignorant. Such as you.

By the way, even if he was right you would still be an ape. By referring to him you are admitting that you are an ape. Try to reason logically for once.

 

[John53]

Not all calling themselves Christian agree--that is quite clear from some posts here as well as life itself, with various groups and teachings among the churches. Jesus was (is) the son of God. Your questions do not cause me discomfort. You have been respectful and thoughtful. There are some things hard to explain. And some things are beyond human or scientific explanations. Since Mary’s child was to be a true descendant of her ancestors Abraham, Judah, and David, as God had promised, her ovum had to contribute toward her pregnancy. Please see Genesis 22:15, 18, Genesis 49:10 and 2 Samuel 7:8 and 16. God's holy spirit or invisible active force was used in transferring the perfect life of His Son, causing the conception. (Matt. 1:18) Logically considered, it would be understood that this canceled out any imperfection existing in Mary’s ovum and from the very start protected the developing embryo from anything hurtful. This, of course, would not be impossible with God, especially since the Bible explains Jesus came from heaven.

And of course you have proof of all this which you will now share. Because you keep telling us that if there's not proof then it's wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

And of course you have proof of all this which you will now share. Because you keep telling us that if there's not proof then it's wrong.

I didn't say that. I am simply repeating that according to scientific positions, proof is not a part of the scientific theories being promoted.