A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Discussion Zone For Evolution
This post will serve as a permanent discussion zone for evolution. It will be on the Left hand column.
”What the Cambrian Explosion actually refers to is a period of a few million years during which we can see the appearance of most of the phyla that are still around today. This does not mean that every single member of each of these phyla appeared at the time, and it certainly did not happen instantaneously. Basically, the theory is that there were already some multicellular eukaryote organisms, which were reproducing sexually, but they were not yet as complex.”
That is blindly cramming fantasy which is not provable into the geological step function of the Cambrian Explosion. It is not the case that Darwin’s Theory is the current thinking on the subject, precisely because of the fossil record which refutes gradualism.
To take one example, before the Cambrian period, no fossils with exoskeleton, or shell, were found in the rocks. The idea is to then try to figure out if the Theory of Evolution fits with the evidence; did the exoskeletons appear through incremental changes in the fossil records? Are the descendants all related to the original shell type? If there is more than 1 type of shell, do they each trace back to a common ancestor from which they could evolve? The answer to these questions is always 'yes', we can find exactly what we would expect if the theory were true. There is no sudden impossible/unexplainable jump, there is no sudden reversal of the process, no variation in the common traits inherited from the theoretical common ancestors, etc... “
“could”? I don’t care about “could”. Could is not a fact. You have no facts. REAL SCIENCE is about facts.
Another example of what a so-called macro-evolutionary "event" might look like was presented in a series of videos I linked to , a few times already: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0C606FE36BEDAC75
Try to internalize this: I care about facts. I don’t care one whit about stories that “might look like” something or other. You don’t care about facts; that is obvious. So it doesn’t bother you to keep producing ever more stories which are FACT-FREE.
Of course, there is not a literal unique event, but the narrator does point out, at the end of the 4th video, Foundations of Feliforme Families : "This is how it begins. Imagine …”
I don’t care about imaginary stuff. I care about facts. You can imagine anything you want – imagining it doesn’t make it valid or true, it makes it fantasy. Pure fantasy. “Imagine” is the description of the entire evolutionary enterprise. “Imagine” all this stuff actually happened; then “bazambo!”, evolution becomes “A Fact AND A Theory”, and an imaginary story.
It’s pitiful, really.
”This is not about the Cambrian Explosion but it actually makes it much easier to detail and understand, because that's the branching for all of the Canines and Felines that we see today. We can trace the ancestry of these animals using DNA just like we can trace the ancestry of literal cousins alive today. We can then compare the fossil records and relationships between living animals to try to see if the Theory holds up. And yes, of course, the best explanation remains that there were some literal cousins who went on to each have descendants that are now completely different from the common ancestors of all Canines and all Felines, but it is a fact that they do have these common ancestors; they are the product of macro-evolution, i.e. the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time.”
See? It is NOT a fact. It is a presumption which is an extrapolation of current facts about DNA, a presumption which is built to “imagine” this or that which “might be” because it can’t be falsified.
It has now been “proven” by DNA that dogs and wolves are not that closely related, but had to have some unknown and unknowable “common ancestor(s)”. DNA extrapolations beyond one generation are all bull. An ancestor which is 500 generations back has only 1/2500 parts available to the allele/DNA of the current generation, even if it is not completely allele-deselected by homozygous rejection along the way. Go ahead and refute that. Oh I know: Darwin didn’t accept Mendelian genetics.
In India, the electrical switches in both homes and commercial space are quite different from what we are used to see in the US. They tend to have these giant 20-switch panels; and they also have ON/OFF switches on each electrical outlet. And the bigger appliances, such as air conditioner units, have bigger ones that look like what we see in our bathrooms here: switches with incorporated breakers. The ones with the usual red and white buttons for test and reset basically. They are usually in bathroom for safety purposely. Anyway, you know what I am talking about...
The difference tough is that, in India, they also use these as ON/OFF switches. And I always thought that was rather strange, since you would think that using a breaker as an ON/OFF switch is not ideal. Breakers are supposed to be emergency devices that trip in case of an unusual high current, before something else gets damaged. But using them as switches, I thought, would probably be damaging the breaker sooner than expected, and making it to be a very expensive switch basically.
I even read online a bit about it; I was curious to know if it was indeed a bad idea to use a breaker as an ON/OFF switch. Most electricians seem to agree that it's a bad idea. Some say it might not really make a difference in the end tough, since you might not end up turning it ON and OFF that often after all. So, it seems that my general impression was correct; it's a bad idea to use the breaker as a switch when you don't have to; not horrible, but just not the best usage for such device. A/C units always have some other form of control anyway; they have either a remote or some controls on the unit itself.
So I always avoided using the breaker as switches, even when that's what everyone in India does. And it was always weird to see people press that big red button to stop a unit instead of just using the button on the A/C unit. It's like someone turning OFF their hair dryer, in the bathroom, by pressing the breaker button on the wall switch.
Except that... it's not the same at all, after all.
Last time I was in Kolkata, last June, we went out with some cousins and one of them was explaining what her company does; they make electrical equipment, including switches and breakers, among other things. So it suddenly struck me that maybe she could explain why people in India use breakers as switches. I was just curious to know if there were a reason I was not aware of. And the restaurant we were at had 8 units all around us so that made it easy to point out to!
"Oh no, these are not breakers, they are starters!"
Wait, they are not breakers? Well, no... it turns out that they 'look like' the breakers we have in our bathrooms, but it turns out that they are starters, designed for that task of turning ON/OFF equipment operating at higher powers. And I knew what starters were; I have worked with that kind of parts a lot before actually, during a summer job doing inventory work at a printer shop. Now, this finally made a lot more sense! I felt so silly to have assumed all of this time that these things were breakers. And for the few days I had left in India after that, I kept reading the tiny characters on each device to see the words: motor starter . If only I had just read what's written on these things instead of assuming they were breakers.
This made me so happy and so thrilled. I had been wrong and now I knew exactly why. It was a small thing but I was so wrong about it, and for so long, that it was really interesting to learn about it. This was my 7th visiting India already so it's not as if I had no chance to read that text before. But, most of the time, the switches are either not that easily accessible, or simply manipulated by someone else.
The point is that being proven wrong is something that I personally embrace. I can be very stubborn sometimes; I am not easily convinced, especially about things I think I am certain about. But it's not because I don't want to be proven wrong. It's actually the opposite; it's because I like to be proven wrong and learned from these mistakes that I am so stubborn about certain things. At the same time, I remain open minded and try to find flaws in some of the ideas I hold. I actually don't like this thing of being too certain about something. It makes me uncomfortable; it makes me wonder whether I am missing something since it seems "too good to be true" in a kind of way.
This came up last Wednesday actually, in class. We had this case study where we are to decide whether a car racing team should participate in an upcoming race or not. The challenge is to evaluate the pros and cons of racing versus not racing. Not racing meant losing a big potential sponsorship, forfeiting the entry fee to the race and ending the seasons slightly in the red in terms of budget. But, it also meant that the current biggest sponsor would remain and would avoid an engine failure. As this was the problem for the other side: the conditions in the scenario were that it was really cold, and the car had seen issues in cold weather before. In fact, it was the coldest the car would ever run in. At the same time, the stats that were given to us were only partial; there did not seem to be a serious correlation between temperature and engine failures. And the rewards, should the team win, were huge. It would add the biggest sponsor yet, for that team, some national TV exposure, and a good chance of being a top finisher, with big cash prize. But the risk was also higher, as losing the engine might mean losing both the sponsors, having to replace an expensive engine, and essentially being worse off than not running at all.
We had time to prepare the case on our own, before class, and then were put in groups of 3 to try to argue whether the team should race or not. All 3 in my team had already come up with the same conclusion: yes, we should race. Even without looking at the expected $$ value of each scenario and their likelihood, it seemed to us that not racing made the team look weak, scared, and that does not look good. It's hard to place a number on that but we thought it would be worse than racing and crashing, even if it meant a loss of money, as the team could argue that they at least tried, and that might convince sponsors to stick around anyway, instead of leaving a team of "wuss" who wouldn't even try.
But throughout the discussion, even if it seemed to us that it was obvious that racing was better, even given the risk at hand, I kept wondering... are we missing something? What are the other teams saying to convince themselves not to run? Because we knew that not all teams in the class would agree that racing was the best. It turned out that roughly 1/3 decided not to. Plus, and I mentioned that to my teammates, I felt like we might be in the same positions as NASA before the catastrophic launch of the space shuttle Challenger. It was a similar scenario where the temperature was much lower than any other launches, and engineers tried to warn them, but the pressure to go was strong as there was a teacher on board and the NASA administration was getting tired of constant delays.
Well, we know what happened to Challenger... and it turns out that the case study we were doing was exactly the same. What we did not know is that there was actually a lot more data points than what was given to us. The races when the engine did not fail were all at much higher temperature so it turns out that the temperature was actually highly correlated with the success/failure of the engine. Plus, we were not explicitly told what the odds of being a top-5 finisher were so we just assumed it was the same as previous races, which turned out to be completely wrong since that race included a lot of better team. This meant that the team should definitely 'not' run, as the risk of an engine failure was much higher than we thought and the odds of finishing 'in the money' was really low. And... the professor even ended up discussing the Challenger case and what we can learn from that.
Well, nothing directly, of course. But the discussion has never been just about the Theory of Evolution anyway. I thought it should be, but you refuse to keep it focused on biology Stan. You keep including comments on the use of logic, as if it was not applied for that field of research, and you keep mentioning how it's just a big fairy tale that offers nothing but support for failed philosophical ideas. But what if it's only because you don't understand it, don't look at the data correctly, and refuse to actually revisit what you 'think' you already know about the topic? You know what I think about it, obviously. I think that this is exactly what's happening here. The fact that you keep making the same mistakes over and over again and refuse to correct these errors is the proof that you are not truly re-evaluating what you think is the correct interpretation of the data.
Plus, you also added this time that I am the one who cannot correct his mistakes. And that's why I thought of that story about the Indian motor starters and the more recent car racing case study. Because the thing they have in common is this idea that it's interesting to be proven wrong, it's interesting to challenge assumptions, it's interesting to learn from our mistakes.
If it were the case about Evolution, I might have learned something from you, Stan. Just like I learned about a bunch of other things and changed my position accordingly, as I mentioned just a few weeks ago. But I am not learning anything from you on that topic. Or, actually, I am learning something but it's not about the topic itself: I am learning about the psychology behind the denial of that scientific field of study and, at the same time, only confirming why my understanding is correct. Because every time you write something that sounds off, or wrong, or new, I try to figure out if that is the one thing that might make me revise some of the ideas I have about evolution. But that never happened. It actually only made me understand some of the subtle points about evolution better, and what we do know for sure, versus what is just speculation. The case of James Shapiro, for instances, was the best thing so far. Unless you visit anti-evolution sources who take his quotes out of context, Shapiro makes a lot of good points about why some old ideas regarding evolution are wrong. But he does not refute the basic facts; he embraces them.
"There is no question that evolutionary novelties arise. We see them in the genome sequence record. And we know in considerable detail the underlying molecular mechanisms for many of these changes. We regularly observe the same processes occurring in real time in our laboratories and fields.
The fact that evolution science changes over time with new molecular evidence should not be surprising to anybody. That is how science works. [...] There is much that remains to be learned about the evolutionary process. Many problems remain without known solutions. But the sources of genome variation, including rapid changes throughout the genome, are no longer mysterious. We can describe how dozens of them occur in detail, down to the level of individual phosphodiester linkages in novel DNA structures. "
Unfortunately, I don't know why you don't embrace that same attitude toward the Theory of Evolution. I assume you might like to be proven wrong as well, in other cases, but it's not happening here. Or perhaps I am wrong, and you really despise being proven wrong and would rather just ignore subjects where it does happen; perhaps some form of misplaced pride where you would rather stick to your story instead of admitting mistakes. Because the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and refuse to look at the big picture about evolution, and why we know that it's accurate, makes you look strangely dogmatic on something that has no consequences whatsoever on your life.
And since this is the topic, after all, I want to make sure I do include responses/comments on the latest bits about evolution that were covered here, and in the other threads with all the quotes. This is very long already, so I won't quote and just list the elements that were raised. Nothing is new in any case, so it's just a summary of the latest points regarding evolution:
- You still think that the quotes, from people such as Shapiro, support your view that novel features cannot arise naturally through evolution, even if that's exactly what he says. You don't understand that he is only arguing about the details of 'how' evolution works, not 'if' it works, to create new species with completely novel features. Shapiro clearly agrees that common descent is a fact and that evolution over long periods of time, i.e. macro-evolution, is responsible for the diversity of living things on Earth.
- You still think that the Theory of Evolution is 'just' a story. But it's much more than that. Yes, it is 'a' story but it's 'the' best story we have to explain why we see all the millions of species around us today. Biology studies these animals and its branch that focuses on 'how' they came to be that way is Evolutionary Biology. They go hand in hand and cannot be dissociated from each other. They are part of the same scientific whole.
- You still think that nothing could disprove the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact that you listed an example of something that would falsify it: finding out that all of the phyla appeared simultaneously. You requested that as some example of 'evidence' for the theory when it would actually disprove it. With that 1 request, you have simultaneously (pun intended) shown that you still don't understand the Cambrian explosion period AND given proven that the Theory is falsifiable. But you repeat that this is just a fictional story nonetheless, with no falsification possible.
- You still don't understand the various mechanisms that cause living things to evolve. You ignore the modern findings in the field of evo-devo, which Darwin for example couldn't possibly know about, as if they had nothing to offer in terms of explanation. Somehow, you think that knowing how evolution can work both rapidly and slowly is disproving the entire Theory. You simply don't understand that gradual changes are always the cause of evolution, even if we now know that some jumps can be bigger than others because of regulatory genes. That's why you wrongly state that nothing is specific; you refuse to look at the details, the causes, the mechanisms, and everything that actually explain how evolution works.
- You still don't understand how to properly use the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. They are simple qualifier that are used for nothing but time references. You're the one who insist on using them as you think that there is a clear cut difference between the two. You think that 'micro' is what we see within a genome, as in all cats evolved from one, or a few, original cats but they are still cats; but then you think that 'macro' is that mysterious jump, that magical thing that cannot be proven, which makes the whole Theory fall apart. For you, the 'macro' part of Evolution is just a story, just a fantasy. You simply don't understand that changes in individual can lead entire population of animals to change over time, when isolate from each other. You cannot wrap your head around the fact that it's the accumulation of these so-called 'micro' change that give rise to long-term, i.e. 'macro', changes over populations.
- You still don't understand the difference between species and why the descendants of a certain species will always be part of that "species", even if we stop using that label for classification purpose. You still think that your questions about it relevant, as when you ask about dogs giving birth to non-dogs, or frogs to non-frogs, and now feline to non-feline. You simply don't understand anything about how species diverge from a common ancestor and always remain part of that ancestor's branch, forever. In short, you did not address the explanation of the origins of felines and canines from a common ancestor; you choose to ignore such examples of 'macro' evolution. Or you choose to ignore watching the explanations; nobody can tell. All we can tell is that you don't understand how small changes, micro-evolution, lead to big changes over time, macro-evolution. You don't understand that there is just 1 overall process, evolution by natural selection, which is driven by many local and specific processes, which are studied by biologists in order to come up with the best "story", the best explanation, the best scientific Theory.
- You still think that museums of natural history, and the scientists that work on the exhibits and underlying research, are just telling unsupported stories with no basis in fact. I wanted to know if you visited in order to then ask you what you think of the information presented and how it's supported. But I did not need to ask; you made it clear right away even without asking. You think that the bones are just placed like that in order to tell a story. You completely deny the decades of research that are behind these exhibits. You deny that there are millions of specimens used to create the "story", which is simplified for the purpose of explaining it to the public. You think that it's all just stuff placed in a desired order when, in reality, it's the result of hard work based on objective data available to all researchers.
- You don't understand what a DNA clock is. That one was new, but not surprising unfortunately. Instead of trying to understand what it means when we talk about a DNA clock, you jumped to more vague comments on how it's all based on fictional stories. You simply don't want to look into what it means and how it can be use to make predictions and estimates as to 'what' animal we can find in the fossil record and 'when' they probably lived. This is an example of testable, replicable hypothesis that are used to make prediction as to what we'll find when digging in certain layers. But you see it as a silly thing; you even laugh at the notion of predicting findings about the past. Because this is all a joke to you; it's not something you study seriously, unless it's for the purpose of writing something on your blog that denies the Theory, of course.
There would be more but, I think you were right about one thing, when you said that I should back and focus more on my MBA. That's true, because there is nothing to learn from you, unfortunately. You are intellectually repugnant and a bigot; the two things you just accused me of. I merely pointed out that some physicist you quoted happens to be a Christian who thinks it's relevant to mention his religion on his only bio available, publicly. And you call that being a bigot? That's rich coming from a guy who said that he would make sure he is armed, should he learn a Muslim couple is in his house, a guy who lumps all Atheist/Leftist leaning people together in order to call them all sorts of names, and a guy who has repeatedly insulted me, personally, for no reason other than I disagree with him. You even suggested I was a troll when I am using my real name and tried to help reduce the annoyance caused by some troll over a year ago, someone who even tried to expose my actual address. Yet, I continue insisting that you sound like a smart person and that we just disagree. I am starting to think that I am stupid to continue doing that because, I am not the bigot here, Stan. You are. Not always, of course, but often enough...
Finally, you will ignore all of that, as promised, right? That's the only honest thing to do. We are done here, as you said. There is nothing I can learn from you and you are not interested in fixing your mistakes. So, if you reply, you will just prove that you are not only intellectually repugnant in your approach to Evolutionary Biology, as you will surely just spit out more lies about Biology, but also not even able to keep your word regarding a simple promise: letting it go. Though, I really doubt I will be proven wrong... you won't be able to not reply with more insults, more denial, more har! har!, more lies about what I write, more lies about what scientists say, more lies about what we can/cannot infer from Biology, and so on. That's what you did with im-skeptical after all, right? You banned the guy from your blog but then you keep writing about him because your buddy JB sends you link to his site... pathetic. But again, you could prove me wrong, and simply not reply, because you have nothing to add here anyway. Which will it be this time?
p.s. As an overall summary of the "story" of evolution, and how it fits with the rest of the scientific explanations available to us, I wanted to share these links for some time; might be the right moment since we reached a stopping point:
Taxonomy: Life's Filing System - Crash Course Biology #19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F38BmgPcZ_I
Evolution: It's a Thing - Crash Course Biology #20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo
Big History Project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6MZ3dJaoU https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4e9AQVlcJTQdxGeeApugAEomCc02lchm
These few things are the best summary of how all life is related, why evolution is the best explanation to have for why it is the case, and where does the evolutionary story fits into the overall story of our universe, planet and the people living on it. It's a summary of what we, humans, collectively know right now about how things came to be. It does not imply any philosophical conclusions regarding the nature of reality itself, but it is the best explanation we can give, so far, regarding how things came to be the way they are today. And since this blog is supposed to be about Atheism, let's point out that this does not, in any way, disprove the existence of gods. There are lots we don't know about, but the core facts remain and we can only try to refine the story and make it more accurate. Denying that this is part of what we know is just that, denial.
Hugo Says, “…you keep mentioning how it's just a big fairy tale that offers nothing but support for failed philosophical ideas. But what if it's only because you don't understand it, don't look at the data correctly, and refuse to actually revisit what you 'think' you already know about the topic? You know what I think about it, obviously. I think that this is exactly what's happening here.”
How many times have I said that I’m completely open to empirical facts, determined using a rigorous, disciplined scientific method? By now, maybe hundreds of times. Yet: nothing but stories do you bring to the table. And then, with clock-like precision comes the following: Stan, you’re ignorant; you need to educate yourself, you don’t understand it like I do, etc. ad nauseum. And yet when I present the quotations of others regarding things like micro/macro, the death of Darwinism due to new biological findings and so on, you denigrate the experts because they do not reflect YOUR understanding of evolution. Your understanding of evolution is, frankly, at the grammar school level: pure Darwinian gradualism from common ancestor to all species.
You have denied that micro/macro is an issue. I showed you expert testimony otherwise. No response.
You have maintained that deep time and gradualism = evolution. I have showed you expert testimony otherwise. No response.
Further, I have provided the calculations which show the massive improbability of any of the claims actually happening – so improbable that rationally speaking it did.not.happen. No response.
Well, no response to the actual evidence, anyway. The response is the standard evolutionist wail: “you are ignorant; you just don’t understand it the way that I understand all the FACTS which compel belief in the absolute Truth of evolution.
Hugo. Just stop it. You have nothing of any rational consequence to present as valid evidence for evolution. So the ignorance is within yourself: you are ignorant because you can’t discriminate between fantasy and valid fact. You are such a devout believer that you cannot stand that anyone might have a valid case against your belief object and its obvious destruction of your worldview which is based at least in part on that false belief object.
As I said, you're right Stan. It's time to take a break and focus on school. Got a test already this Monday night. But you also said you would ignore my messages, and you couldn't. You had to reply.
So, because it's obvious you would do that, I wanted to write a response ahead of time. Basically, this is what I wrote right after posting the last series of comments, but didn't post.
No Stan, you still don't get the point. You are simply wrong about many of the facts of evolution. It has nothing to do with anything else. It's not a cult, not an ideology, just a scientific theory of how life diversified on Earth. It's part of a larger story, a macro explanation of what we think has happened in the Universe over at least the last 13 billion years. It relates to all the other fields of scientific studies.
You're simply wrong about that one part under the umbrella of Biology: you're wrong about the facts surrounding common ancestry, mutations and evolutionary changes, and why the Theory of Evolution by natural selection is the best set of explanations for these facts. Evolution is a biological process affecting every single individual, including us, but it is noticeable more remarkably at the population level, as it causes the appearances of new features, colors, digestion, reproduction, bone structure, vision, scent, and even skills, emotions and intuitions. That's all.
And you have nothing to offer regarding any of that. You're in denial, and I cannot help you anymore. It's obvious that the problem is that you don't want to believe in a world where intuition has evolved. Well, at that point my friend, go talk to Week Fisher. She understands what she's talking about, unlike you.
”The case of James Shapiro, for instances, was the best thing so far. Unless you visit anti-evolution sources who take his quotes out of context, Shapiro makes a lot of good points about why some old ideas regarding evolution are wrong. But he does not refute the basic facts; he embraces them.”
So what?? You asserted your bigotry first off the bat, crying “Christian!!!” to denigrate his credibility. Now you approve of him?? Who cares? What he said, stands: Evolution does not in any manner have the credibility that physics has, in the fields which are a) testable and b) falsifiable. Evolution has zero credibility due to its total lack of ever being FALSE. It absolutely MUST be True IFF it cannot be possibly be FALSE, right? So I don’t care whether or why you suddenly approve of the person you condemned before. Bigotry is just bigotry. Live with it.
I assume that you found this quote as being from Shapiro:
” "There is no question that evolutionary novelties arise. We see them in the genome sequence record. And we know in considerable detail the underlying molecular mechanisms for many of these changes. We regularly observe the same processes occurring in real time in our laboratories and fields.”
This is false, no matter who said it. What is seen in the genome is not change; it is differentiation between existing creatures which is INTERPRETED as “novelties arising”. It is exactly no more than that, no matter who says it. If Shapiro said it, he is wrong on this point. I have said precisely why that is wrong, and that’s the difference between me and you: You never, never, ever address the contrary issues, the blatant issues which illuminate the non-factual, imaginary character of the entire basis for the belief – BELIEF – in the Cult of Evolution.
No. You say stuff like this:
” The fact that evolution science changes over time with new molecular evidence should not be surprising to anybody. That is how science works. [...] There is much that remains to be learned about the evolutionary process. Many problems remain without known solutions. But the sources of genome variation, including rapid changes throughout the genome, are no longer mysterious. We can describe how dozens of them occur in detail, down to the level of individual phosphodiester linkages in novel DNA structures."
That’s utter crap. UTTER CRAP. There is nothing but conjecture. There is no falsification possible for this sort of crap, is there?? Is there? Answer that: IS THERE???
You never will address that. But I will: NO, THERE IS NO FALSIFICATION POSSIBLE.
And no, science does NOT work that way. REAL science works through falsification. REAL science does not modify its fantasy science fiction stories to accommodate new contingent factoids – real science is falsifiable. Evolutionary claims – all of them – are not falsifiable, and the claims made in your statement above are completely NON-FALSIFIABLE, and are belief statements, nothing more. Pure belief statements.
” Unfortunately, I don't know why you don't embrace that same attitude toward the Theory of Evolution. I assume you might like to be proven wrong as well, in other cases, but it's not happening here.”
You have provided ZERO falsifiable, empirical evidence. You cannot prove anything, much less prove me wrong on that point. Zero empirical evidence = zero credibility. But evolution is Truth, anyway, right?
” Or perhaps I am wrong, and you really despise being proven wrong and would rather just ignore subjects where it does happen; perhaps some form of misplaced pride where you would rather stick to your story instead of admitting mistakes. Because the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and refuse to look at the big picture about evolution, and why we know that it's accurate, makes you look strangely dogmatic on something that has no consequences whatsoever on your life.”
Where is the credibility of a faux science which has no, NO, empirical, falsifiable contingent factoids? You claim mistakes, but you show none. Like evolution, the validity of your claim must be accepted purely on faith. Because that’s all you have. You have NO credible empirical evidence AND you cannot and do not refute the obvious case against the credibility of the imaginary stories – maybe those are the mysterious mistakes you keep blathering about? It’s a mistake to consider any contrary claims made against the Cult? Yes. That must the character of the mystery mistakes: it’s a mistake to consider anything but the imaginary belief itself.
” - You still think that the quotes, from people such as Shapiro, support your view that novel features cannot arise naturally through evolution, even if that's exactly what he says.”
What he said, and I quoted, is that evolution is not a reputable science; physics is.
If he contradicts that, then he has an internal contradiction in his claims, doesn’t he? Now that you find that his statements are logically paradoxical and non-coherent, you suddenly think well of him, after having denigrated him earlier. That suits your position perfectly.
” You don't understand that he is only arguing about the details of 'how' evolution works, not 'if' it works, to create new species with completely novel features. Shapiro clearly agrees that common descent is a fact and that evolution over long periods of time, i.e. macro-evolution, is responsible for the diversity of living things on Earth.”
A) You don’t believe in macro-evolution, so stop using what you don’t believe in.
B) Shapiro denied that evolution is a science, then appears to claim that it is True: blatant contradiction. Now you accept him after having thrown bigotry at him: That’s your internal contradiction. He’s a Christian, so you cannot accept what he says. But now you do.
” - You still think that the Theory of Evolution is 'just' a story. But it's much more than that. Yes, it is 'a' story but it's 'the' best story we have…”
FALSE. It is the best "Materialist Story" that Materialists can come up with, except for distributed panspermia, which fits the fossil record much better, of course. And pamspermia is still a purely Materialist, science-fiction, Just so Story, so it fits right in with the mental processing of the True Believers even if it contradicts their stories. It’s the belief that counts.
It is totally the belief that counts. One must suspend all contact with contrary thought: contrary thought is anti-science in the sense of anti-Cult; it must not happen, and when it is found, it must be stamped out and not faced head-on. To face the contraries head-on risks finding plausible, even uncontrovertable reasons and reasoning to dump evolution for actual logic. That is the risk, and it is not worth it, especially for the Atheists who might lose their ungrounded faith.
The following is the Official Lie:
to explain why we see all the millions of species around us today. Biology studies these animals and its branch that focuses on 'how' they came to be that way is Evolutionary Biology. They go hand in hand and cannot be dissociated from each other. They are part of the same scientific whole.”
Here’s the reality: modern biology does not use a single prediction made by evolution. Evolution predicts everything and nothing, so there is only “pan-prediction” of nothing specific. Thus Modern Biology needs evolution like Aunt Martha needs a goiter. The claim of being part of the scientific whole is completely false. Evolution is purely a parasite, a scavenger on the principled empirical findings that Modern Biology develops, and develops with zero assistance from the imaginary stories of evolution.
”” - You still think that nothing could disprove the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact that you listed an example of something that would falsify it: finding out that all of the phyla appeared simultaneously. You requested that as some example of 'evidence' for the theory when it would actually disprove it. With that 1 request, you have simultaneously (pun intended) shown that you still don't understand the Cambrian explosion period AND given proven that the Theory is falsifiable. But you repeat that this is just a fictional story nonetheless, with no falsification possible.
Nice try. What I ask for would qualify as falsifiability, IFF the evolutionary Cult could recognize that imaginary stories are not empirical, objective evidence, much less Truth. That will never happen until a new generation far, far down the road insists on a resurrection of REAL science and objective knowledge. So actual evidence is of no value to the Cult, and no evidence is even examined, as you have proved. Where there is no concept of falsification none will be acknowledged, as you have proved.
You even sneered at Dawkins’ admission that high complexity is presupposed, and then imaginary tweaks are applied, and that makes evolution credible.
You constantly refer to the anonymous “experts”, but then you reject all experts who are presented – unless they engage in internal contradiction, and then you approve of them.
Your mistakes and omissions and illogic is legion and I outline it for you. You claim that I make mistakes, but never say what exactly is mistaken (except that you occasionally whine about the injection of logical analysis being injected into the imaginary stories).
”- You still don't understand the various mechanisms that cause living things to evolve. You ignore the modern findings in the field of evo-devo…,”
I have written about it in the past month. Wrong again, and the toll you are racking up is impressive.
” which Darwin for example couldn't possibly know about, as if they had nothing to offer in terms of explanation.”
They certainly do have a litany of speculations, none of which are accompanied by corresponding empirical facts. Saying that “X evolved” doesn’t prove that X actually evolved, especially in light of the lack of evolutionary data.
Again, you do not present facts. You present beliefs within the Cult, beliefs which are imaginary and unfalsifiable and therefore automatically True to the Cult members. They can only be True.
” Somehow, you think that knowing how evolution can work both rapidly and slowly is disproving the entire Theory.”
Sure. I understand that there is absolutely nothing that evolution cannot do. Fast/slow. Simple/complex. Or nothing at all. I’ve said that over and over and over. I’ve also said:
Prove it. No stories, just actual, legitimate, testable, falsifiable, unfalsified, REAL science. Prove it.
Do it. (I know this is fruitless, because your belief is not based on actual REAL science).
But you could summon up the integrity to admit it.
” You simply don't understand that gradual changes are always the cause of evolution, even if we now know that some jumps can be bigger than others because of regulatory genes. That's why you wrongly state that nothing is specific; you refuse to look at the details, the causes, the mechanisms, and everything that actually explain how evolution works.”
LIE. Stop it. Stop the LYING. I have looked for a substantial part of my life for “causes” that are actually proven to be the REAL cause for the claims of evolution. NOTHING. There is nothing, and you know it or you would produce it.
So I come to this. I surmise that you are a fraud. Here’s why:
1) You claim facts that you do not have.
2) You lie about my experience in the evolutionary sphere.
3) You do not ever consider any argument against evolution.
4) You do not accept that there even ARE any legitimate arguments against the imaginary and false “science” of evolution – especially the lack of material evidence for it, and the overwhelming logic and mathematics against it.
5) You repeat the exact same trash, over and over and over.
6) Evolution is a “necessary and sufficient Truth” which you must evangelize for relentlessly, even though you never present any necessary and sufficient objective knowledge in its favor.
7) Rather than discuss the objections, you call them “mistakes” which must be overcome by accepting the Cult’s belief statements (imaginary scenarios, speculations, fantasy science-fiction), and call it a respected science which Modern Biology can’t get along without.
That position is fraudulent, especially not considering even leaving the cult in the face of its logical irrationality.
” - You still don't understand how to properly use the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. They are simple qualifier that are used for nothing but time references.”
You are SO full of shit. Here is the second Expert Opinion which supports my statements and not yours:
From the text book intended specifically for evolutionary graduate students: ”The Cambrian Explosion”, by Erwin and Valentine, Roberts and Co. pubs, 2013, pg 10, 11:
”In general, microevolution treats changes within populations and species, underpinned by the natural selection of genetic variation that arises through mutation or recombination within the genome.”
[…]
”These two macroevolutionary areas – relative richness and relative novelty – are clearly related, with differences on body plans being responsible for some differences in branching patterns in the tree of life. The change from studying microevolution to macroevolution involves a hierarchical step (Erwin 2000; Jablonski 2007) that is important because it moves the focus of interest from processes that affect individualswithin species to those that affect species within higher order groups. Thus, the move from micro to macro forms a discontinuity.” [Emphasis added]
Just exactly what I said. And exactly not what you say.
As I have said before, JUST STOP IT. You don’t know what you are talking about, and you talk crap with the authority which you abdicate to your failures like this. And failures of logic. And math. And REAL science.
Repeat: You do not know what you are talking about. And here it is on full display:
” You're the one who insist on using them as you think that there is a clear cut difference between the two. You think that 'micro' is what we see within a genome, as in all cats evolved from one, or a few, original cats but they are still cats; but then you think that 'macro' is that mysteriousjump, that magical thing that cannot be proven, which makes the whole Theory fall apart. For you, the 'macro' part of Evolution is just a story, just a fantasy. You simply don't understand that changes in individual can lead entire population of animals to change over time, when isolate from each other. You cannot wrap your head around the fact that it's the accumulation of these so-called 'micro' change that give rise to long-term, i.e. 'macro', changes over populations.”
Wrong. But emphatically so wrong and in so … many … words.
Will you admit it?
Will you?
We’ll stop right here to see if you can admit that you are completely wrong and are making false statements and accusations, OK?
”All we can tell is that you don't understand how small changes, micro-evolution, lead to big changes over time, macro-evolution. You don't understand that there is just 1 overall process, evolution by natural selection, which is driven by many local and specific processes, which are studied by biologists in order to come up with the best "story", the best explanation, the best scientific Theory.
Two things which YOU do not understand: 1) You are wrong about this entire paragraph. 2) It is patently obvious that you are wrong.
If “science” stops at inductive cladistics categorization without any objective knowledge to support it, and specifically falsifiable objective knowledge, then it is not science at all. No matter what the Cult calls itself, it is not science, it is merely inductive categorization based on extrapolation and imaginary scenarios – including the imaginary biological clocks which, like all things evolution, are grounded in absolutely nothing, not even in decent assumptions and certainly not in calibration standards.
Everything evolutionary is an embarrassment to rational, objective, falsifiable, REAL science. A total embarrassment. Intellectually self-humiliating.
Hugo, Your farewell hit was embedded in my uploads. I just now read it. And you still have not addressed any of the actual issues which destroy the credibility of evolution as a purported "science". Like a true evangelist, you just say the same thing for the ten thousandth time and make no attempt to acknowledge, discuss, much less refute, the mathematical case against evolution, the logical case against evolution, the empirical case against evolution, the non-falsification case against evolution, the biochemical/biomolecular case against evolution. You just say, “It is TOO a science”, as if that means anything against the obvious evidence that it is NOT a science at all because it produces no objective knowledge.
You do not even understand that your personal interpretation of evolution stopped being accepted three quarters of a century ago, when the Modern Synthesis became hardened and left you behind. You are unwilling to admit that you don’t even understand what is currently going on in the world of evolutionary story telling. You’ve been left in the dust, because the old stories didn’t work under scrutiny, so all new stories are coming out all the time.
But you feel so confident in your own outdated understanding that you preach your own version as Truth, The Only Truth, and anyone who actually knows better is called “ignorant”.
You don’t have a need to address the issues raised – even within the Cult itself – about the credulity it requires to accept this stuff you call Truth/fact. All you have to do is appear to know everything about it. And you appear to think that “appearing to know” things that others don’t know is enough to establish yourself as an expert. That observation is supported by your refusal of the actual quotes from actual experts in the field, a refusal that can be explained only by your “appearing to know” fixation. Your “knowledge” trumps mine and the experts I quote.
It really makes you look quite foolish and arrogant, not to mention completely out of touch with the reality of the evolution industry/cult, as it currently exists in the field and is taught in university settings.
Finally, you lament that you cannot “help” me anymore. Help me do what… misunderstand the current evolutionary thought and hypotheses in the same manner that you don’t understand or even recognize them?
It was not really a "farewell" per say; you know I cannot stay silent. I just don't have as much time and should avoid writing 6-comment long posts with links, quotes, etc...
You mentioned that you would ignore what I write, and I was willing to leave it at that. But of course, you had to reply, so here I am, also replying back.
No, I am not arrogant; you are. I am merely explaining what scientists in the field are saying. You "think" that I am disagreeing with them, but I am not. You think, on the other hand, that you are qualified to write mini courses on evolution, that magazines such as Nature/Science are wrong, that bodies of scientists are wrong, that universities and their natural history museums are wrong, etc...
Yes, I do repeat the same things a lot, because you repeat the same mistakes. How many times did you ask how we can get non-frogs out of frogs now? At least 3, with frogs, cats, dogs, I think...? and I probably missed some.
What I just won't do anymore is explain to you what you get wrong about Evolution. It just takes to much time. You see, this quick comment was not even 5 minutes; just a quick break before going to class actually. But to go in details, quote the thing you badly represent, send links to justify my claims, etc... takes a lot more time. For just 2-3 sentences, I need to write an entire comment block sometimes. I just cannot do that anymore; it's not good use of my time.
Therefore, it's hard to quickly explain 'why' you are wrong to think I am behind the curve, why you are wrong to state I am at odd with modern evolutionary theories, why you are wrong to think I disagree with scientists, why you are wrong to think I somehow adhere to Darwin's theory like glue.
And by the way, you confused Shapiro with Ian Hutchinson, and you still don't understand why I pointed out Hutchinson's religion.
Again, you're simply wrong Stan, and it's Biologists who say that, not me. You even acknowledged that Shapiro, a Biologist, is wrong according to you, right after you used his quotes to supposedly support your views... But I am getting tired of explaining you 'why' Biologists say what they say, because you are too emotional about the topic and keep going around in long circles; such long circles that you forget what we discussed and then come back with the same mistakes, misunderstandings and misrepresentation.
And you know what, I must say that cannot help but think one thing almost every time I read your posts: calm the f*** down Stan. You might actually still be able to learn something here, if you just cool your head a bit and try to understand the details you get wrong. Again, not my opinion...
So we agree on this: no amount of actual documentation from actual experts will mean anything to you. Your concept of micro/macro is just your personal concept. It is not the concept of the actual experts to whom you refer so consistently (at least to their stories). If you don't believe them, why should anyone believe your constant admonition to believe what the experts tell us?
I should list the internal contradictions and circularities involved with True Belief. Maybe I will when I get lots and lots and lots of time.
You said that you disagree with Shapiro, and many others. I said I agree with him, and all the other Biologists you quoted actually, afaik. To give a precise example, you said that novelties dont arise because of biological evolution. Biologists say the opposite. So clearly, you were talking about yourself: no amount of actual documentation from actual experts will mean anything to you. If you don't believe them, why should anyone believe you instead?
OK. Good then. You agree that you have been wrong all along about your personal definitions of micro and macro evolution, and that you now agree with the quoted definitions which are identical to my definitions, because that's where I got them.
And that also means that you have been wrong all along about how speciation or closed clades arose, according to the experts, because that relates to macroevolution, which you now acknowledge is NOT just deep time, since you now agree with the experts.
Or will you come back and deny that? Just like you deny that science requires the production of objective knowledge, testable and falsifiable and not mere opinion?
Again you are lying about what I said. That is approaching my limit of toleration.
Here is what I said: "This is false, no matter who said it. What is seen in the genome is not change; it is differentiation between existing creatures which is INTERPRETED as “novelties arising”."
The claim is false until it is proven otherwise. It is presumed, not proven. It is merely an assumption. That assumption is declared an axiom by the metaphysical authority of the Cult. It is not an axiom; in REAL science such false claims of axiomatic truth would not be allowed.
I said nothing at all about Shapiro in that post; I posted - without comment - his assessment of the hardened Modern Synthesis. I did that to place that theory in a chronological context, followed by both Dawkins and Gould who both refuted the necessity and sufficiency of the Modern Synthesis (your only personal model from 75 years ago).
Then, to properly refute your own complete misunderstanding of macroevolution, I presented several contrary statements by other evolutionists. And beyond that, I have just above quoted a post graduate text book which absolutely refutes your definitions totally.
But you just blather on as if you were right all along, and top it off with false statements about my position. And a phony Tu Quoque attempt. All false.
Ok, I am really trying to be nice here, and if you want to continue with some short messages like that, it might lead to something, but I would appreciate you remain civil and avoid charges of intellectual dishonesty and lying. We're just two people having a conversation; it's not a contest as to who can make the other one look stupid. If that's too much to ask, fine, I will just continue to ignore the silly bits, but I got to ask once in a while...
So, no, my understanding of micro vs macro evolution has not changed, I still agree with the quotes, and they do fit with my statements. My understanding of speciation has not changed either; it's only observable over lots of generations. And yes, that takes into account things we learned in the last 75 years. So I don't know what I am "denying" exactly here, and I would be happy to correct any contradiction you may have found. But so far, what you "thought" were contradictions were just different ways of expressing the same things about the Theory of Evolution.
So I really don't get what you are talking about, nor why you say I am lying because: do you or do you not accept the fact that novelties arise through evolution? It seems that the answer is clearly 'no', which is what I said in my last comment. So why are you saying I am lying about that?
The quotes absolutely refute your statements. You cannot admit that, that is obvious.
You self-contradict whenever necessary: you say that dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, and yet you say that microevolution plus time equals speciation.
Novelties just occur. They just happen, given enough time. But of course the dog will remain a dog, forever. No matter if the dog loses its fur, develops a blow hole and goes into the ocean, loses its walking ability, develops flukes, a fish tail, and the ability to sound for two hours at a time, etc.
Totally contradictory.
Another example: the quote I gave above completely refutes your micro/macro understanding. You absolutely cannot admit that. Here it is again:
From the text book intended specifically for evolutionary graduate students: ”The Cambrian Explosion”, by Erwin and Valentine, Roberts and Co. pubs, 2013, pg 10, 11:
”In general, microevolution treats changes within populations and species, underpinned by the natural selection of genetic variation that arises through mutation or recombination within the genome.”
[…]
”These two macroevolutionary areas – relative richness and relative novelty – are clearly related, with differences on body plans being responsible for some differences in branching patterns in the tree of life. The change from studying microevolution to macroevolution involves a hierarchical step (Erwin 2000; Jablonski 2007) that is important because it moves the focus of interest from processes that affect individuals within species to those that affect species within higher order groups. Thus, the move from micro to macro forms a discontinuity.” [Emphasis added]
Totally contradicts your stated concepts. Totally agrees with mine. You refuse to admit it, when it is obvious.
That, sir, is intellectual dishonesty. If you don't like being called out, then be honest and admit your error. Otherwise you remove any value from continuing to converse with you.
As for novelties arising randomly in an entropic universe, I see no reason to accept any conclusion which is not based in empirical evidence. Obviously, for Atheists to say "I have no X theory" is de rigeuer, but it is not acceptable in the Cult of Evolution. All that the evidence materially provides is that certain animals existed in certain layers, differentially found in locations around the world. The actual evidence says no more than that. Nothing else is known, objectively.
Yet you continually refer to "facts" which are not in any manner of the word, factual. One fine example is the molecular clock, which I plan on addressing in a post soon.
I see no reason to give any credence to a story telling, science fantasy credo which refuses to include the evolution of the very first living thing, because the story tellers realize that they cannot even conceive of a material-based story to cover for that: so ignore it. Why give any credence to a story telling, science fantasy credo, that will not accept or address any critiques which are fatal, such as probabilities based on REAL biochemistry science, the internal contradictions surrounding the Cambrian Explosion, the lack of any common ancestors found, and the lack of any shred of objective validation - not to mention the Cult behavior of the cult itself, which demands the exact same respect as REAL science, which is demonstrably is NOT.
The inability to admit to, and address,, these issues other than claiming that they are "mistakes" and "ignorance", is intellectually fatal. The empty claims such as the "best explanation", "science denial", "anti-science", "ignorance", "creationism", are logical failures, since they are pure rhetorical attacks with no empirical substance. The issue remains: NO empirical substance. Without that, evolution is not empirical, and is not a science.
Don't bother coming back with any rhetoric regarding ignorance, mistakes, etc. If you have no objective empirical validation, then admit it and address it head on.
Here is a final example of your dissembly; I gave you this quote, amongst the others: "Excerpts from an interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger: “The Miracles of Darwinism” http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
Q: What is your definition of Darwinism? S: The most current, of course, a position generically embodied, for example, by Richard Dawkins. The essential idea is well-known. Evolution, Darwinists argue, is explained by the double action of chance mutations and natural selection. The general doctrine embodies two mutually contradictory schools -- gradualists, on the one hand, saltationists, on the other. Gradualists insist that evolution proceeds by means of small successive changes; saltationists that it proceeds by jumps. Richard Dawkins has come to champion radical gradualism; Stephen Jay Gould, a no less radical version of saltationism."
You say that gradualism is true and the ONLY definition, and that I am mistaken/ignorant. Yet you also say you agree with ALL the quotes, which included this one and others which directly contradict you. Pure falseness. And failure to be honest, intellectually.
I'm now at the point where either you admit to your errors, or I will just delete any of your further comments. I see no future in discussions with you, as things stand.
After carefully reviewing your our posts, here are the 2 errors you correctly identified, in order to comply with your requests to fix my mistakes:
1) Micro vs macro evolution is not 'just' about time. I was wrong to oversimplify. There's a discontinuity in the analysis process as macro is about populations, while micro is about individuals.
2) It was incorrect to point to gradualism as the only mechanism for evolution; this was also an innacurate oversimplification. Some evolutionary changes are hardly gradual, as some small changes to regulatory genes can cause vig changes, for exemple.
Therefore, let me attempt to give a more accurate summary of the unifying principles of evolution: - Reproduction with modifications affect individuals - Natural selection works at the population level
OK, pretty close; the distinction is that microevolution produces variability while remaining "within the genome", while macroevolution is higher level speciation which leaves the genome.
Good. Now, where would you like to take the conversation?
Sure, 2 things, which are related to each other I believe:
1) What about clarifying what you mean by 'leaving the genome'?
2) And what about that question I just asked, regarding some of the unifying principles of evolution, or perhaps I should have said 'some basic facts regarding living things': - Reproduction with modifications affect individuals - Natural selection works at the population level Do you agree with that?
1. Evolution from a common ancestor requires either a) that the genome be modified every time a new innovation (say a previously non-existing organ, limb, set of feedback information systems, etc.) is created, thereby creating a previously non-existing species due to the new part of the genome. A new genome has to be created to accommodate the innovation. Perhaps all of the originating genome is kept; perhaps not. But the new genome contains information not in the originating genome, which is specific to the innovation.
Or it requires that all of the information for innovation be present in the common ancestor, clear back to First Life. This means that all species' information, animal and vegetable, must have been present in the First Life to have evolved from minerals.
2. Yes, I agree that those are definitions currently in use by the evolutionistas.
Now: what we have resolved is merely what the people who get paid for this stuff have agreed upon as definitions. Definitions have no logic or evidence to discuss, because they are merely tautologies. What is debatable is whether the definitions have any falsifiable correlation in observable material existence: that depends on what is considered to be that sort of evidence; how that evidence relates to objective knowledge; and whether there exist rational falsifiers at any point in the chain of premises/hypotheses, and the evidence claimed for support of the hypotheses (truth value of the premises, the necessity/sufficiency of the content as well as valid form of the claim.
After all, objective science is the rational and intellectual genetic daughter of logic and math, right?
Sure, this makes sense: objective science is the rational and intellectual genetic daughter of logic and math.
Now, even if it was just 1 comment box, you raised many points. But I want to stick with just 1 to avoid spiraling down to giant 6-block comments again... Looking at #2, you said that those are definitions currently in use by the "evolutionistas". Therefore, it implies that it's not definitions that you would use. But my goal was to find some common ground, so let's make it simpler:
- Reproduction with modifications affects every single individual living thing; biological reproduction is not a perfect mechanism.
Do you agree that this is an objective fact of Biology?
No, because mitosis produces two identical daughter cells, and that occurs in all prokaryotes. The DNA in the parent cell is un-twisted, and each daughter gets one strand when the cell divides into two daughters.
Biological reproduction via mitosis actually is perfect when in the absence of outside interference which entropically mutates the DNA somehow. Biological Reproduction via meiosis in eukaryotes is more complex, and thus there are more steps which are exposed to outside intervention, yet the process itself is perfect until interference occurs. In other words, mitosis and meiosis processes would work perfectly if they were in an entropy-free universe.
If the reproductive process, especially meiosis, receives interference from the environment, the effect is commonly neutral or deleterious, as is seen empirically. Beneficial entropic interference is speculated by the necessity of the evolution hypothesis, but not documented in legitimate empirical studies.
You said 'no' but you do agree that biological reproduction is not perfect since there's always interference from the environment; it's only in theory, should some living thing be completely isolated from any environmental influences, that reproduction 'would' be perfect. What am I missing to get from 'yes' to 'no'?
You cannot get to "no", if the process itself is, in fact, perfect. I do not agree that "biological reproduction is not perfect since there's always interference from the environment". There is not "always interference from the environment". That is an unfounded categorical statement without hope of proof. It doesn't take isolation from the environment; all it takes is for the DNA not to be modified, so there is no reason to believe that all acts of biological reproduction are subject to those types of mutations.
I said this: "If the reproductive process, especially meiosis, receives interference from the environment..." Anything which is "perfect" in its nature can be destroyed by entropy, but will not necessarily be so destroyed. If you accept entropy, then you accept that complexity and information are created by interference of entropic degradation. Unless the law is repealed, then entropy works only the neutral and negative side of Kimura's neutral law due to the impossibility of "negentropy" in the second law of thermodynamics.
Apparently you would prefer that the answer not be No rather than what it observably is. How would you prove your statement that all reproduction has interference and therefore there are always either beneficial mutations which accumulate (which I'm sure is where you are headed); Kimura's neutral mutations which also accumulate; or dilatory mutations which are most commonly seen via birth defects... and the reproduction process is never completed without such interference - and therefore cannot ever be a "perfect process"?
In fact, evolution demands that the process of reproduction be even better than perfect, since it has the capability of producing selectable innovations, making the organism a better fit or candidate for selection by the environment. This has to be a "good" thing if continued ability to compete and persist as a species is a "good" thing, as opposed to extinction (from the perspective of the species or clade, of course).
I am not jumping to any conclusions and not even discussing evolution directly, yet. Just trying to understand why you don't seem to agree that reproduction is an imperfect process.
So let's stick to the point and clarify the statement I made above. It's true that it could have been better worded. The usage of the word 'always' made it sound as if each instance of reproduction is imperfect, which is not always true. Moreover, the environment is not necessarily the cause of these imperfections; the process itself can introduce errors.
It is thus more accurate to say: 'Biological reproduction always takes place within an environment that can potentially affect the process. Sometimes, errors occur during that process, i.e. mutations.'
I tried to find some publication that would give a similar summary; this seems to be pretty good: "While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations."
Does that make sense to you, or you think it's wrong and mutations never survive?
Yes, I agree that that statement reflects the current knowledge status. However, a process that has the capacity to produce outputs which are without flaws is not an imperfect process. The question becomes this: what is the source of the occasional flaws: the process, or external forces outside the process which affect the data/material that the process uses?
Obviously mutations do survive, as birth defects demonstrate, materially and objectively. However, afik there is no material reason to believe that the vastly improbable "beneficial" mutation would survive, then accumulate with other mutually dependent beneficial mutations which accumulate to ultimately form into novelties such as heart/lung/vascular systems including livers and kidneys, etc.
A process that has the capacity to produce outputs which are without flaws is an imperfect process; sometimes it works perfectly, sometimes it doesnt. Its success rate is somewhere between 0 and 1, hence not perfect.
The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations, which can be neutral, positive or negative. For example, slightly different eye colors or fingerprint (neutral), slighlty better fitness level (positive), malformed organ which lead to death (negative).
These mutations can be passed to the individuals' offspring and affect the population they are part of by shifting the average of affected traits a little one way or another.
Nothing more is claimed yet; no novelties, no speciation, no source for the variations, no other conclusions. So does that also seem right to you? Or is this contradicting your belief that biological reproduction is indeed perfect in some way?
”A process that has the capacity to produce outputs which are without flaws is an imperfect process; sometimes it works perfectly, sometimes it doesnt. Its success rate is somewhere between 0 and 1, hence not perfect.”
That’s just false. A house which has stood and performed as a perfect shelter for 350 years, yet burns to the ground after a lightning hit is not an imperfect house. It is a perfect house affected by external forces into a state of imperfection.
This statement is a clear case of setting up phony premises which you intend to support your “final cause”: evolution. So at this point you must prove that you know that it is true that the process itself produces errorsall by itself, without outside causal forces intervening. E.g., full objective, yet contingent knowledge that, say, jumping genes jump with absolutely no outside force inducing that to happen (an effect with no cause). Or that gene switching changes from A to B with absolutely no outside force inducing that to happen (another effect with no cause). Or any other error occurs without an outside force inducing it to happen (an entire class of effects without causes).
As always I accept empirical, objective, real science in the form of inductive observation of causes for error, hypothesis generation of a general law for the class being inductively created, testing devised to falsify the hypothesized general law, experiments run and data taken, published in peer reviewed journals with complete, open data for all to see and replicate exactly… you know, actual, real science which produces actual, real, objective knowledge, albeit contingent.
Didn’t take long to get back to this point of contention, did it?
And the following is also egregiously false: ” The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations,”
Because your first statement is logically false, the remainder is also false. You can claim that the process, which is perfect, can be and sometimes is corrupted, but not by referring to eye color changes as corruption within an imperfect process. That is specifically because those are normal parts of the process, which perfectly provides for the combination of previous genetics into unique individuals. It is definitely NOT the case that unique individuals are the result of defects in the process.
I do not agree, because your claim of imperfection is a claim of effect (defects) which occur with no cause. That means that the process changes internally, without causation, from perfect to defective.
Again, I am not drawing any conclusion right now, not at all, and your so-called "point of contention" is not a point of contention at all, since it's obvious and applies to anything; of course we both agree that we should rely on actual, real science which produces actual, real, objective knowledge, albeit contingent.
Regarding the reproduction process, the process itself is not perfect, even without interference from the outside. But even if it were, it is affected by the environment and thus not always yielding perfect results. Basically, causes of DNA replication errors include many things, both internal to the process and external. I am no expert but it seems that there are quite a few causes that have been identified over the years. Here are some examples I quickly noted from the sources below; some might actually repeat since I am not sure what the details all in every single case: - Tangle of intersecting DNA - Shift in position of the nucleotides - Strand slippage - Tautomeric shifts - Wobble-induced replication errors - Chemical/Water damage - Radiation damage - Insertion of xanthine or hypoxanthine - Spontaneous mutagenesis http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409 http://news.mit.edu/2012/dna-metabolic-errors-0131 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_04 http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3.rhtml https://www.quora.com/What-causes-errors-in-the-replication-of-DNA http://web.stanford.edu/~kendric/PDF/B42.pdf https://www.quora.com/What-causes-errors-in-the-replication-of-DNA
Basically, all of this is really to make just 1 point, which I thought you agreed with: biological reproduction is not a perfect process. But you rolled back to saying that the process is perfect, so I would like you to explain where you stand. So that's just Point #1 that have been trying to settle for a few days now.
Then, the next step is to discuss uniqueness, which is Point #2: biological reproduction is not a perfect process and new unique DNA strands are thus sometimes created during the reproduction process.
Hence, why do you say that the outcome is a 'not' a new individual with a unique DNA sequence? Errors that happen during biological reproduction affect the DNA directly. It's not the same as the mere recombination of perfectly copied genes, which is what you seemed to be talking about, right? Don't you agree there is a difference between the 2 mechanisms?
An example would be the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_Stiles This is an example of a human being who was born with lobster-like hands. If it were the product of a perfect recombination of genes, it would mean that humans, somehow, have the capacity to spawn such weird-looking hands. Yet, it almost never happens, and Grady Stiles was actually the 6th in a line that began with the birth of William Stiles in 1805. So, what is more likely here: a mutation occurred in 1805 and survived through the generations down to Grady Stiles, or every single human being has the gene for lobster-hand and, for some reason, we never see the gene being expressed?
OK. You are asking for clarification. But you don't connect with the clarification when it is given. Here's an example:
Hugo said: ”Hence, why do you say that the outcome is a 'not' a new individual with a unique DNA sequence?”
I did not say that, and I never have. Here’s what I said:
Stan said: ”You can claim that the process, which is perfect, can produce outputs with errors, but not by referring to eye color changes as corruption within an imperfect process. That is specifically because those changes are normal parts of the process, which perfectly provides for the combination of previous parental genetics into unique individuals. It is definitely NOT the case that unique individuals are the result of defects in the process.”
The process is perfect; unique individuals are caused by two things: a) errors in the incoming material to the process (pre-existing mutations in DNA)[1]; b) normal variation due to the design of the process which combines the DNA of two parents to form a unique individual. Neither of these is a process error.
The discussion was about normal variation (eye color) in the process output, which is part of the design of the process: to normally produce outputs that vary from the specific genomes of the inputs. The process can be corrupted to produce abnormal products; lobster hands show that, but that is not caused by the normal, perfect process itself, as you admit: it is due to external causation which is a corruption of input materials: a mutation. Can a mutation carry forward? Of course it can until it is too deleterious to breed into future generations, and is purged by selection. Mutations are to the material, DNA, and are externally caused. To claim that they are part of the normal process, and therefore the normal process is defective, i.e., “not perfect”, is false.
Comment: if a process is not teleological, working toward a presupposed desirable output, then it cannot have errors since any output will do. Given no final objective, there are no erroneous outputs. Meiotic reproduction is teleological; evolution is not teleological. By observation, evolution is either entropic on material (DNA), or it allows the teleological operation to proceed unmolested.
Notes: 1. The exception is “spontaneous mutagenesis”, which sounds ominously acausal. But it is not. Here is the list and analysis done at NCBI.NLM.NIH:
Misrepairs: “Misrepairs” seem to be named for a process error, when in fact the process is dealing with faulty DNA. Thus the process is not the cause of the “misrepair”, unless the failure to detect atomic shifts in the repair process is considered a defect.
Transition mutations: are caused by the “misrepairs”.
Transversion mutations: Flip-flop of two bases in the DNA; a DNA error at the parental level.
Frameshift mutations: frameshifts arise when loops in single-stranded regions are stabilized by the “slipped mispairing” of repeated sequences. Again, misrepairing is a function of faulty DNA.
Deletions and Duplications: ”How do deletions and duplications form? Several mechanisms could account for their formation. Deletions may be generated as replication errors. For example, an extension of the Streisinger model of slipped mispairing (Figure 16-4) could explain why deletions predominate at short repeated sequences. Alternatively, deletions and duplications could be generated by recombinational mechanisms (to be described in Chapter 19).”
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Chapter 19 is not available on-line that I can find. Book is ordered.
Spontaneous Lesions. ”In addition to replication errors, spontaneous lesions, naturally occurring damage to the DNA, can generate mutations. Two of the most frequent spontaneous lesions result from depurination and deamination.” I.e., parental DNA error, incurred during the life of the parent.
It is clear that the referenced “spontaneous mutagenesis” class of defects, errors, mutations are contained solely within the starting product DNA, as received from the parent, not caused within the process of replication. These errors are found usually and repaired, and some few are transmitted on along. The parent has received the mutation, and passed it along. The process is charged with replication of whatever is passed along, with some repair capacities for some errors but not all. And there are not analysis and repair stations at every stage, or for every possible combination of errors received in the parental DNA.
That any analysis/repair in a molecular process is even done is a subject which refutes Philosophical Determinism and Philosophical Materialism at the molecular level. The driving causal forces cannot be rationally attributed to the four forces of physics, nor can the intent of the process, teleological, be denied as being purposeful. The entire non-living universe is driven solely by the four forces of physics which act entirely entropically and never teleologically, going through processes of decay of order and information.
The existence of bacteria, plants and animals which have not changed over many geologic eras is proof that the processes, mitosis and meiosis, are perfect. Within some genomes, the only meaningful (non-neutral) mutations ever to exist within the DNA have been eliminated (or never received at all), leaving the original to be perfectly replicated over the eons.
Ah great, now I get it! These clarifications made me understand several things a lot better. Never realized exactly 'why' we disagreed, but it all makes sense now. Thank you for your time!
Looks like I had missed to include the 1 summary sentence of what I did understand; silly me probably removed it by mistake when adding formatting...
You confuse the complexity and reliability of the cell machinery with intentional design.
Everything else flows from there and it all makes sense now; it explains your entire position on evolution and why intelligent design is clearly what you accept, even if you do everything you can to avoid saying it. But now, it is obvious.
While that sounds like something that you or Dawkins would say rather than me, a search of the entire comment space turns up no place where that phrase, or even just "intentional design" is used. Not by anyone.
Since I did not say it, then your erroneous deduction is, well, erroneous.
Now if you are accusing ME of something, you must show evidence which supports your accusation. What you did was merely to show, in bold, your prejudicial presupposition which cannot be proved or falsified in any manner and thus is just another prejudice entered into the fantasy science of evolution.
Here's what I believe: Evolution is a collection of fantasy stories without the slightest hope of being either falsified or verified.
Belief in evolution as science or as truth is completely irrational.
Because evolution has no falsifiability or verifiability, you cannot prove that my position is incorrect any more than you can prove that yours is correct. However, my position is based in observable, objective evidence; yours is not.
It would make no sense for me to say it to you, or anyone who is a true believer because it specifically does not apply. The accusation makes sense only if you applied it to me.
Of course you didn't use exactly those words; that would be defending your positive beliefs regarding the diversity of Life on Earth, which you are not doing regarding as you stated many times. You prefer to "debunk" the evil Theory of Evolution and its irrational believers.
This was inferred from what you said. To quote just 1 sentence for now:
"The driving causal forces cannot be rationally attributed to the four forces of physics, nor can the intent of the process, teleological, be denied as being purposeful."
Are you saying this doesn't imply intelligent design?
I positively believe a) that no one knows or ever will know the answers; b) the pretense of having objective knowledge where it is functionally impossible to have objective knowledge is pure fraud; c) Evolution is fraud; d) Evolution is weaponized fraud; e) Evolution has caused many deaths, just as Nietzsche forcast; f) the deadening of the modern mind to the use of fables, fantasy, and raw opinion as models for developing immutable and unquestionable stories which have no basis in objective fact is a consequence of the rush to iconize evolution and Darwin by the Atheist Leftist Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century. It is directly involved in the rise of Marxist fables and stories, and the consequences of that are well known.
"The driving causal forces cannot be rationally attributed to the four forces of physics, nor can the intent of the process, teleological, be denied as being purposeful."
You may infer anything you wish. Saying what it is not is not the same as saying what it is. Saying what quantum entanglement is not, is not the same as saying what it is.
However, because the obvious characteristics must be denied due strictly to the diktat of evolutionary cant, and not because any type of proof or even logic is presented, one can reasonably assume that the entire enterprise is consumed with diktat and not with finding truth where it lies.
For example if there are 1,000 necessary systems that are required to sustain life in a cell, and that each system has a probability of 10e-50, and yet the insistence that the material necessity is that the first cell came from random combinations of atoms, then the rationality is not just suspect, it is a rational failure. In real sciences that is the case; not in evolution which solves that problem by expunging it from existing in the science of stories.
But that situation exists in spades during the Cambrian Explosion. Evolutionists scramble to come up with deflections for the obvious, because that obvious observation cannot be accepted. It is outside the ideological boundaries for acceptable investigation (stories) on the one hand, and it threatens careers on the other hand.
What would happen to an evolutionary story spinner who goes public with the admission that "we don't know, and we can't know, and all evolution is a stack of science fiction fantasies"? He'd be living in a culvert in a geologically short time.
It is funny that you deny all evolution based on the Cambrian explosion, but there is 570 million years beyond that time. The argument is similar to there is no cars before 1700's, so cars don't exist now, and can't have existed since then. This fallacy is self evident.
There is evidence of trilobite evolution within the Cambrian, for example the genus asaphus, which becomes quite diverse with time. So why the "explosion". The obvious solution is first life contained no shells or skeletons, thus fossilization was rare. So there is an illusion of a sudden appearance of life. Inventing an intelligent being is hardly parsimonious, when there is a simpler answer.
There is not a credible science who thinks that the first cell had 1000 necessary systems. Let's not use strawmen arguments.
Any scientific theory can be weaponized. Gravity was used for dropping bombs. If people didn't beleive in gravity, it would still exist.
Every major component of evoltuion has been observed. 1. Heritable characteristics. 2. Mutation. 3. Natural selection. 4. Change in function and form.
There are peer reviewed studies that show that the explosion was really just a radiation.
Fedonkin, M. A.; Waggoner, B. M. (November 1997). "The late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism". Nature (abstract). 388 (6645): 868–871. Bibcode:1997Natur.388..868F. doi:10.1038/42242. ISSN 0372-931
Martin, M.W.; Grazhdankin, D.V.; Bowring, S.A.; Evans, D.A.D.; Fedonkin, M.A.; Kirschvink, J.L. (2000-05-05). "Age of Neoproterozoic Bilaterian Body and Trace Fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for Metazoan Evolution". Science (abstract). 288 (5467): 841–845. Bibcode:2000Sci...288..841M. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.841. PMID 10797002. Retrieved 2007-05-10.
Life such as single cell prokaryotes appeared in the Paleo-Archean, stromatolites(algae), cloudina (undefined phylum), kimberella (probably mollusca), cnidarians (jellyfish), existed in the Ediacarian 630 to 542 million years ago. Then of course the Cambrian 542-488 million years, or approximately 50 million years in duration. So the total period of the first evidence of life, to the end of the Cambrian is a bit over 2 billion years.
So your idea, is that an intelligent designer started seeding life, and took 2 billion years?
Anonymous comments are usually deleted. I'll address this one, but if you come back for more discussion, kindly choose a moniker, or your efforts will be wasted.
” It is funny that you deny all evolution based on the Cambrian explosion, but there is 570 million years beyond that time. The argument is similar to there is no cars before 1700's, so cars don't exist now, and can't have existed since then. This fallacy is self evident.”
Had I said such a ridiculous thing, it would indeed be a fallacy. But I have never done so. I have attacked evolution based on every claim which has been made, none of which rise to the level of objective knowledge based on demonstrable empirical validation/falsification of hypotheses which arise from inductive direct observation, from which a testable deduced hypothesis can be derived which is falsifiable. There is no such knowledge which arises from the constant designation of inference as Truth, which is the fallacious basis for all evolutionary claims.
”There is evidence of trilobite evolution within the Cambrian, for example the genus asaphus, which becomes quite diverse with time. So why the "explosion". The obvious solution is first life contained no shells or skeletons, thus fossilization was rare.”
And what does this solve? Here we go:
”So there is an illusion of a sudden appearance of life. Inventing an intelligent being is hardly parsimonious, when there is a simpler answer.”
You are not even addressing any position which has been taken. No one, and especially not myself, has ever said that the first life occurred in the Cambrian Explosion. No one thinks that. No one said that. What occurred in the Cambrian Explosion is the modification of pre-existing prokaryote life into all the modern phyla, virtually simultaneously in a compact geological era which is reduced in time with frequent archaeological finds. The most recent to my knowledge is the delta t = 5 million years to evolve from mitotic prokaryotes to meiotic eukaryotes which represent all phyla.
”There is not a credible science who thinks that the first cell had 1000 necessary systems. Let's not use strawmen arguments.”
Oh really? The Fallacy of OverGeneralization coupled with the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, coupled with the Equivocation Fallacy of the term “credible”, is a tour de force of fallacious claims in one sentence.
What is your evidence to the contrary? Exactly how many are there? How many have yet to be identified?
”Any scientific theory can be weaponized. Gravity was used for dropping bombs. If people didn't beleive in gravity, it would still exist.”
That is an absurd and false analogy. No one claims that gravity cannot be tested for falsification; it obviously can be, and that is a trivial, everyday experience. Gravity is not a theory which is weaponized, it is a constant fact of life. The comparison is absurd. Theories which are useful to Marxist ideologists are those which cannot be (dis)proved, and are props for either Marxist Atheism, or Marxist Class War (AGW).
”Every major component of evoltuion has been observed. 1. Heritable characteristics. 2. Mutation. 3. Natural selection. 4. Change in function and form.”
(1)Heritability is just micro-evolution in meiotic life. That is not an issue.
(2)Mutation, taken as a simplistic, unitary concept, is not an issue. The issue is binary and is this: there is no observable positive mutation which can survive the overwhelming deleterious effect of the negative mutations which are observed, and are selected out.
(3) Natural Selection is actually observed to occur only in a negative fashion, selecting out mutation defects. It is NOT observed to create, because it is not a force. And the four forces of physics do not create. In fact, selection services the path of entropy which is toward destruction. The claim of selection as a force is false. The claim of selection to have differentiated in favor of “new, more complex mutations” is a fantasy created to cover for the necessity of accounting for increasing complexity in the face of the demands of entropic physics.
(4) There is no observed “change in function and form”. None. If you have falsifiable evidence otherwise, then share it with us.
”There are peer reviewed studies that show that the explosion was really just a radiation.”
Fedonkin, M. A.; Waggoner, B. M. (November 1997). "The late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism". Nature (abstract). 388 (6645): 868–871. Bibcode:1997Natur.388..868F. doi:10.1038/42242. ISSN 0372-931
Martin, M.W.; Grazhdankin, D.V.; Bowring, S.A.; Evans, D.A.D.; Fedonkin, M.A.; Kirschvink, J.L. (2000-05-05). "Age of Neoproterozoic Bilaterian Body and Trace Fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for Metazoan Evolution". Science (abstract). 288 (5467): 841–845. Bibcode:2000Sci...288..841M. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.841. PMID 10797002. Retrieved 2007-05-10.
Life such as single cell prokaryotes appeared in the Paleo-Archean, stromatolites(algae), cloudina (undefined phylum), kimberella (probably mollusca), cnidarians (jellyfish), existed in the Ediacarian 630 to 542 million years ago. Then of course the Cambrian 542-488 million years, or approximately 50 million years in duration. So the total period of the first evidence of life, to the end of the Cambrian is a bit over 2 billion years.”
No one here claimed otherwise. I don’t think you understand the fundamental issue surrounding the Cambrian Explosion. Nor the issue of First Life, which is an entirely unrelated timeframe, and is related only – only – by the common characteristic of the fast creation of massive complexities in parallel, starting from far, far simpler prior initial conditions.
”So your idea, is that an intelligent designer started seeding life, and took 2 billion years?”
Nope. That is definitely not my idea. That is a result of your misinterpretation of what you have read here.
Final comment. Observing some of the components of evolution does not in any manner warrant the belief that all the components existed and came into play in order to create massive complexities which were completely functionally complementary and even contained a rational double-coded record, repair system and complex replication process, all of which function metabolically (i.e., not dead).
Since the four forces of physics do not justify any concept of life, much less evolution of life or first life, then evolution is a contrary backwater story which is exo-physics, and contradictory to all real, actual observations. In other words, it doesn't even rise to the level of an Induction theory, much less a falsifiable Deduction contingent factoid.
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. After all, you and I both know that you're NOT going to change Hugo's mind. He's a True Believer. In fact, if it hadn't been going for 250+ comments, I would say the most astounding thing about Hugo is his willingness and ability to rationalize his True Beliefs over and over and over... while steadfastly ignoring everything you place in front of him. He has persistence, I will grant him that.
You, on the other hand, are using him as a sounding board to go into detail on just exactly why Evolution is a crock. An entertaining crock, to be sure, and that counts in this shallow day and age. A crock supported by the consensus of 100% of the atheists out there (and there are quite a few).
But as Fred Reed is often pointing out, the smartest of a bunch of hamsters is still a hamster. The best of a bunch of evolutionary theories is still... a crock. My only objection is that it is being swung like a hammer onto the noggins of the 'nekulturni', who take away that if Evolution is a fact, then 'ain't no God'.
And as Dostoevsky pointed out, if there ain't no God, then everything is permitted. Provided you have the power to enforce it, ANYTHING is permitted.
Thus the value of your efforts to enlighten the current readership by playing off Hugo. And to be honest, I don't think he can help it. He HAS to reinforce his own fantastic vision of the way the world it by coming here and getting it out on the screen.
Apparently Atheist echo chambers just don't work for him anymore.
(Also, note where he claimed you two were in accordance by putting words in your mouth that you never uttered?)
This shit is *good*. It's a collection of his previous work on this topic, with a huge new introduction. For an agnostic, Fred Reed asks some pretty penetrating questions.
This place is interesting for discussion. If you guys want to read more into it, it's your problem.
Look, I have not even written on an Atheist blog in years, literally years, and perhaps only 2 other theists blogs, besides this one.
Reading other points of view is highly valuable. We can learn a lot from that. As I have said many times, I changed my positions on many things because of what I read here.
But, does it work like that the other way around? I don't know, you tell me... but you guys sound so extreme that I don't believe for 1 minute that it is the case. There is no nuance in what you write, only typical rethoric American right-wingers talk about. I.e. YOU are in an echo chamber, YOU don't care about objective facts. It's all about opinions on your side, and what your chummy Stan agrees with.
Sure, Hugo, that's it. We're extreme. What the heck would you know about a typical American, let alone a right-winger, other than that they disagree with your world view? I don't know about Stan, but speaking for myself, the minute someone starts slinging 'right-winger' and 'extreme' and other accusations, the discussion, if there ever was one, has ended.
Andrew Klavan is right: all you really want, Hugo, is for folks to agree with you. If they don't, then they're crazy and need to shut up. If they won't shut up, you start in with the flippancy, insult and accusation.
Stow it. Find some other place to amuse yourself.
SJWs always lie.
SJWs always double down.
SJWs always project.
You fit right into the AtheoLeft. You are a True Believer. Let that keep you warm in your old age.
I am not talking about the average American; I am talking about you, or Stan should I say, since all you do is agree with him and never, ever, engage in discussion. You make it personal, as you did many times before, yet always refuse to keep a civil discussion going. You just want me to leave, whatever that means, after throwing insults at me...
Basically, what you are missing here is that I am doing 1 thing and 1 thing only: REPLYING to what is written. It is a REACTION to what Stan posts on his website. Yet, somehow, you conclude that I am the one who wants to change minds? This is what I am doing now, just replying to you, nothing different...
So, why do I say that you 'sound' extreme? Because of what I read here, and the reactions I get when I try to correct some of the details I read about, just some... But you don't care about that because you show extreme reactions to every single bit of information that's thrown your way. And you never engage in the actual topic. NEVER. Stan, at least, tries to, but he gets offended very quickly and just cannot ignore comments, so he had to 'ban' me and erase comments as soon as they get posted.
The comments you just wrote are perfect examples of what I just described. You think I am calling others 'crazy' and that I want them to 'shut up'. Did I ever write any of that? No... This is such an extreme caricature of what I wrote! I am not writing any insults, but you get offended anyway because of the 'labels' I used. Isn't it ironic? You guys are appalled at so-called SJW who get offended if someone makes a slightly inappropriate joke, and then 'you' get offended if I dare label you as right-wing, or say that you 'sound' extreme? Or perhaps the problem was that you did not get the subtle use of the word 'sound' here? I never implied that you are some sort of extreme 'person', some extremist who will 'do' extreme things. It's just about what you write...
Yet, what do YOU do? You use labels for the SOLE purpose of insulting. You used the label SJW because you think it applies to me, obviously. Then you say that SJW always lie, always double down, always project. Pure insults, nothing else. And it does not apply at all obviously since I disagree with the SJW approach. But, again, you don't care about that because you are lumping everyone together who disagree with you! You know, exactly what you said I am doing!
So, what I am actually saying is that you SOUND extreme in many things you write or, again, that Stan writes. Evolution, the topic of this thread after all, is one of the best examples.
On one extreme, you have people who say that Evolution explains everything and even proves that there is no God. On the other extreme, you have people like Stan who claim that Evolution is complete fantasy: - an egregious lapse out of rationality, and into fantasy - Evolution is pure myth. It is a continuum of fantasy stories. - The elements are these: fantasy assumptions; calculations; conclusions. Because the basis is fantasy, imaginary steps, sequences, and/or causation, then the entire enterprise is fantasy. These are EXTREME statements. They don't only state that 'we are not sure', no, Stan is certain, convinced, that scientists are delusional, they believe a fantasy.
What does the general public think about that? Somewhere in between of course. Most people don't pretend to be so sure... Some understand that we know a lot, but not everything, and that yes it's certainly possible that a god was involved (my opinion), while others think that it's a nice story but they find it hard to believe. They don't think it's necessarily impossible but they are not convinced, and they most likely conclude that some god got involved in the process, but not all of them think so. These are the MODERATE views. Stan's views, and yours by association, is on the EXTREME of the spectrum.
But why do I say that you sound extreme, more generally? Because Evolution is just 1 example but the principle applies to a lot of others things such as Abortion, Climate Change and Political issues.
Therefore, you are right, there is no conversation. But not for the reasons you write. The main one is that you prefer not to engage, and on Stan's side, it's because he gets annoyed when I engage too much. It's that simple. All the rest is noise from your "side" in order to paint a different picture. It's exactly what you complain about: insults instead of substance.
Hugo, What annoys me most is that you make and insist on two narrative claims which you cannot support with objective fact (you do not even accept any need for objective fact): 1. Evolution is based on objective knowledge beyond the existence of fossils in layers. 2. Evolution must be accepted because of Appeal To Authority.
The same goes for AGW. And abortion is a human rights issue which has been perverted into a woman's right to kill a Class of humans.
So it is extreme to demand objective knowledge of X before believing in X.
And it is extreme to preserve human life as it is transmitted from two parents to their progeny.
"Extreme" is a relative, unmeasurable charge which is subjectively discerned and is without metrics other than comparison to "self" or "self's" vision of the world, its population, and its grounding. I.e., your vision has no grounding but your own opinions. I have provided the grounding for mine. But of course, I am the radical, the extremist.
When a society goes haywire, as has western civilization in response to postmodern anti-rationality, it is the anarchy in worldviews, relationships - especially sexual and family, law and government, which has transformed into extreme caricatures of civilization. Yet those of us who learned and know what civilization requires are now the extremists.
The norm is weaponized Classism, negated moral principles purposely inverted from previous principles without regard for consequence; incivility at all levels; ideological violence almost exclusively from the Left.
It is entirely possible that the majority of the population has been maleducated into the proto-socialist fantasy to the point that no crimes, including treason, will keep them from voting for a sickly, chronic liar, because that's how they have been bent away by a post-modern, anti-rational maleducation system.
You have been challenged numerous times to produce empirical quality objective knowledge of even a single evolutionary fact. You always produce subjective inferential extrapolations, and you never, ever admit that. You continuously claim to "know" about evolution, which means that your concept of "knowledge" is far afield from the classical sense of objectivity in evidentiary requirements for belief to be justified.
That is raw evidence that you are ideologically attached to the post-modern anti-rationality which has infected the west for the last half century.
So when you charge Right Wing Extremism, you are doing so out of pure anti-rationalism.
Now back to evolution. Bring me one, just one (1), shred of falsifiable, objective evidence. You can't of course. But you will not admit that not having even one shred of real, obejctive, falsifiable evidence should affect one's belief. Why? Because: Appeal to Authority.
That is extreme, when compared to rationality as is found in physics and chemistry.
When the extremists are the majority, that doesn't change their extreme departure from the principles of rationality.
"Then you admit that the entire enterprise is not based on even a single piece of demonstrable evidence"
That's not what he said at all, Stan. You're twisting people's words again. He said it was based on multiple accumulating pieces of evidence. No one piece of evidence proves macroevolution, but all together they do.
"I positively believe … Evolution has caused many deaths"
What a strange fantasy-filled world Planet Stan is. Apologies for the "whataboutery", but the theory of evolution demonstrably never killed anyone: religion has killed its hundreds of millions.
Now back to evolution. Bring me one, just one (1), shred of falsifiable, objective evidence.
Evidence of what? You have made it very clear that evolution is not possible according to your understanding of cell machinery. The funny not-so-funny picture you posted of a washing machine with clothes fully folded inside of it shows why it's impossible to show you anything that would convince you. The facts/hypothesis/theories behind evolution do not support that kind of silly outcome.
Let me make it more explicit: - You strongly believe that cell machinery is a perfect system. It is not just like a machine, it is a machine, literally. - You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention. - The cell machinery is thus never failing. When errors happen, when mutations occur, they are deleted and the original design remains, barely changed. - Therefore, any kind of actual evolution is impossible. The cell machinery cannot possibly allow for the kind of changes that would cause speciation, or actual macro-evolution where novel parts arise naturally.
So, when I asked 'Evidence for what?' above, I meant it. What evidence would make you change your mind about these sentences above?
p.s. I had also written a bunch of stuff regarding the commentaries you included. But I decided to not include them, since you might actually be interested in civil discussion again. The only thing I will specific is that I don't think you are an 'extremist', I only meant that some of your positions sound extreme. I can explain if you want, but I don't think it's productive, so I am moving on. Fair?
"Then you admit that the entire enterprise is not based on even a single piece of demonstrable evidence"
That's not what he said at all, Stan. You're twisting people's words again. He said it was based on multiple accumulating pieces of evidence. No one piece of evidence proves macroevolution, but all together they do.
There is no – NO – objective, empirical, falsifiable material evidence for evolution. The use of the word “evidence” as a concept which you have placed into a Truth assertion is empirically false. There is none. If there existed empirical, testable, hypothetico-deductive, falsifiable evidence of evolution, then you or he would present it. But you merely use the term as if such empirical, falsifiable evidence of evolution actually exists somewhere, and use that false presumption to make a false claim. Evolution is not empirical; it is purely subjective, inferential, extrapolative opinion which is declared by the evolutionary clerisy. There is no objective test to determine any truth value of any claim for evolution: therefore it has none.
"I positively believe … Evolution has caused many deaths"
What a strange fantasy-filled world Planet Stan is. Apologies for the "whataboutery", but the theory of evolution demonstrably never killed anyone: religion has killed its hundreds of millions. ””
As it happens, I can point to the direct influence of evolution on the Marxist philosophers who were the basis for Lenin and Hitler and Mao. The influence of evolution gave two philosophies which became Atheist worldview fundaments: 1. Man is an accidental animal without any inherent value; 2. Directed evolution, i.e., “New Man” philosophy, required elite intervention in all societal affairs, including the eradication of “defectives” while breeding the “best to the best”. It thus became an Atheist moral principle, which allowed and even demanded the 20th century purges under Atheist Communism.
Further, you have prejudicially used the term "religion" as if that were applicable to all religions. When one differentiates between wars of aggression vs wars of repulsion of aggression, what do you find? I'm asking you: what do you find?
"It is directly involved in the rise of Marxist fables and stories"
Simply not true. I know you want to think it's true, because it bolsters your anti-evolutionism, but it's a lie.
It is far, far more historically accurate than is any claim which is made for evolution, which is entirely subjective inferential fabrication from top to bottom.
The Marxist/Atheist gleeful acceptance of evolution allowed them a "scientific Atheism" (Lenin's terminology) which provided their new, self-derived morality of New Man purification under evolutionary principles.
It is obvious that you deny it in order to preserve your perception of the purity of your Atheism.
”Now back to evolution. Bring me one, just one (1), shred of falsifiable, objective evidence.
Evidence of what? You have made it very clear that evolution is not possible according to your understanding of cell machinery. The funny not-so-funny picture you posted of a washing machine with clothes fully folded inside of it shows why it's impossible to show you anything that would convince you. The facts/hypothesis/theories behind evolution do not support that kind of silly outcome.”
Really? Evidence of what?? It is patently obvious. Falsifiable, objective evidence that evolution occurred by any of the various stories which claim that it did occur. Evolution is True (Jerry Coyne) Pick a story which you can prove empirically. Any story whatsoever. Pick one of Coyne’s or any other story. You know that is the challenge; it has always been the challenge, and it still is the same challenge.
And because they are stories only, all outcomes are possible including nothing at all. So the dryer analogy fits perfectly. In Deep Time, anything can happen, right? In fact, the dryer analogy is more probable than the platypus, the bombardier beetle, the caterpillar to butterfly transition, etc. etc. etc.
You continue to merely whine about the unfairness of my use of the necessity of rational analysis for what you falsely call “facts” of evolution. When hypotheses and “theories” (a false term for more hypotheses) cannot be tested, then they are not justified as any form of actual, objective knowledge. How many times have we been through this exact same discussion? How many times do you NOT bring forth any objective, empirical contingent factoids which have been validated and not falsified? Are we going into the thousands of times that this conversation has been replicated here?
Yet you do not accept any need for empirical non-falsification, and you even continue to falsely use terms which cannot apply: “facts”, “theories” do not exist. You have proved that ad nauseum, yet you continue in your inability to accept any analysis of the transparent content-free nature of the evolutionary stories.
The folded clothes in the dryer is an absolutely fair analogy for the accidental jumps from simple to massive complexity which evolutionary hypotheses demand – and demand without a shred of molecular hypotheses as to how it could, in fact, happen. The story is merely, that somehow, who knows how, who cares how, it is Truth, Fact, Theory. No justification or falsifiability is required for this Truth. It is obviously religious in nature: blind belief, without any mote of hope of rational, replicable, falsifiable, empirical scientific proof.
You do not even argue against that. You actually can’t. You merely complain that there is no way to convince a person who exercises the slightest skepticism. And you are right. And because you are right about that, it should persuade you to ask yourself why it is that you blindly believe, why you cannot exert any skepticism yourself, why you do not change your fallacious terms which infect your thought process. But your persistence proves that you cannot do otherwise, because the evidence shows exactly that – so far.
Now for the following, which is absolute bullshit: ” Let me make it more explicit: - You strongly believe that cell machinery is a perfect system. It is not just like a machine, it is a machine, literally. - You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention. - The cell machinery is thus never failing. When errors happen, when mutations occur, they are deleted and the original design remains, barely changed. - Therefore, any kind of actual evolution is impossible. The cell machinery cannot possibly allow for the kind of changes that would cause speciation, or actual macro-evolution where novel parts arise naturally.”
False. You have cherry picked what you want, out of what I said. Let’s see what I can do to correct this. I don’t really know why I bother, because you always do this.
1. Without using the indefinite term, “machine”, a cell has been compared to the functioning complexity of a major city (not my analogy, but an adequate one). So a cell is a set of controlled systems which function toward a mutual purpose, and which are complementary and mutually dependent. These systems are contained in a protected, purposefully semi-permeable environment (specific gates to the exterior), and they sustain the functions based on metabolism which services all the internal systems, which systems are compatible with that metabolic output. The function (purpose) of the cell is to support its timed-delay function of mitotic reproduction, without which the very first cell would have been the only cell. Contained within the cell is a separate function, that of apoptosis, which is necessary to create cell death upon certain conditions, and without which the cell would not die until destroyed by external forces. Also within the cell are temporary structures which self-assemble only for certain functions, such as “taking out the garbage” and the specific timed complex structures necessary for splitting the DNA just prior to compressing the cell into two identical daughter cells. These structures self-disassemble when the timed function has completed. As for DNA, the process of templating for creation of amino acids can produce errors, but the cause for the errors is not known, and most likely is external such as alpha particle damage. There is DNA editing and error correction internal to the cell. The DNA is double coded with specific information needed for the cell to a) exist, b) function.
If you need more specific information I can provide it.
2. Cell functions perform quite well, and have done so by the uncountable zillions for what, billions of years or so. Certainly cells can be damaged by external intrusions such as radiation, heat, pressure, lack of external nutrition availability, improper pH, etc. Thus mutations could occur if a damaged cell managed to survive. This is not the fault of the cell, nor of the cells internal processes.
3. Mutations have not ever been shown to be beneficial. Show otherwise.
4. Until specific positive mutations are shown to accumulate sufficiently and are not overwhelmed by negative mutations which are fatal, then there is no reason to believe that they exist. In fact there is more than sufficient reason to believe that the do not exist. Either way, there is zero empirical evidence to support that claim. Zero. Such a belief is a belief without objective evidence, and is a blind belief. The story being told is far too fantastic to be believed by anyone with the tiniest particle of rational skepticism. Not to mention mathematical inclination.
We have been through this ad nauseum also. But you do not accept any analysis of the stories.
” So, when I asked 'Evidence for what?' above, I meant it. What evidence would make you change your mind about these sentences above?”
And this is an example of more AD NAUSEUM keystroke repetition from you. One word for you: empirical. That’s what is required for objective knowledge (how often must I say it before you even acknowledge it?) and without objective knowledge which by definition is replicable and falsifiable, then you have nothing. NOTHING.
You have a zealous blind belief in non-credible, non-falsifiable science-fiction stories. That equals religion and you exhibit religious zeal. What would it take to convict me of the Truth of your blind belief? One more word: Empiricism; falsifiability.
Because you do not even acknowledge empiricism and falsifiabilty, nor any need for objective evidence before belief, you exhibit the self-induced hermetic closure of cult-mind, or maybe hive-mind. Everyone in the evolutionary hive believes, and they do so without any need for objective knowledge which is replicable and falsifiable. Those are the “authorities”, the clerisy you would have me bow to.
And that is all you want. You want me to suddenly claim the Truth value of unsupportable, non-empirical claims about physical reality, claims without any hope of rational proof for their material Truth. Presumably from there, once you have won that departure from rationality from me, you can then argue for the necessary VOID of Atheism, based on the creation story of evolution of humans from mud, submerged geothermal vents, or just “ignore First Life altogether, don’t even talk about that, or the Cambrian Explosion for that matter”.
BTW, I understand your distaste for the dryer analogy; hits home doesn’t it?
"BTW, I understand your distaste for the dryer analogy; hits home doesn’t it?"
No distaste on my end, because it's inaccurate. The dryer analogy fails to represent how evolution works because the clothes are constantly moving while the machine is ON; nothing remains stable to allow some sort of pile to progressively form.
Evolution, on the other hand, acts via small localized changes; the rest does not change. i.e. there are mutations each time an organism reproduces, but most of the genome does not change. It's the exact opposite of the washing machine, where the entire pile of clothes is disorganized at every turn.
"3. Mutations have not ever been shown to be beneficial. Show otherwise."
There are 3 problems here : 1) You disagree with the concept that lasting mutations happen. (Correct? I don't intend to misrepresent your points.) 2) You disagree with the concept that mutations can change the organism in a novel way; your opinion is that changes are always just a re-shuffling of the information that was already in the genome of the organism, but unused. Again, correct? 3) Therefore, mutations are necessarily 'not' beneficial, since they are breaking something, not just changing something. The changes do not propagate since it can only decrease the likelihood that a mutant will survive, being broken. The changes thus fade away instead of giving rise to novel species.
As I mentioned before, because mutations are nothing but changes: The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations, which can be neutral, positive or negative. For example, slightly different eye colors or fingerprint (neutral), slightly better fitness level (positive), malformed organ which lead to death (negative). These mutations can be passed to the individuals' offspring and affect the population they are part of by shifting the average of affected traits a little one way or another.
” Let me make it more explicit: - You strongly believe that cell machinery is a perfect system. It is not just like a machine, it is a machine, literally. - You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention. - The cell machinery is thus never failing. When errors happen, when mutations occur, they are deleted and the original design remains, barely changed. - Therefore, any kind of actual evolution is impossible. The cell machinery cannot possibly allow for the kind of changes that would cause speciation, or actual macro-evolution where novel parts arise naturally.”
"False. You have cherry picked what you want, out of what I said. Let’s see what I can do to correct this."
Ok, my bad, I don't intend to misrepresent your points. So I will go over what you actually wrote after that to be on the right track:
"These systems are contained in a protected, purposefully semi-permeable environment (specific gates to the exterior), and they sustain the functions based on metabolism which services all the internal systems, which systems are compatible with that metabolic output. "
You used the word 'purposefully' here. This is what I meant by: - You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention.
The way I see this semi-permeable membrane is just like anything else in nature. Yes, its the 'purpose' of the membrane to do what you described, but it does not imply any 'intention' to make it like that. So, is that what you believe or not? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Moreover, the gates are nothing but chemicals processes that react to the environment. It's a good analogy to compare them to gates, but they are not 'literally' gates in the human sense, where the gate can be open-close externally. The chemical gates of a cell are passively doing their job through chemical reactions.
"The function (purpose) of the cell is to support its timed-delay function of mitotic reproduction, without which the very first cell would have been the only cell."
Nobody knows what the first cell looked like, nor what can actually be called a cell, precisely. Were the first self-reproducing molecules cells for instance? It's not entirely clear... that's a huge fascinating topic.
But in any case, what's the point here? You don't accept the possibility that one or a few cells ended up diversifying, creating new cells species, which eventually collaborated so tightly that they formed simple multi-cellular organisms, which in turn evolved into multi-cellular organisms that reproduce sexually, i.e. you don't accept the idea that Eukaryota cells evolved from simpler cells.
So the first cell means nothing here, there were no such first cell, or cells... Under your opinion that the fossil records show sudden appearances of complex living things, for instance, it means that the so-called 'first cell' is really more like a pair of animals, a male and a female; perhaps in the form of 2 fertilized eggs? They then went on and reproduced after their own kind, creating only variations within that genome.
"BTW, I understand your distaste for the dryer analogy; hits home doesn’t it?"
No distaste on my end, because it's inaccurate. The dryer analogy fails to represent how evolution works because the clothes are constantly moving while the machine is ON; nothing remains stable to allow some sort of pile to progressively form.
You are depending upon that which you cannot prove, and are declaring odds against, based on what you know of dryers in general. That is the exact same form and logic of the odds against First Life self-assembling from randomized atoms and simple molecules in the complexity containing compatible metabolic functions, stabilization feedback systems, and double coded, splitable, cogent DNA for replication, as well as timed sequential processes for replicating. All suddenly happening in a single cell.
The odds against that are significantly higher than the dryer analogy, in which the clothes fold themselves as they fall to the bottom the moment the dryer is turned off, which is a story that fully explains the photograph, just like all – all – Darwinian stories explain. Can you prove it didn’t happen that way? Or do you believe the odds against it, based on your knowledge of your own experience and the lack of any possible objective knowledge being generated in order to falsify the story?
The dryer analysis works for the cladistics maps and the Cambrian Explosion as well, thereby analogically defeating all of Darwinian theory.
One thing I’m certain of: you can’t accept this analysis because you must defend the stories in which you are indoctrinated to fully believe without considering – skeptically – their (im)probabilities, based on biological and physics knowledge of the real world.
”Evolution, on the other hand, acts via small localized changes; the rest does not change. i.e. there are mutations each time an organism reproduces, but most of the genome does not change. It's the exact opposite of the washing machine, where the entire pile of clothes is disorganized at every turn.”
Against which claim I submit Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, which claims otherwise. In anticipation of your next claim, accumulation of positive mutations, I submit the observation of reality: there are massive amounts of deleterious mutations which would clear out any positive mutations before they could accumulate in the huge organized genes required for novel, useful organic additions, AND, there are never any positive mutations observed, only neutral mutations. Again, the odds against are vastly higher than the tiny odds for positive mutation of novelty. This is especially obvious in the Cambrian Explosion of not just one new gene for one new organ, but for numerous new genes, all at once, which play together in amazing harmony.
And of course you are still asserting a term which is completely without any meaning, mutation, unless it is referencing specific mutations at specific locations on DNA. Further, it is a term which is totally blind to the necessity of destroying pre-existing uses of that location on DNA, which is necessarily deleterious at the same time evolutionists claim benefit from that destruction.
A minimum size gene, for a new novel feature contains 76 base pairs are for tRNA (80,781 base pairs in humans). [1] So the probability against creating tRNA from mutation of one of the molecules of the base pair is p = 2^-76 x 2^-4 = 2^80. This excludes introns and exons, which vary and are specific, and include regulatory instructions. [2] If a minimum intron size is assumed to be 400 base pairs, then an additional 2^-400 x 2^ -4 is required. For new exons, an additional 2^-700 x 2^4 is required.
So the probability of even the smallest simple mutation-directed new feature (tRNA) is 2^-1908.
Remembering that mutations destroy prior DNA functionality, the probability of the viability of the Host after that destruction of 1,908 positions on the organism’s DNA occurs and the likely hood of the organism’s failure is assuredly quite high, even if completely incalculable, due to the randomness of the location of the destruction.
Evolutionists do not speak in these terms. In my experience they NEVER acknowledge these real world mathematical arguments which destroy Darwinism at its core.
"3. Mutations have not ever been shown to be beneficial. Show otherwise."
”There are 3 problems here : 1) You disagree with the concept that lasting mutations happen. (Correct? I don't intend to misrepresent your points.)”
Correct. What you assume are mutations (eye color, etc.) you cannot prove to be actual mutations, except by asserting Philosophical Materialism (It must be so, there is no physical explanation for anything genomic, or even biological, other than the mystery of non-specific, unknowable mutations, which therefore must be believed).
”2) You disagree with the concept that mutations can change the organism in a novel way; your opinion is that changes are always just a re-shuffling of the information that was already in the genome of the organism, but unused. Again, correct?”
Mutations do, in fact change the organism in a novel way: observations in real life tell us that mutations produce defective organisms, some to the point of not surviving to replicate. That is novel, but not useful.
”3) Therefore, mutations are necessarily 'not' beneficial, since they are breaking something, not just changing something. The changes do not propagate since it can only decrease the likelihood that a mutant will survive, being broken. The changes thus fade away instead of giving rise to novel species.”
See the calculations in the prior block. Then produce your own to support any opinion otherwise.
”As I mentioned before, because mutations are nothing but changes: The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations, which can be neutral, positive or negative. For example, slightly different eye colors or fingerprint (neutral), slightly better fitness level (positive), malformed organ which lead to death (negative). These mutations can be passed to the individuals' offspring and affect the population they are part of by shifting the average of affected traits a little one way or another.”
Show your calculations for the likelihood of each of those possibilities as they occur randomly in DNA. Use specific known information for minimum gene size, intron/exon size and the loss of information which is destroyed.
Then we have something specific to discuss. The term “mutation” is a fog term without meaning in the abstract. Only in the specifics of change to DNA does it have meaning.
And, finally for now, show where a positive mutation is undeniably causal, and what previous function was destroyed by the mutation (introns, code, exons).
"These systems are contained in a protected, purposefully semi-permeable environment (specific gates to the exterior), and they sustain the functions based on metabolism which services all the internal systems, which systems are compatible with that metabolic output. "
You used the word 'purposefully' here. This is what I meant by: - You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention.
The way I see this semi-permeable membrane is just like anything else in nature. Yes, its the 'purpose' of the membrane to do what you described, but it does not imply any 'intention' to make it like that. So, is that what you believe or not? I don't want to put words in your mouth.”
Intent was not mentioned, was it. Your belief is that the entire cell occurred altogether at the same time (necessary for a single source of life). The odds against that make your belief spectacularly irrational, and without any correlate in observable reality. Even the odds against the spontaneous creation of useful, positive mutations with in the atoms of the base pairs within DNA information make that belief a spectacularly irrational belief also, and again without any correlate in observable reality, which shows the opposite. Reductio Ad Absurdum logically annihilates those conclusions.
Intent was brought up by you, apparently because you wish to add it to my analysis as a straw man to attack. No such claim is made, or need be made, in order to show the irrationality of the Darwinian evolutionary claims. Those claims fail all on their own. Darwinism is blatantly irrational. Darwinism is objective-evidence-free. Darwinism eschews the requirements of REAL science for objective knowledge based on falsifiability of replicable evidence based on testable hypotheses. Darwinism effectively falsely destroys the inherent value of humans.
”The chemical gates of a cell are passively doing their job through chemical reactions.”
Of course they are. And according to your Darwinism, that logic function occurred purely by accident, due to the destruction of a molecule in a base pair in DNA, repeatedly and in a rational sequence which produced not only the membrane, but embedded logic function of the directional, discriminatory gate.
”"The function (purpose) of the cell is to support its timed-delay function of mitotic reproduction, without which the very first cell would have been the only cell."
Nobody knows what the first cell looked like, nor what can actually be called a cell, precisely. Were the first self-reproducing molecules cells for instance? It's not entirely clear... that's a huge fascinating topic.”
That’s a huge cop out. HUGE. At some point all the components became the complete First Cell. The first ancestor of us all. Common descent, remember? It’s the Law! Darwinism is, in fact, law. At least in the USA.
What component can a minimal cell do without? Surely you’re all read-up on the minimal viable cell size, right? 244 genes are the minimum number of genes in known genomes (Streptococcus pneumonia). [1] The minimum gene size is 50kb (sequenced kb/gene). [2] So, the minimum possible cell requires 244x50,000 base pairs, or 12,200,000 bp, or 24,400,000 molecules of Adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine.
This results in the necessity of 2^24,400,000 instances of correct positioning of individual molecules in the DNA, and likely vastly underestimates both gene size and intron/exon sizes.
So the FIRST cell required a) completely functional operation of the living cell which was coincidentally also endowed with DNA of 24,400,000 correctly positioned molecules which happened to describe every aspect of the cell, including timed functions for separation of the DNA just before the cell split into two identical halves, each containing all the elements of the original cell plus DNA for future division.
The odds against this arising from individual atoms, minerals, or benzene rings is preposterously gargantuan, given that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, and one Planck time is 5x10^-44 Sec.
The possible number of events in the universe is calculated as follows (numbers rounded out to extremes for conservativism):
Planck times since Big Bang to present: = (years) * (days/year)* (seconds/day)*(planck times/second) = Planck times since Big Bang. =13*10^9 * 24 * 3600 * 10^43
Possible events in the universe: (10^82 atoms in universe) x (10^57 possible planck times) = 10^139 possible events in the universe.
There is no possible way that the positioning of 2^24,400,000 (10^0.3001)^24,400,000 = 10^7,322,440 correct random events required to create the First DNA could occur in 10^139 possible events in the entire universe, much less just here on earth.
Further, the probability that all the proteins would be left handed is this:
” This would give the probability of the needed group of 239 protein molecules being all left-handed. The number is beyond all comprehension, namely 1 in 1029345”[3]
Should you deny this, then show your own calculations. And actually, you do need supply your own calculations, since these calculations absolutely annihilate any possibility of evolution or First Life occurring randomly, per Darwinian hypotheses.
It’s really quite simple: Darwinian evolution is false; it didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen. That’s all there is to it. Evolution is false.
The lack of any objective facts should have been a trigger for you. But you still haven’t addressed the issue of Objective Facts – which I’ve been bringing up ever since you were a pup. But you make no comment on that. Instead of addressing the need for falsifiable, objective facts, you keep insisting that there ARE facts, but they always turn out to be not facts, but opinions, fatuous extrapolations, fictions created to support the Darwinian narrative. All of them. There is no attempt ever made to falsify evolution, because that would result in banishment from the cult.
So there you have it, just as before and before and before. Nothing has changed. It’s always the same. You bring stories and then you wonder what it would take to convince me that the stories are facts. You never bring atomic-level data, probability calculations, falsifiable hypotheses – none of the stuff which makes science a legitimate source of objective - yet contingent – factoids. Those do not exist because they cannot exist for the Darwinian simplistic and unfalsifiable claims. Despite those fatal deficiencies, you persist.
"That is the exact same form and logic of the odds against First Life self-assembling from randomized atoms and simple molecules in the complexity containing compatible metabolic functions, stabilization feedback systems, and double coded, splitable, cogent DNA for replication, as well as timed sequential processes for replicating. All suddenly happening in a single cell. "
This assumes 2 things that you have not defended:
1) There is somehow a clear definition of what the 'first cell' was, with the characteristics you listed here. But how can we know about that?
2) This cell could not have evolved gradually, because it had to 'suddenly' have all the characteristics you listed. But evolutionary theories state the exact opposite: that there was no sudden appearance of these things that you listed. Basically, you believe that a first cell 'appeared', not 'evolved', and then complain that evolution doesn't account for this 'appearance'. That's just asserting your position; not defending it.
I have mentioned the work of Jack W. Szostak before; it's relevant here: http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/ http://www.ibiology.org/ibioseminars/evolution-ecology/jack-szostak-part-1.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg That last video is 8 years old now, and I have listed it on your blog before I believe. You also mention Szostak yourself, twice in 2016 as I can see from my email... Yet, you reject is work! The idea is not that this is the absolute truth about what/how things happened, but it's a great 'possibility', which contradicts your argument that it's 'impossible' because of the odds. It also shows a gradual process, not a sudden appearance, which is what we expect from natural systems. This is what debunks your attempt at using math, covered below.
" The odds against that are significantly higher than the dryer analogy, in which the clothes fold themselves as they fall to the bottom the moment the dryer is turned off, which is a story that fully explains the photograph, just like all – all – Darwinian stories explain. Can you prove it didn’t happen that way? Or do you believe the odds against it, based on your knowledge of your own experience and the lack of any possible objective knowledge being generated in order to falsify the story? "
Yes we can prove it did not happen that way, because the odds of the dryer doing what the picture shows are '0', literally zero. We know how dryers work: they tumble the entire pile of clothing in a circular manner. Hence, the odds that individual pieces of clothing suddenly fall flat, straight down, and folded neatly, is literally 0. It will never happen like that because of the physical properties of the machine and the clothes, which we actually know about.
”1) There is somehow a clear definition of what the 'first cell' was, with the characteristics you listed here. But how can we know about that?”
That’s hysterical. Really. Now you assert skepticism? Finally?
Did you use the references? There is a test-defined minimum cell size, empirically determined. The one empirical, replicable, falsifiable fact is the one which you can’t know about. Genes are removed one at a time until the cell is no longer viable. By removing any of the remaining elements it is determined that they are necessary, because the cell cannot survive.
Here’s what you really can’t know about: accumulated positive mutations occur; they occur sequentially in order to form a new gene or genes; that explains the fossil record except when it doesn’t.
”2) This cell could not have evolved gradually, because it had to 'suddenly' have all the characteristics you listed. But evolutionary theories state the exact opposite: that there was no sudden appearance of these things that you listed. Basically, you believe that a first cell 'appeared', not 'evolved', and then complain that evolution doesn't account for this 'appearance'. That's just asserting your position; not defending it.”
That is bull. You are the one defending an absurd and irrational theory which totally evades common sense. The theory is sacred and cannot be wrong. But there’s a problem, empirically. Cells cannot be built over time, one element at a time, because there is a minimum number of mutually dependent systems required for the survival of every individual component. That is empirically, falsifiably proven.
For you, the theory is a First Principle which cannot be violated; therefore, actual empirical science does not matter IF it doesn’t support the fiction of the theory. Which, of course, is not a theory, it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis which fails empirical evidence for First Life, and thus denies any intellectual responsibility for First Life. Darwin avoided it, because the text he stole from Wallace didn’t include First Life.
”I have mentioned the work of Jack W. Szostak before; it's relevant here:”
And I have written about Szostak’s admission to complete failure in his lab’s attempt over decades to produce non-information-bearing RNA (not even DNA) in the laboratory, which is why he finally gave that up, and started his attempts to create lesser molecules which he also has not done so far. So, yes it is relevant, because it is proof of the probability AGAINST the random creation of even non-information-bearing replicators. To get the perfection of correctly double-coded information-bearing molecules is even more unlikely (impossible).
”Yet, you reject is work!”
He rejected it. He failed. I agreed. QED.
So where are the Just So Stories which tell us exactly how First Life/Common Ancestor happened within the absurd hypothesis of Darwinian Necessary and Sufficient Fictions?
The following is rich:
”Hence, the odds that individual pieces of clothing suddenly fall flat, straight down, and folded neatly, is literally 0. It will never happen like that because of the physical properties of the machine and the clothes, which we actually know about.”
And we “actually know about” the minimum required cell size for life. It is empirically, falsifiably determined. It is objective knowledge. You reject empirical, replicable objective knowledge due to your belief in the unprovable, unfalsifiable (religious) narrative. That is irrational blind belief.
When an empirical determination doesn’t fit with the unprovable narrative, which is wrong?
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
Mitosis cannot occur, except in a fully functional cell of minimum complexity. Mitosis is the replication process, not mysterious “replicating molecules”. PROVE OTHERWISE. But use empirical, falsifiable data, only.
"Genes are removed one at a time until the cell is no longer viable. By removing any of the remaining elements it is determined that they are necessary, because the cell cannot survive. "
This has nothing to do with the evolution of the first self-replicating molecules and/or complex cells. It's starting with
"Here’s what you really can’t know about: accumulated positive mutations occur; they occur sequentially in order to form a new gene or genes "
Accumulated mutations occur; period. You insert the word 'positive' because you don't believe such type of mutations can happen. This is the recurring theme here.
"Cells cannot be built over time, one element at a time, because there is a minimum number of mutually dependent systems required for the survival of every individual component. That is empirically, falsifiably proven."
No that has not been proven. You are claiming 'irreducible complexity' as proof that something cannot have evolved. This is not a logical argument against the Theory of Evoution. It's actually a prediction of the theory; we expect to see such systems in nature if they evolved from other life forms.
Remember? That was one of the key elements that Behe tried to bring forward in the Dover trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html That aired in 2007 by the way. Almost 10 years since Behe and the Discovery Institute failed to support their views, and nothing has changed since.
"And I have written about Szostak’s admission to complete failure in his lab’s attempt over decades to produce [...]"
This has nothing to do with the point I brought forward. The mere 'possibility' of an explanation is enough to debunk the idea that it's 'impossible'. And your claim IS that it is 'impossible'. You have not rationally justified the belief that the first self-replicating molecules could not have arisen through natural means, you have not justified your belief that evolution of these molecules into complex molecule is impossible, you have not justified your belief that evolution of these complex molecules into multi-cellular organisms is impossible. You justify nothing; you reject everything.
Why? Always that same 1 thing: you believe the cell machinery is a perfect system that cannot possibly yield neutral mutations that accumulate over time.
"So where are the Just So Stories which tell us exactly how First Life/Common Ancestor happened within the absurd hypothesis of Darwinian Necessary and Sufficient Fictions?"
That's what the video show; a possible explanation of how simple organic building blocks can lead to self-reproduction and eventually cells. Evolution can then act on these self-reproducing molecules by selecting the best performing ones.
But again, this implies that mutations do happen, can accumulate, and thus create independent lineage of descendants.
"And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality."
This is an example of an insult. You write tons of insults like these, and yes, I will continue to ignore them. Or perhaps you prefer me to reply back with insults of my own?'
I had not finished replying to the top portion; you replied before I got to post the rest, so it might become hard to follow but here is some of it...
Would anyone able to truly create a story that would explain a 'possible' way of that happening? No, because the machine does not work like that. Yet, you just claim that this is a story that fully explains the photograph; why would you say that? Can you demonstrate a logical possible pathway between a dryer in action and a pile of folded clothes? Of course you cannot... it's physically impossible, again, because of the properties of the machine and the clothes in it. You need a specific alignment, which the machine cannot physically provide by just turning.
On the other hand, what you pejoratively call "Darwinian stories" are in fact possible scenarios. Even if you don't believe this is what happened, you should agree that it's at least possible, or show otherwise. But in light of our recent discussions, I now understand why you believe that it's impossible: because of how you perceive the cell machinery, which is a perfect system that never generates sustained changes, in your opinion. It all comes back to that. This is the only point that matters in this entire conversation; it explains entirely your rejection of evolution. It is the starting point, the rock, of your entire line of argumentation against evolutionary biology.
" The dryer analysis works for the cladistics maps and the Cambrian Explosion as well, thereby analogically defeating all of Darwinian theory. "
Not at all. Successive small changes are what are needed for the Cambrian Explosion, not some random sudden appearance of something more complex. You are reversing the narrative so that it fits what you already believe: sudden appearance. Then, you reject the evolutionary explanation because it does not account for a sudden appearance. But you have not established why we should believe there was some sudden appearance in the first place!
”Evolution, on the other hand, acts via small localized changes; the rest does not change. i.e. there are mutations each time an organism reproduces, but most of the genome does not change. It's the exact opposite of the washing machine, where the entire pile of clothes is disorganized at every turn.”
" Against which claim I submit Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, which claims otherwise. "
No, that does not address my point at all; evolution works by changing parts of the genome, while the dryer machine changes all the clothes at the same time. Punctuated Equilibrium is a red herring, but I will bite because it links to the next point:
Punctuated Equilibrium has nothing to do with the underlying modifications that happen to the genome; these changes are constantly happening, each time an organism reproduces. Punctuated Equilibrium has to do with the selection process. If the environment in which a population lives is very stable, so will its collective genome be. But if some big change happens to the environment, the balance can be thrown off and organisms that are different might become more successful at surviving, creating a period of rapid evolution. The neutral mutations that make some organisms slightly different from others can suddenly become advantageous, which brings us to your next point:
" In anticipation of your next claim, accumulation of positive mutations, I submit the observation of reality: there are massive amounts of deleterious mutations which would clear out any positive mutations before they could accumulate in the huge organized genes required for novel, useful organic additions, AND, there are never any positive mutations observed, only neutral mutations. Again, the odds against are vastly higher than the tiny odds for positive mutation of novelty. This is especially obvious in the Cambrian Explosion of not just one new gene for one new organ, but for numerous new genes, all at once, which play together in amazing harmony. "
It's contradictory to state that we see neutral mutations but never beneficial mutations, as we cannot tell right away whether a neutral mutation will become advantageous / disadvantageous, later on. You brought up black-vs-white moths not too long ago. It's an example of a neutral mutation that can yield a beneficial outcome. The change of color, on its own, is neither good nor bad; it's neutral. Some moths are just different. In an environment where color does not matter, say because predators like white and black moths equally, and can perceive them as often, a mutation causing a color change is neutral: it has no effect on the survival of the mutant. However, if the change in color does have an influence on the survival rate, we can conclude that the mutation that caused the change of color was in fact beneficial, or not, depending on which way it went.
"...term which is completely without any meaning, mutation, unless it is referencing specific mutations at specific locations on DNA. Further, it is a term which is totally blind to the necessity of destroying pre-existing uses of that location on DNA, which is necessarily deleterious at the same time evolutionists claim benefit from that destruction."
This is the same principle again: your view of the cell machinery makes it impossible for changes to be neutral. Your interpretation is that changes are always breaking something. Hence, mutations affection specific locations in the DNA are necessarily making that DNA do something 'wrong', not just 'different'. You even go as far as stating that it's evolutionists who see benefits from destruction, disregarding the fact that this assumes that it is indeed destruction in the first place. In other words, you start with the view that all changes are destructive, and then point out that it's illogical to see such destruction as beneficial. Well, of course, if you label something as destructive to start with, anything contradicting that fact will appear illogical. But the problem is that you have not justified the position that any/all changes to the DNA are destructive.
" A minimum size gene, for a new novel feature contains 76 base pairs [...]"
I don't understand what the point of these calculations is, after that quote. Evolution is not about things suddenly appearing fully formed. It seems that the calculations are meant to show how unlikely it is that something complicated like a full gene would come to be, suddenly. But that's the opposite of what evolution explains: a sudden evolution towards that complex composition. So this actually support the evolutionary view: 76 base pairs, for example, are unlikely to just suddenly self-arrange.
There is actually something slightly different right after: " Remembering that mutations destroy prior DNA functionality, the probability of the viability of the Host after that destruction of 1,908 positions on the organism’s DNA occurs and the likely hood of the organism’s failure is assuredly quite high, even if completely incalculable, due to the randomness of the location of the destruction. "
But this assumes once again that a mutation is necessarily destruction. We are back to the cell machinery and its 'perfect' operation.
" Evolutionists do not speak in these terms. In my experience they NEVER acknowledge these real world mathematical arguments which destroy Darwinism at its core. "
You are right; nobody discusses evolution using these terms... except people who reject evolution. Somehow, that makes you conclude that they are purposely ignoring this type of arguments? What about the other possibility: evolutionary biologists don't speak in these terms because they are inaccurate...
"What you assume are mutations (eye color, etc.) you cannot prove to be actual mutations, except by asserting Philosophical Materialism (It must be so, there is no physical explanation for anything genomic, or even biological, other than the mystery of non-specific, unknowable mutations, which therefore must be believed)."
That's the problem of the cell machinery again. Since you believe that mutations cannot possibly occur, in the neutral sense, you claim that I am the one assuming that mutations occur. But that's because you assume that you are correct about the cell machinery being 'perfect', yet you have not demonstrated that.
On the other hand, I have given you several sources that explain what mutations are and why they happen. It’s not a 'complete' mystery; there are physical explanations for real mutations, actual changes to the DNA, not just reshuffling of stuff that was already there. Yet, you persist that your opinion is correct: neutral mutations do not really exist, because actually mutations are changes that destroy the DNA and can thus only break something, never just alter it.
Moreover, mentioning Philosophical Materialism is another red herring. Nothing we are talking about here has to do with philosophical positions regarding the nature of reality, or what it means to exist physically or non-physically. It only show a failure to support your claim that mutations are always bad, always breaking rather than just changing the existing DNA sequence.
" Intent was not mentioned, was it. Your belief is that the entire cell occurred altogether at the same time (necessary for a single source of life). "
No. I don't believe it's possible for a cell to just suddenly appear out of nowhere, fully formed. This is actually the exact opposite of abiogenesis theories and evolutionary biology. You are attacking a strawman.
" Intent was brought up by you, apparently because you wish to add it to my analysis as a straw man to attack. No such claim is made "
Ok, sure, thanks for correction. But why do you insist that the walls of the cell have a 'purpose' exactly? I was trying to understand the point of the long explanation of what a cell is. What was the point? Why are you so insistent on describing the marvelous complexity of the cell machinery? I already know that you believe it to be a perfect machine, which does not cause random mutations to occur, but was there more to it here?
"”The chemical gates of a cell are passively doing their job through chemical reactions.” Of course they are. And according to your Darwinism [...]"
Same thing here, I don't understand why you go into 'according to your Darwinism...' instead of explaining why you raised that point in the first place. You go at length to discuss how special the cell is, how the walls have a 'purpose', and you insist on that fact, but when I ask why you mentioned this, as this is nothing but an example of chemical processes, your answer is to attack 'my' interpretation? This makes no sense, you brought up the point, why don't you want to explain why? Or, perhaps there was nothing to explain because it's another straw man... because that's what you wrote after this quote, it was a huge straw man.
"That’s a huge cop out. HUGE. At some point all the components became the complete First Cell. The first ancestor of us all. Common descent, remember?"
Exact same thing again here. You brought up the concept of a first cell, then you complain that I am trying to create cope out? But it's your point, not mine... Yet, you even insist that yes, you do know what a minimal cell would look like. But you don't know Stan, because nobody does.
The description you inserted is arbitrary; it's what you think a cell needs to be, and you believe it just appeared like that it seems. But that's not what evolution states. Evolution is not concerned about how life started, but it does indicate that the first cells evolved from simpler building blocks; no evolutionary biologist would claim sudden appearance.
So, again, why do you care about the notion of a first cell? Even if it were supernaturally created by an agent, you would reject the evolution of the diversity on Earth from that cell, since you reject any kind of evolution of novel features. Hence, what you have to believe to be consistent is that complex animals were created as is. Cells don't mean anything on their own since they cannot yield multi-cellular organisms through evolutionary means.
The math can be addressed to show how your views assume this 'sudden' appearance, and affirms your bias that cells are perfect machines that cannot possibly have evolved, and cannot possible even make mistakes:
"244 genes are the minimum number of genes in known genomes (Streptococcus pneumonia). [1] The minimum gene size is 50kb (sequenced kb/gene). [2] So, the minimum possible cell requires 244x50,000 base pairs, or 12,200,000 bp, or 24,400,000 molecules of Adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine." You're talking about what we can observe today; it has no bearing on what the first self-replicating molecules were nor what the first complex cells were; meaningless numbers in that context.
"This results in the necessity of 2^24,400,000 instances of correct positioning of individual molecules in the DNA, and likely vastly underestimates both gene size and intron/exon sizes." No, that's the number of possible arrangements; another meaningless number.
The rest of the calculation being based on this initial false start, there is no point analyzing further.
One is a Creationist source whose mission statement is: "Creation Safaris (TM) is a ministry of Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation dedicated to helping young people (and adults) understand and follow God's plan for their lives, and for the whole world, as revealed in the Bible"
This is not a scientific organization; it shows why this discussion is really about intelligent design. It is not about evolution on its own, as you suggest, because the rejection of evolution is based on the strong belief that the cell machinery is an example of DESIGN, it is an example of irreducible complexity, it's an example of INTELLIGENCE in action. You are trying really really hard to avoid that, and I don't know why... because at the end of the day, it does not change anything, it's already obvious that this is what you believe and the reason why you reject evolution.
Your reasoning is ideologically driven; belief in evolution is not. The support for that statement is that many people who believe in God also accept evolution; the Catholic Church being a great example. Again, I don't know why you try to hide that... Your reasoning is logical, but it does start with a belief that I think is not supported: the cell machinery is perfect and thus clearly designed, or the other way around, it's too complex to have evolved. That's also why you posted a video with Berlinski, who is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, another religiously-driven pro-Inteligent-Design organization.
On the other hand, you also quoted Science Daily who, today by coincidence, had this article featured on their home page: "Oxygen levels were key to early animal evolution, strongest evidence now shows" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160923100751.htm But that's just another so-story?
"The lack of any objective facts should have been a trigger for you. But you still haven’t addressed the issue of Objective Facts – which I’ve been bringing up ever since you were a pup. But you make no comment on that. Instead of addressing the need for falsifiable, objective facts, you keep insisting that there ARE facts, but they always turn out to be not facts, but opinions, fatuous extrapolations, fictions created to support the Darwinian narrative. All of them. There is no attempt ever made to falsify evolution, because that would result in banishment from the cult."
Yes, I do try really hard to ignore all of your insults because I try to keep the conversion civil. Yet, you don't hold yourself to that standard. You use ridicule and conspiracy theories to support your view that the cell is an example of irreducible complexity. You claim the so-called Darwinian narrative is wrong but you misrepresent it by stating that it's all about 'sudden' appearances, the exact opposite of what it states.
"So there you have it, just as before and before and before. Nothing has changed. It’s always the same."
I disagree, we now have a much clearer understanding of what we disagree on. At least I do. I repeat, everything here, all these 8 comment blocks (assuming they all show up...) are about that 1 same thing.
" You bring stories and then you wonder what it would take to convince me that the stories are facts. You never bring atomic-level data, probability calculations, falsifiable hypotheses – none of the stuff which makes science a legitimate source of objective - yet contingent – factoids. Those do not exist because they cannot exist for the Darwinian simplistic and unfalsifiable claims. Despite those fatal deficiencies, you persist."
This is more commentary, which I try to ignore, but you seem to insist that I should reply to every single word that you write. So that's what I am doing today...
It's not my fault that you cannot differentiate between the facts and the theories, which you call stories. The theories explain the facts, which are actually based on falsifiable hypotheses, hard data, observations, objective contingent truths, etc... All you do is claim that it's all impossible; all of it. It's so ridiculously wrong. But I finally understand why so I find it more interesting than before, because this strong belief is reflected in everything you write about evolution, and it shows how you come up with mental gymnastic to make sure that nothing contradicts that basic belief.
There is this guy named Gary that said this (among other things):
This is where we humans get our "morality", our "ethics". It is an evolutionary development. We don't need an invisible god to tell us to be nice to the children in our "herd". It is an instinct, passed down in our DNA over millions of years.
”Accumulated mutations occur; period. You insert the word 'positive' because you don't believe such type of mutations can happen. This is the recurring theme here.”
It’s not just me, is it. It’s part of Kimura’s Neutral Theory… which you have denied in the past.
And as this exchange will demonstrate in its fullness, you will reject any logic, any calculations, any reasoning which doesn’t fit the bogus hypothesis, purely because it doesn’t fit the bogus hypothesis of Darwinism, along with blatant cultish authoritarianism.
”No that has not been proven. You are claiming 'irreducible complexity' as proof that something cannot have evolved. This is not a logical argument against the Theory of Evoution. It's actually a prediction of the theory; we expect to see such systems in nature if they evolved from other life forms.”
And there it is. How about this: Fuck the theory of evolution. Hurrrah for actual probable physical known facts which can lead us to realism rather than the bogus boundaries of the Cult. Just physical facts, empirically determined, applicable to life on earth.
And I love this: ” No that has not been proven.”
The ENTIRE DARWINIAN CULT is based on unproven claims. ALL OF IT. Now you want proof for the definition of a Darwinian concept: First Life. Sorry: It’s a definition; a tautology.
And now actual empirical science has proven the minimal complexity required for cell life. There is empirical evidence that the minimal requirements for First Life, are falsifiably, replicably testably and tested: irreducibly complex. It’s empirical biology. And it defeats Darwinism mathematically and rationally. Further, it is actual science; not Darwinistic claims from people who never leave their desks where they make up stuff and write books for rubes.
And don’t mix up the issues: First Life does NOT depend upon prior life(!!!) So your entire comment and thought process is off the rails completely. First Life does, in fact, as a coherent concept, absolutely require an entire working assemblage of internal components, all of which have interrelated compatibility and interdependency, which has timed replication functions, and which has a minimal size which is now empirically determined – in the lab, by actual biologists.
You have rejected actual valid science in order to preserve your belief in the fables of Darwinism.
” This has nothing to do with the point I brought forward. The mere 'possibility' of an explanation is enough to debunk the idea that it's 'impossible'.”
Seriously? That is one of the most absurd “logic” statements I have ever heard.
Szostak went forward to determine if it were possible. He failed to determine that it is possible, even in the most sophisticated laboratory conditions of modern biology. And he admitted that the creation of RNA is nothing like creating DNA, much less DNA which is information-bearing with the correct double coding for life and its functions. He failed to prove that even RNA can be created in the lab – much less that it could even just randomly assemble.
“Possible” is not a state of existence. It is a state of imagination without regard to either process, environment, or necessary complexity, or probability against actuality. And that is the reason that Reductio Ad Absurdum actually is a tenet of logical analysis.
It’s possible that I killed Jimmy Hoffa, and fed him to Democrats at their convention. But what is the probability? That’s for you to calculate. And that would take some empirical facts.
Well we’ve got empirical facts for the minimum cell size.
” And your claim IS that it is 'impossible'. You have not rationally justified the belief that the first self-replicating molecules could not have arisen through natural means,”
My claim is that believing that probabilities against X such as are rationally, mathematically determined to be so colossally negative yet do not stop belief that X is the correct answer, is irrational. Such belief is emotional due to an emotional need, not a rational conclusion.
And that applies to the first cell, a coherent unity which also contained coherent double coded DNA and functions for coherently replicating and was NOT DEAD.
” you have not justified your belief that evolution of these molecules into complex molecule is impossible, you have not justified your belief that evolution of these complex molecules into multi-cellular organisms is impossible. You justify nothing; you reject everything.”
This is your non-dialectical response: pure false rhetoric. I provided real probability calculations. I notice that evolutionists never address probabilities. Evolutionists have True Belief that First Life just came into being from minerals for no reason at all. So probabilities are merely a side-show, an annoyance which if ignored will go away. It HAD to happen, because: Darwin. Darwin created stories about that. So it’s possible, right?
And there is this: ”"And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality."
This is an example of an insult. You write tons of insults like these, and yes, I will continue to ignore them. Or perhaps you prefer me to reply back with insults of my own?'”
Actually, it is a statement of observable fact, coupled with a probability. If that is an insult, then so be it. The probability is based on this fact: if objective facts are required in order to believe a thing, then Darwinism has nothing to present, no basis for being believed, and is pure fantasy in the form of science fiction and to some extent, Scientology. Thus there is virtually zero probability that a Darwinist will ever admit to the necessity of having objective knowledge for a thing in order to believe in the thing.
I do believe I’ll stop here, for now. When I get to it, I’ll try to summarize your objections, and see which ones are empirical, objective fact-based vs. those which merely object to the source (Ad Hominem) and those which object to claims which are outside law of the Darwinian Cult… such as above.
@JB Yep, that guy Gary is correct. There is no debate. What we are having here is not a debate, it's a discussion regarding Stan's rejection of the scientific consensus in order to pinpoint exactly what/where the disagreement is about. If you are following, which would be shocking, you can see that we have now established exactly where Stan's specific views stem from. It's interesting because it all flows logically from 1 false belief: that the cell machinery is a perfect system, too complex to have arisen naturally.
"It’s not just me, is it. It’s part of Kimura’s Neutral Theory… which you have denied in the past" You reject Kimura's points; I don't. Here's an explanation: A heated debate arose when Kimura's theory was published, largely revolving around the relative percentages of alleles that are "neutral" versus "non-neutral" in any given genome. Contrary to the perception of many onlookers, the debate was not about whether natural selection does occur. Kimura argued that molecular evolution is dominated by selectively neutral evolution but at the phenotypic level, changes in characters were probably dominated by natural selection rather than genetic drift.
"actual empirical science has proven the minimal complexity required for cell life. There is empirical evidence that the minimal requirements for First Life, are falsifiably, replicably testably and tested: irreducibly complex. It’s empirical biology. And it defeats Darwinism mathematically and rationally"
No, empirical science has not proven what you advance here. You presented an example of a small cell, from which components are removed, in order to justify the idea that this is what the smallest possible cell can be. This contradicts the principles the theory of evolution is based on; it does not disprove it, it attacks a strawman.
Irreducible complexity, on the other hand, is what is expected by evolution. This is empirical biology, yes. It supports the Theory, which explains the diversity of life on Earth and its origin from simple self-reproducing molecules, all the way to complex multi-cellular organisms we see today.
In other words, the very same cell machinery that you consider to be evidence 'against' evolution is actually evidence 'for' evolution. It not only does it job so well that it allows for stability, but it also has just enough imperfection to allow for slight modifications every time an organism reproduces, enabling evolution by natural selection.
"Szostak went forward to determine if it were possible. He failed to determine that it is possible, even in the most sophisticated laboratory conditions of modern biology"
It's not because something cannot be reproduced in the lab that it cannot happen in nature. Have you found empirical evidence that abiogenesis is impossible through natural means? Of course not... research is still in progress because scientists agree that it's possible, even if nobody knows precisely how/when it happened. i.e. that was misrepresenting what Szostak has/hasn't accomplished.
"My claim is that believing that probabilities against X such as are rationally, mathematically determined to be so colossally negative yet do not stop belief that X is the correct answer, is irrational"
The claim written here is correct. Yet, you reach the wrong conclusions because of a bunch of false deductions based on 1, and only 1, false belief: that the cell machinery is a perfect system, too complex to have arisen naturally. As I explained in another comment block, which you will hopefully go back to, the calculations you provided are innacurate. They do not show that it's impossible for complex cells to have evolved naturally.
"that applies to the first cell, a coherent unity which also contained coherent double coded DNA and functions for coherently replicating and was NOT DEAD. "
You have yet to justify this claim that the first cell had to have certain precise characteristics, or even just DNA. You are saying that DNA just suddenly appeared; this is a strong claim. How can you justify it?
Stan had written: "”"And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
I replied: This is an example of an insult. You write tons of insults like these, and yes, I will continue to ignore them. Or perhaps you prefer me to reply back with insults of my own?'”
Stan replied: "Actually, it is a statement of observable fact, coupled with a probability. If that is an insult, then so be it."
Here, I was just talking about what I quoted, specifically. It was an empty statement what serves no purpose other than insulting. It's like saying 'what is true is true', well, duh...
And you wrote more after that, more in your last comment boxes... you know, the kind of things that would get me banned, but I will just continue to ignore.
Hugo, That sort of habitual false statements concerning what I actually say and have said is the precise reason that I started deleting your comments. You know that it is false. I have told you n^p times why evolution is not an empirical science. I am SO tempted to start deleting again.
It is true that this is not a debate. That's because you do not admit to the demands of having objective knowledge in order to believe a thing, and because you falsely claim the findings of actual contemporary modern biology, a REAL science based in modern life characteristics, as the facts on which evolution is grounded. The grounding for modern biology does not provide grounding for evolution. Evolution is inferred from the REAL science of modern biology by imagining stories which cannot be proven.
You cannot provide empirical, falsifiable evidence of evolution. There is none.
Therefore you believe in an unprovable proposition. Blind belief, as in religious. It is useful, in fact, as a creation story in your cult: Atheism.
Reductio Ad Absurdum: 1. First life randomly assembled itself.
2. First life was not a complete cell.
3. First life was flawed. (not a perfect set of complementary, necessary and sufficient functions; not at all like modern prokaryote life).
4. First life produced erroneous offspring, because the process was flawed and not perfect. (How an imperfect, incomplete/flawed process could actually produce offspring is ignored as an issue at this point).
5. Yet subsequent generations flourished because: evolution=mutation/selection/gradualism. (circular: use of hypothesis to prove the hypothesis). I.e., some subsequent generations contained individuals that mutated into perfect cells, containing all the functions necessary and sufficient for life (finally) including metabolic, energy acquisition and conversion, properly double coded DNA, DNA testing and DNA repair, timed DNA splitting machinery including temporary scaffolding from centomere, cell splitting containing a DNA half in each daughter cell, completing the bilateral DNA in the daughter cell before compacting the DNA into gene form, and repeat - for billions of years.
An original cell which contained partial functions, and/or incomplete replication processes, and/or faulty processes which produced faulty products, thus was defective - not perfect, containing all the necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation - still maintained life, replicated, and produced subsequent cells which functioned properly because they somehow developed the necessary proper functions, albeit late in the process of propagation of early life.
Conclusion: the idea of imperfect (faulty: without all necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation) First Life is absurd, at nearly every necessary step.
Therefore, all the necessary and sufficient elements required for life, replication, and double coded DNA absolutely must have existed and functioned properly in First Life.
Because that is rationally, statistically impossible, then that is not how it happened.
Further, there is no objective, empirical, falisifiable evidence which gives any reason to believe that it is possible, other than asserting Darwinian hypotheses as necessary Truths without evidence, and asserting the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (which depends fully on hypotheses without evidence as Truth, in the form of imagined stories).
There is no rational reason to believe that these claims must be believed, or should be defended by law.
Part 2: Molecular replicators which were not cellular. 1. An unknown molecule self-assembled and then replicated itself perfectly such that a future line of self-replicating molecules existed. Such molecules do not exist now.
2. The unknown replicators did not need a dedicated metabolic function; they existed in some unknown environment which provided adequate energy to sustain replication.
3. For some unknowable reason these replicators acquired another molecule, DNA, and its associated helper molecules.
4. This new coalition required an environment, and for some unknowable reason, developed a semipermeable membrane surrounding these molecules.
5. Now a metabolic source became necessary, so these molecules mutated one into existence.
6. These molecules also mutated into existence a timed process of DNA splitting, DNA separation, and membrane compression at the right spot to create two new cells. Thus, replicating molecules turned into replicating cells for some unknowable reason and process.
7. At this point all the new equipment was defined in the DNA genes, so the original replicating molecules just disappeared, as their job was done and they were no longer needed.
8. Alternatively, the replicator molecules actually became the DNA, which is not a replicator, it is an information carrier (memory) molecule, which is entirely different.
9. Alternatively, the replicator molecules actually became RNA molecules, which cannot replicate themselves.
10. The evidence for each step is: NONE.
11. The probability of this is: ZERO.
12. Therefore it is absurd to believe that this occurred.
Prove the story that neutral mutations can and have turned into positive mutations. The reason that there are no positive mutations is that creaming a base pair member is no advantage to the organism. The definition of a neutral mutation is that it has no effect. That means that it very likely is impossible, since every hit that a base pair takes is bound to destroy the use of that segment of DNA. So the entire concept of Neutral mutations is a fantasy. And the accumulation of such random changes into a new, advantageous gene, is preposterous. Unless, of course, you are constrained to believe even the most preposterous, because that's how the "theory" demands it.
As for moths and colors, it has been shown that both colors exist in the genome, and there is a genomic switch. There is no mutation required. The moth analogy has been discredited for quite some time.
"The claim written here is correct. Yet, you reach the wrong conclusions because of a bunch of false deductions based on 1, and only 1, false belief: that the cell machinery is a perfect system, too complex to have arisen naturally."
Your claim that incomplete/faulty cell machinery could exist, and yet replicate into complete/non-faulty cell machinery fails rational analysis. Try to prove your claim; see what happens. Reductio takes hold, and chokes out your claim.
Any process which is not equipped with the necessary and sufficient equipment, instructions, energy, initial conditions, and initiation procedure WILL NOT produce viable output. You claim otherwise. "Necessary and sufficient" means just what it says.
I have written a quick Reductio Ad Absurdum below. Your claim fails at every step. Yet it is the basis for your beliefs.
"You have yet to justify this claim that the first cell had to have certain precise characteristics, or even just DNA. You are saying that DNA just suddenly appeared; this is a strong claim. How can you justify it?"
Wrong. You, the evolution champion, have to prove that double-coded, meaningful, descriptive DNA, and its RNA and other necessary cohort molecules, were built gradually by random, accidental, accumulated constructions - over any amount of time, and finally became viable, mutually dependent systems of circular dependency. That life and replication mysteriously but demonstrably pre-existed the fully built DNA, RNA, RNAase, and all the left-handed proteins and associated processes which are now known to be fully responsible for all life and reproduction, without exception, and without any known replication process other than that; that life and replication continued without functional DNA, RNA, RNAase, etc, for the eons that it would have to take to gradually build such things, which were not viable until their slow, gradual construction was completed. That is the ACTUAL claim of evolution which is being tested.
The belief that it happened is without any rational or empirical proof. And you deny that any probability calculations can address the issue (they're all wrong, because they defy the idea that evolution is rational).
Thus there is no point in even talking with you. No point at all. You do not present facts which are testable; you do not even address any issues which are outside of the dictated true hypothesis. You constantly misrepresent what I say. You accept no logic except the illogic of Darwinism/evolution.
Maybe, nobody knows. It could still be something else; non-random, non-natural. The point I am making is that it's possible that it was just random assembly of existing organic material. That's what the field of Abiogenesis is trying to figure out. Such as what the video I posted shows ; will you ever address the actual points it is making?
Unfortunately, your line of reasoning for this proof by 'Reductio Ad Absurdum' attempt failed already, since it did not accurately represent the situation, but let's see what else there is...
"2. First life was not a complete cell."
Most likely... but again, it's not impossible that some complex cell was put on Earth, as is. There is that somewhat crazy scenario of extraterrestrial life making its way to Earth, for instance. But that's irrelevant when it comes to Evolution Theory, which works backward from today's observation and extrapolates back in the past, really really far back in the past. But it does not go as far as the first living things themselves; the Theory is silent on the exact start of Life itself because, again, that's Abiogenesis.
"3. First life was flawed. (not a perfect set of complementary, necessary and sufficient functions; not at all like modern prokaryote life)."
All life is 'flawed' in the sense that it reproduces imperfectly. This does include modern prokaryote life.
But you use the word 'flawed' in a different way, it seems. This is because of your notion that the cell is a 'perfect' machine; hence you see it as 'flawed', or broken, if it does not work perfectly.
In reality, this is just the way things are; they are neither flawed nor perfect, living things are all reproducing imperfectly, but that's not even a flaw per se, that's an evolutionary advantage. This is why sexual reproduction, for example, gives an advantage, as it mixes up the genes and thus spans more variety.
"4. First life produced erroneous offspring, because the process was flawed and not perfect. (How an imperfect, incomplete/flawed process could actually produce offspring is ignored as an issue at this point)."
Same problem with the word 'erroneous' here. All life is 'erroneous' in that sense; it reproduces imperfectly. But it's not really a problem, or a flaw, it's just the way living things work. Being able to reproduce with modifications is actually essential for evolution to happen. Nothing is ignored as you suggested.
"5. Yet subsequent generations flourished because: evolution=mutation/selection/gradualism. (circular: use of hypothesis to prove the hypothesis). I.e., some subsequent generations contained individuals that mutated into perfect cells, containing all the functions necessary and sufficient for life (finally) including [...]"
No, there never was any thing that mutated into perfect cells, you are the one who believes there is such a thing as 'perfect cells', without good reasons. You start with that faulty belief that 'perfect cells' exist and then conclude that evolution is false because it could not work with 'perfect cells': they make no mistake, never mutate and thus never give rise to new species. That's true, Evolution wouldn't work with perfect cells, and that's what your rejection of evolution is based on: evolution cannot happen because it requires imperfect cells, but that cannot be the case because cells are perfect. But why would anyone believe cells are perfect? Certainly not because of research such as Kimura's, which do not contradict evolution by natural selection nor the variation within the genome of organisms...
I.e. the Theory of Evolution is based on the observations, the empirical fact, that organisms reproduce imperfectly. Variation has always been the grounding behind the Theory. DNA only confirmed that there is indeed a mechanism that can account for those variations.
" An original cell which contained partial functions, and/or incomplete replication processes, and/or faulty processes which produced faulty products, thus was defective - not perfect, containing all the necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation - still maintained life, replicated, and produced subsequent cells which functioned properly because they somehow developed the necessary proper functions, albeit late in the process of propagation of early life."
We are just talking about self-reproduction here, nothing else; just chemical processes causing reproduction. As these self-reproducing systems multiplied, with modifications, the better ones survived, evolved. It does not matter what the exact starting point was because, again, that's what Abiogenesis is about, not the Theory of Evolution.
"Conclusion: the idea of imperfect (faulty: without all necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation) First Life is absurd, at nearly every necessary step.
Therefore, all the necessary and sufficient elements required for life, replication, and double coded DNA absolutely must have existed and functioned properly in First Life.
Because that is rationally, statistically impossible, then that is not how it happened."
The idea of 'perfect' life is absurd, be it the first self-replicating molecules, the first complex cells, or today's living things. None of that is 'perfect' in the sense you need them to be in order to claim that evolution is false and that living things could not have had a natural start. You are attacking a straw man, a comical representation of what Biology studies.
Then, there was another deduction presented, starting with: "Part 2: Molecular replicators which were not cellular. 1. An unknown molecule self-assembled and then replicated itself perfectly such [...]"
You start with the word 'perfectly' again, yet this concept makes no sense when it comes to living things. No point addressing all of this deduction as well.
More repeated links, from the Big History Project, which explain better than I can what we know, or don't, about the origins of Life on Earth and what the likely scenarios are.
"That sort of habitual false statements concerning what I actually say and have said is the precise reason that I started deleting your comments. You know that it is false. I have told you n^p times why evolution is not an empirical science. I am SO tempted to start deleting again."
A) Who cares? Delete my comments if you want; it's completely inconsequential. There are actually a few reasons why you would do that of course. It could be because I am not being civil, but that would be false. It could be because you are getting tired, yet unable to just ignore, which could be the case. It could be because it proves you wrong, which you certainly are. Or something else? Of course, your answer is that I am being illogical and dogmatic... but the 3 comments under the == SCIENTIFIC CONTENT == label above are consistent with modern biology. Your views aren't; it's that simple.
B) What you know is that the entire field of Biology is on my side. Your way of discounting that fact is by stating that Evolution is not Biology, which is a complete lie. The example of Kimura, one of many, is very telling. You completely misunderstood what his research was about and you completely disregard his conclusions and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I pointed that out to you, yet you ignored it in that last set of comments, just like you did the last time. If we are to continue having exchanges on that topic, it will come up again for sure, because you keep re-using the same faulty arguments are.
That explains why most of what you write is nothing but empty insults, like what I am quoting and replying to right now. And even though I remain civil in my discourse, and focus on the empirical facts of science.
" It is true that this is not a debate. That's because you do not admit to the demands of having objective knowledge in order to believe a thing, and because you falsely claim the findings of actual contemporary modern biology, a REAL science based in modern life characteristics, as the facts on which evolution is grounded. The grounding for modern biology does not provide grounding for evolution. Evolution is inferred from the REAL science of modern biology by imagining stories which cannot be proven.
You cannot provide empirical, falsifiable evidence of evolution. There is none.
Therefore you believe in an unprovable proposition. Blind belief, as in religious. It is useful, in fact, as a creation story in your cult: Atheism."
How can we summarize that? 'NO NO NO nononononono, Evolution is false!!!! It's an Atheist conspiracy! Har Har!'
That's all there is here, but said with over 100 words. You cannot help but just write these same platitudes over and over again. Plus, let me repeat this fact again: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DISAGREES WITH YOU. How can you still call this an Atheism-cult related issue? That's the biggest mistake of it all. It shows how emotional YOU are about that topic. I could not care less whether Evolution is true or false, it does not inform any grand philosophical question. But what I do care about is the spread of misinformation, especially scientifically proven information, and that is what the intelligent design crowd does. It's a disservice to humanity, and you are contributing to it. Therefore, it's interesting to pinpoint the reasons why people like you think that way, in order to better understand the source of this irrationality.
The point I am making is that it's possible that it was just random assembly of existing organic material. That's what the field of Abiogenesis is trying to figure out. Such as what the video I posted shows ; will you ever address the actual points it is making?
It is not even conceivably possible that the first cell was randomly assembled. You make these claims without any analysis of the problems with that. You merely jump to your conclusions, because the actual issues involved don’t matter to you, so long as you think you can make a case for Darwinism/evolution. Address the actual issues for a change, rather than making general assumptions which make no sense whatsoever.
Why don’t you make the points so I don’t have to waste time on bogus videos? I watched all of Szostak’s videos, and in the final video, he tells why he gave up.
”Unfortunately, your line of reasoning for this proof by 'Reductio Ad Absurdum' attempt failed already, since it did not accurately represent the situation, but let's see what else there is...”
That is not a refutation, it is self-contradictory, coming immediately after admitting that you don’t know what happened, then you claim that the “necessary and sufficient” empirical baseline is not what ould possibly have happened. You really do think I’m stupid, or you would not make such claims – which no one would ever believe. You just write off that which actually falsifies the entire Darwinian proposition, because you cannot defeat it. You do not address most of that which I present, you just say to the effect, well it doesn’t fit Darwinism/evolution so it’s wrong. When in actually, Darwinism/evolution does not and cannot fit logic, and is therefore an empty hypothesis which is not worthy of any respect at all.
”But that's irrelevant when it comes to Evolution Theory, which works backward from today's observation and extrapolates back in the past, really really far back in the past. But it does not go as far as the first living things themselves; the Theory is silent on the exact start of Life itself because, again, that's Abiogenesis.”
I know that that is the current propaganda. It is false. Common descent, as a concept requires First Life, and its descent. But evolutionists, in their very cowardly way, try to gloss over that essential element. As with all of this, we have discussed this in great detail, and you ignore everything I say, and merely claim that it can’t be right because the actual logic doesn’t fit into Darwinism/evolution. That is inverted rationalization, and is anti-rational. If Darwinism/evolution can’t accommodate the empirical facts, and it cannot, then it is wrong. Period. It is not the case that the facts must fit Darwinism/evolution, or the facts are wrong, because that is blind belief while rejecting reality: a religious cult rationalization.
And you effectively destroy your own claim of “using current observation and extrapolating back into the past” when you claim offhandedly that the Reductio is just wrong, with no reason or reasons given except that it doesn’t fit Darwinism/evolution, and that again is backward reasoning, and is anti-rational.
”All life is 'flawed' in the sense that it reproduces imperfectly. This does include modern prokaryote life.”
Again with the Equivocation of terms. You wish to believe that there is no exact reproduction of a cell, no completion of procreation which is not flawed. That was empirically disproved by the Lenski Long Term Cellular Evolution experiment, which looked at thousands of generations of e coli replication in order to find mutations. One set of strain acquired a negative mutation, loss of DNA repair capability, and went on to acquire many neutral mutations. (cause of the mutations is not known, or at least not stated).
You use the terms “flawed” and “erroneous” to describe the system which works perfectly, producing minor variations as its function permits. But these are not flaws; there is no erroneous operation if the system produces what the system is set up to produce, working perfectly according to its function and material input. Those minor variations do not apply to macro-evolution, which requires deviations (positive mutation) away from the normal operation of the replication system. The system which performs as it should without producing anything outside of the expectation of the output of the machinery and input material, is producing an output which is the necessary and sufficient replication which is expected. Mutations are unexpected flaws, introduced by unknown sources outside of the replication process, which force the replication process to produce an output which is outside the expectation. As the Lenski long term experiment shows, when these occur they are either neutral or negative, with a rate of one “positive” mutation per trillion.
Next you corrupt the meaning of the term “perfect”, which is an undefined concept unless you use the definition which I provided: the necessary and sufficient, correct output of the uncorrupted process machinery and the uncorrupted material input, thereby conforming to the replication expectation of the process and material input.
You claim that there is no such thing as a perfect cell, one which faithfully represents the expectation of the replication process. That is absurd. Your Equivocation of the terms leads to a false belief. That false belief leads to false conclusions, as is the nature of false beliefs.
It is a fact that, without external tampering which causes mutations, the output of the biological replication system does, indeed, produce daughter cells which are, indeed, necessarily and sufficiently within the expectation of the process/material, and are, indeed, capable of sustaining life and replication as expected, without terminal blemish or defect.
”But why would anyone believe cells are perfect? Certainly not because of research such as Kimura's, which do not contradict evolution by natural selection nor the variation within the genome of organisms...”
Why would anyone believe that all cells are faulty? The very idea is absurd. And Kimura’s work has nothing to do with normal process variability, it describes mutations, not normal processes of replication.
You still seem unable to separate macro from micro. You still want to claim that unmutated processes/materials produce “evolution”, which is a general term being misused to confuse normal variation contained within a genome with generation of differentiating novel, beneficial features/organs, never seen before (macro-evolution). I thought we had that settled.
But it is not settled, because now you claim that there is only faulty replication; there is no replication which conforms to the specifications of the process/material/DNA genomic expectation. Why you want this false concept to be accepted is not yet clear, but it cannot lead to any correct conclusion because it is blatantly false. Here is your statement where you regress to micro-evolution, which is never, ever the subject here:
”I.e. the Theory of Evolution is based on the observations, the empirical fact, that organisms reproduce imperfectly. Variation has always been the grounding behind the Theory. DNA only confirmed that there is indeed a mechanism that can account for those variations.”
And that is why the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is false. The micro-evolutionary theory of Darwin cannot be true. The genome must be changed – mutated – for the very idea of evolution to even make sense at the narrative level, much less at the molecular level. That was the obvious reason for the generation of the “MODERN SYNTHESIS”, some 70 years ago. And now even that is challenged internally with the EXTENDED SYNTHESIS”, because it is obvious that even random mutation cannot produce novelty.
Why do you persist with the discarded notion that evolution=(normal variation)*(time)? Evolutionary theory has moved on. You haven’t.
And finally, because you have no concept of how it actually could have occurred, you reject any intellectual responsibility for the most important evolutionary event of all: evolution of First Life from minerals.
I was on Metacrock's blog this week, and Ryan (a frequent poster on Skeppy's blog) was ripping on Pogge's definition of evolution (the guy on the Science against Evolution blog). Here is what he said:
Do not use that "Science against Evolution" site as a source. Their definition of "evolution" is not the evolution studied by biologists. Their definition of evolution is actually abiogenesis + the belief that all living things have a common origin. While abiogenesis is often studied by some biologists, it is not a logical implication of what biologists call "evolution", and in fact many theistic believers in evolution would be surprised to see abiogenesis added to the definition of evolution (Kenneth Miller, for example).
I told Pogge about that, and he re-directed me to an article of his. In that article, he said that evolutionists exclude abiogenesis when it is good for their purpose. Is this true?
Part of Rhetorical defense is the scheme to limit the discussion to only those points that you can actually make a rhetorical case for or against. In other words, defense means to eliminate concepts which are 100% destructive to your position. Abiogenesis is 100% destructive to the principle of Philosophical Materialism. Philosophical Materialism is substituted into the faux science of evolution as the replacement for Voluntary Materialism of real science. Physical sciences depend upon physical testing and falsification to determine if a hypothesis is contingently valid.
Evolution has no possibility of testing the stories created in support of evolution, and thus has no need for Voluntary Materialism. Instead, full Philosophical Materialism is asserted in order to "prevent a divine foot" from entering a doorway.
So the definition of evolution must stop before the obvious falsifier can be introduced. That is prevented by defining that falsifier OUT of the realm of evolution, a transparently false definition, considering that the First Life had to accomplish the magnificent feat of evolving from non-living atoms and minerals.
That also is the reason that evolutionists never, ever, address probabilities of necessary evolution events in a straight-on manner. Since evolution is purely a mountain of rhetorical, non-falsifiable stories, then rhetoric is the only tool available to defend evolution.
Therefore all sorts of rationalizations will be given to avoid direct confrontations with the inherent incoherences, self-referencing, non-falsifiability, and damaging evidence such as the necessity of the evolution of First Life from dead minerals.
The principle of "rhetoric only" for evolution leads to avoidance and denialism as the sole responses to the fallacies, non-coherence, and constant Appeals to Authority which are charged against the evolution True Believer. Rhetoric is necessary because they have no dialectic case at all.
Rhetoric is the "skill" of convincing an audience without resorting to demonstrable objective facts, and rather using rationalizations and stories as if they were facts. When an audience becomes skeptical, the rhetoric is stepped up to ever higher levels of rationalizations, attacks, denialism, and self-righteousness, all in protection of a cherished but non-falsifiable (blind belief) principle.
Thanks for your input. Yes, Ryan seems to disapprove of anyone other than biologists working in the field to comment on Evolution (he said that you aren't qualified). To that, I said that you can't trust scientists too much.
If a science is not based in the fundamentals of logic, it is both not a science, and not a rational pursuit. Scientists are not more capable of determining logical properties than are those who are trained in logic. In fact, because they are attached to their own hypotheses, for their own gain and egos, they are less able.
The least able to determine the logic quality of a proposition are those who adhere to it for ideological reasons. And that is the reason that Evolution is a success. The hypothesis is valued ideologically far over the valuation given to actual logic and rationality. Were it not the creation story of Atheism, evolution would have been a dead backwater in the history of "science" failures.
It sure is quiet. Here's a quote I found regarding the famed carbon dating. Prof. Jo Brew, Nobel symposium, Sweden 1969: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it."
325 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 325 of 325”What the Cambrian Explosion actually refers to is a period of a few million years during which we can see the appearance of most of the phyla that are still around today. This does not mean that every single member of each of these phyla appeared at the time, and it certainly did not happen instantaneously. Basically, the theory is that there were already some multicellular eukaryote organisms, which were reproducing sexually, but they were not yet as complex.”
That is blindly cramming fantasy which is not provable into the geological step function of the Cambrian Explosion. It is not the case that Darwin’s Theory is the current thinking on the subject, precisely because of the fossil record which refutes gradualism.
To take one example, before the Cambrian period, no fossils with exoskeleton, or shell, were found in the rocks. The idea is to then try to figure out if the Theory of Evolution fits with the evidence; did the exoskeletons appear through incremental changes in the fossil records? Are the descendants all related to the original shell type? If there is more than 1 type of shell, do they each trace back to a common ancestor from which they could evolve? The answer to these questions is always 'yes', we can find exactly what we would expect if the theory were true. There is no sudden impossible/unexplainable jump, there is no sudden reversal of the process, no variation in the common traits inherited from the theoretical common ancestors, etc... “
“could”? I don’t care about “could”. Could is not a fact. You have no facts. REAL SCIENCE is about facts.
Another example of what a so-called macro-evolutionary "event" might look like was presented in a series of videos I linked to , a few times already:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0C606FE36BEDAC75
Try to internalize this: I care about facts. I don’t care one whit about stories that “might look like” something or other. You don’t care about facts; that is obvious. So it doesn’t bother you to keep producing ever more stories which are FACT-FREE.
Of course, there is not a literal unique event, but the narrator does point out, at the end of the 4th video, Foundations of Feliforme Families :
"This is how it begins. Imagine …”
I don’t care about imaginary stuff. I care about facts. You can imagine anything you want – imagining it doesn’t make it valid or true, it makes it fantasy. Pure fantasy. “Imagine” is the description of the entire evolutionary enterprise. “Imagine” all this stuff actually happened; then “bazambo!”, evolution becomes “A Fact AND A Theory”, and an imaginary story.
It’s pitiful, really.
”This is not about the Cambrian Explosion but it actually makes it much easier to detail and understand, because that's the branching for all of the Canines and Felines that we see today. We can trace the ancestry of these animals using DNA just like we can trace the ancestry of literal cousins alive today. We can then compare the fossil records and relationships between living animals to try to see if the Theory holds up. And yes, of course, the best explanation remains that there were some literal cousins who went on to each have descendants that are now completely different from the common ancestors of all Canines and all Felines, but it is a fact that they do have these common ancestors; they are the product of macro-evolution, i.e. the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time.”
See? It is NOT a fact. It is a presumption which is an extrapolation of current facts about DNA, a presumption which is built to “imagine” this or that which “might be” because it can’t be falsified.
It has now been “proven” by DNA that dogs and wolves are not that closely related, but had to have some unknown and unknowable “common ancestor(s)”. DNA extrapolations beyond one generation are all bull. An ancestor which is 500 generations back has only 1/2500 parts available to the allele/DNA of the current generation, even if it is not completely allele-deselected by homozygous rejection along the way. Go ahead and refute that. Oh I know: Darwin didn’t accept Mendelian genetics.
In India, the electrical switches in both homes and commercial space are quite different from what we are used to see in the US. They tend to have these giant 20-switch panels; and they also have ON/OFF switches on each electrical outlet. And the bigger appliances, such as air conditioner units, have bigger ones that look like what we see in our bathrooms here: switches with incorporated breakers. The ones with the usual red and white buttons for test and reset basically. They are usually in bathroom for safety purposely. Anyway, you know what I am talking about...
The difference tough is that, in India, they also use these as ON/OFF switches. And I always thought that was rather strange, since you would think that using a breaker as an ON/OFF switch is not ideal. Breakers are supposed to be emergency devices that trip in case of an unusual high current, before something else gets damaged. But using them as switches, I thought, would probably be damaging the breaker sooner than expected, and making it to be a very expensive switch basically.
I even read online a bit about it; I was curious to know if it was indeed a bad idea to use a breaker as an ON/OFF switch. Most electricians seem to agree that it's a bad idea. Some say it might not really make a difference in the end tough, since you might not end up turning it ON and OFF that often after all. So, it seems that my general impression was correct; it's a bad idea to use the breaker as a switch when you don't have to; not horrible, but just not the best usage for such device. A/C units always have some other form of control anyway; they have either a remote or some controls on the unit itself.
So I always avoided using the breaker as switches, even when that's what everyone in India does. And it was always weird to see people press that big red button to stop a unit instead of just using the button on the A/C unit. It's like someone turning OFF their hair dryer, in the bathroom, by pressing the breaker button on the wall switch.
Except that... it's not the same at all, after all.
Last time I was in Kolkata, last June, we went out with some cousins and one of them was explaining what her company does; they make electrical equipment, including switches and breakers, among other things. So it suddenly struck me that maybe she could explain why people in India use breakers as switches. I was just curious to know if there were a reason I was not aware of. And the restaurant we were at had 8 units all around us so that made it easy to point out to!
"Oh no, these are not breakers, they are starters!"
Wait, they are not breakers? Well, no... it turns out that they 'look like' the breakers we have in our bathrooms, but it turns out that they are starters, designed for that task of turning ON/OFF equipment operating at higher powers. And I knew what starters were; I have worked with that kind of parts a lot before actually, during a summer job doing inventory work at a printer shop. Now, this finally made a lot more sense! I felt so silly to have assumed all of this time that these things were breakers. And for the few days I had left in India after that, I kept reading the tiny characters on each device to see the words: motor starter . If only I had just read what's written on these things instead of assuming they were breakers.
This made me so happy and so thrilled. I had been wrong and now I knew exactly why. It was a small thing but I was so wrong about it, and for so long, that it was really interesting to learn about it. This was my 7th visiting India already so it's not as if I had no chance to read that text before. But, most of the time, the switches are either not that easily accessible, or simply manipulated by someone else.
So what's the point of that little story?
The point is that being proven wrong is something that I personally embrace. I can be very stubborn sometimes; I am not easily convinced, especially about things I think I am certain about. But it's not because I don't want to be proven wrong. It's actually the opposite; it's because I like to be proven wrong and learned from these mistakes that I am so stubborn about certain things. At the same time, I remain open minded and try to find flaws in some of the ideas I hold. I actually don't like this thing of being too certain about something. It makes me uncomfortable; it makes me wonder whether I am missing something since it seems "too good to be true" in a kind of way.
This came up last Wednesday actually, in class. We had this case study where we are to decide whether a car racing team should participate in an upcoming race or not. The challenge is to evaluate the pros and cons of racing versus not racing. Not racing meant losing a big potential sponsorship, forfeiting the entry fee to the race and ending the seasons slightly in the red in terms of budget. But, it also meant that the current biggest sponsor would remain and would avoid an engine failure. As this was the problem for the other side: the conditions in the scenario were that it was really cold, and the car had seen issues in cold weather before. In fact, it was the coldest the car would ever run in. At the same time, the stats that were given to us were only partial; there did not seem to be a serious correlation between temperature and engine failures. And the rewards, should the team win, were huge. It would add the biggest sponsor yet, for that team, some national TV exposure, and a good chance of being a top finisher, with big cash prize. But the risk was also higher, as losing the engine might mean losing both the sponsors, having to replace an expensive engine, and essentially being worse off than not running at all.
We had time to prepare the case on our own, before class, and then were put in groups of 3 to try to argue whether the team should race or not. All 3 in my team had already come up with the same conclusion: yes, we should race. Even without looking at the expected $$ value of each scenario and their likelihood, it seemed to us that not racing made the team look weak, scared, and that does not look good. It's hard to place a number on that but we thought it would be worse than racing and crashing, even if it meant a loss of money, as the team could argue that they at least tried, and that might convince sponsors to stick around anyway, instead of leaving a team of "wuss" who wouldn't even try.
But throughout the discussion, even if it seemed to us that it was obvious that racing was better, even given the risk at hand, I kept wondering... are we missing something? What are the other teams saying to convince themselves not to run? Because we knew that not all teams in the class would agree that racing was the best. It turned out that roughly 1/3 decided not to. Plus, and I mentioned that to my teammates, I felt like we might be in the same positions as NASA before the catastrophic launch of the space shuttle Challenger. It was a similar scenario where the temperature was much lower than any other launches, and engineers tried to warn them, but the pressure to go was strong as there was a teacher on board and the NASA administration was getting tired of constant delays.
Well, we know what happened to Challenger... and it turns out that the case study we were doing was exactly the same. What we did not know is that there was actually a lot more data points than what was given to us. The races when the engine did not fail were all at much higher temperature so it turns out that the temperature was actually highly correlated with the success/failure of the engine. Plus, we were not explicitly told what the odds of being a top-5 finisher were so we just assumed it was the same as previous races, which turned out to be completely wrong since that race included a lot of better team. This meant that the team should definitely 'not' run, as the risk of an engine failure was much higher than we thought and the odds of finishing 'in the money' was really low. And... the professor even ended up discussing the Challenger case and what we can learn from that.
But what does this have to do with Evolution?
Well, nothing directly, of course. But the discussion has never been just about the Theory of Evolution anyway. I thought it should be, but you refuse to keep it focused on biology Stan. You keep including comments on the use of logic, as if it was not applied for that field of research, and you keep mentioning how it's just a big fairy tale that offers nothing but support for failed philosophical ideas. But what if it's only because you don't understand it, don't look at the data correctly, and refuse to actually revisit what you 'think' you already know about the topic? You know what I think about it, obviously. I think that this is exactly what's happening here. The fact that you keep making the same mistakes over and over again and refuse to correct these errors is the proof that you are not truly re-evaluating what you think is the correct interpretation of the data.
Plus, you also added this time that I am the one who cannot correct his mistakes. And that's why I thought of that story about the Indian motor starters and the more recent car racing case study. Because the thing they have in common is this idea that it's interesting to be proven wrong, it's interesting to challenge assumptions, it's interesting to learn from our mistakes.
If it were the case about Evolution, I might have learned something from you, Stan. Just like I learned about a bunch of other things and changed my position accordingly, as I mentioned just a few weeks ago. But I am not learning anything from you on that topic. Or, actually, I am learning something but it's not about the topic itself: I am learning about the psychology behind the denial of that scientific field of study and, at the same time, only confirming why my understanding is correct. Because every time you write something that sounds off, or wrong, or new, I try to figure out if that is the one thing that might make me revise some of the ideas I have about evolution. But that never happened. It actually only made me understand some of the subtle points about evolution better, and what we do know for sure, versus what is just speculation. The case of James Shapiro, for instances, was the best thing so far. Unless you visit anti-evolution sources who take his quotes out of context, Shapiro makes a lot of good points about why some old ideas regarding evolution are wrong. But he does not refute the basic facts; he embraces them.
"There is no question that evolutionary novelties arise. We see them in the genome sequence record. And we know in considerable detail the underlying molecular mechanisms for many of these changes. We regularly observe the same processes occurring in real time in our laboratories and fields.
The fact that evolution science changes over time with new molecular evidence should not be surprising to anybody. That is how science works. [...] There is much that remains to be learned about the evolutionary process. Many problems remain without known solutions. But the sources of genome variation, including rapid changes throughout the genome, are no longer mysterious. We can describe how dozens of them occur in detail, down to the level of individual phosphodiester linkages in novel DNA structures. "
Unfortunately, I don't know why you don't embrace that same attitude toward the Theory of Evolution. I assume you might like to be proven wrong as well, in other cases, but it's not happening here. Or perhaps I am wrong, and you really despise being proven wrong and would rather just ignore subjects where it does happen; perhaps some form of misplaced pride where you would rather stick to your story instead of admitting mistakes. Because the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and refuse to look at the big picture about evolution, and why we know that it's accurate, makes you look strangely dogmatic on something that has no consequences whatsoever on your life.
And since this is the topic, after all, I want to make sure I do include responses/comments on the latest bits about evolution that were covered here, and in the other threads with all the quotes. This is very long already, so I won't quote and just list the elements that were raised. Nothing is new in any case, so it's just a summary of the latest points regarding evolution:
- You still think that the quotes, from people such as Shapiro, support your view that novel features cannot arise naturally through evolution, even if that's exactly what he says. You don't understand that he is only arguing about the details of 'how' evolution works, not 'if' it works, to create new species with completely novel features. Shapiro clearly agrees that common descent is a fact and that evolution over long periods of time, i.e. macro-evolution, is responsible for the diversity of living things on Earth.
- You still think that the Theory of Evolution is 'just' a story. But it's much more than that. Yes, it is 'a' story but it's 'the' best story we have to explain why we see all the millions of species around us today. Biology studies these animals and its branch that focuses on 'how' they came to be that way is Evolutionary Biology. They go hand in hand and cannot be dissociated from each other. They are part of the same scientific whole.
- You still think that nothing could disprove the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact that you listed an example of something that would falsify it: finding out that all of the phyla appeared simultaneously. You requested that as some example of 'evidence' for the theory when it would actually disprove it. With that 1 request, you have simultaneously (pun intended) shown that you still don't understand the Cambrian explosion period AND given proven that the Theory is falsifiable. But you repeat that this is just a fictional story nonetheless, with no falsification possible.
- You still don't understand the various mechanisms that cause living things to evolve. You ignore the modern findings in the field of evo-devo, which Darwin for example couldn't possibly know about, as if they had nothing to offer in terms of explanation. Somehow, you think that knowing how evolution can work both rapidly and slowly is disproving the entire Theory. You simply don't understand that gradual changes are always the cause of evolution, even if we now know that some jumps can be bigger than others because of regulatory genes. That's why you wrongly state that nothing is specific; you refuse to look at the details, the causes, the mechanisms, and everything that actually explain how evolution works.
- You still don't understand how to properly use the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. They are simple qualifier that are used for nothing but time references. You're the one who insist on using them as you think that there is a clear cut difference between the two. You think that 'micro' is what we see within a genome, as in all cats evolved from one, or a few, original cats but they are still cats; but then you think that 'macro' is that mysterious jump, that magical thing that cannot be proven, which makes the whole Theory fall apart. For you, the 'macro' part of Evolution is just a story, just a fantasy. You simply don't understand that changes in individual can lead entire population of animals to change over time, when isolate from each other. You cannot wrap your head around the fact that it's the accumulation of these so-called 'micro' change that give rise to long-term, i.e. 'macro', changes over populations.
- You still don't understand the difference between species and why the descendants of a certain species will always be part of that "species", even if we stop using that label for classification purpose. You still think that your questions about it relevant, as when you ask about dogs giving birth to non-dogs, or frogs to non-frogs, and now feline to non-feline. You simply don't understand anything about how species diverge from a common ancestor and always remain part of that ancestor's branch, forever. In short, you did not address the explanation of the origins of felines and canines from a common ancestor; you choose to ignore such examples of 'macro' evolution. Or you choose to ignore watching the explanations; nobody can tell. All we can tell is that you don't understand how small changes, micro-evolution, lead to big changes over time, macro-evolution. You don't understand that there is just 1 overall process, evolution by natural selection, which is driven by many local and specific processes, which are studied by biologists in order to come up with the best "story", the best explanation, the best scientific Theory.
- You still think that museums of natural history, and the scientists that work on the exhibits and underlying research, are just telling unsupported stories with no basis in fact. I wanted to know if you visited in order to then ask you what you think of the information presented and how it's supported. But I did not need to ask; you made it clear right away even without asking. You think that the bones are just placed like that in order to tell a story. You completely deny the decades of research that are behind these exhibits. You deny that there are millions of specimens used to create the "story", which is simplified for the purpose of explaining it to the public. You think that it's all just stuff placed in a desired order when, in reality, it's the result of hard work based on objective data available to all researchers.
- You don't understand what a DNA clock is. That one was new, but not surprising unfortunately. Instead of trying to understand what it means when we talk about a DNA clock, you jumped to more vague comments on how it's all based on fictional stories. You simply don't want to look into what it means and how it can be use to make predictions and estimates as to 'what' animal we can find in the fossil record and 'when' they probably lived. This is an example of testable, replicable hypothesis that are used to make prediction as to what we'll find when digging in certain layers. But you see it as a silly thing; you even laugh at the notion of predicting findings about the past. Because this is all a joke to you; it's not something you study seriously, unless it's for the purpose of writing something on your blog that denies the Theory, of course.
There would be more but, I think you were right about one thing, when you said that I should back and focus more on my MBA. That's true, because there is nothing to learn from you, unfortunately. You are intellectually repugnant and a bigot; the two things you just accused me of. I merely pointed out that some physicist you quoted happens to be a Christian who thinks it's relevant to mention his religion on his only bio available, publicly. And you call that being a bigot? That's rich coming from a guy who said that he would make sure he is armed, should he learn a Muslim couple is in his house, a guy who lumps all Atheist/Leftist leaning people together in order to call them all sorts of names, and a guy who has repeatedly insulted me, personally, for no reason other than I disagree with him. You even suggested I was a troll when I am using my real name and tried to help reduce the annoyance caused by some troll over a year ago, someone who even tried to expose my actual address. Yet, I continue insisting that you sound like a smart person and that we just disagree. I am starting to think that I am stupid to continue doing that because, I am not the bigot here, Stan. You are. Not always, of course, but often enough...
Finally, you will ignore all of that, as promised, right? That's the only honest thing to do. We are done here, as you said. There is nothing I can learn from you and you are not interested in fixing your mistakes. So, if you reply, you will just prove that you are not only intellectually repugnant in your approach to Evolutionary Biology, as you will surely just spit out more lies about Biology, but also not even able to keep your word regarding a simple promise: letting it go. Though, I really doubt I will be proven wrong... you won't be able to not reply with more insults, more denial, more har! har!, more lies about what I write, more lies about what scientists say, more lies about what we can/cannot infer from Biology, and so on. That's what you did with im-skeptical after all, right? You banned the guy from your blog but then you keep writing about him because your buddy JB sends you link to his site... pathetic. But again, you could prove me wrong, and simply not reply, because you have nothing to add here anyway. Which will it be this time?
p.s. As an overall summary of the "story" of evolution, and how it fits with the rest of the scientific explanations available to us, I wanted to share these links for some time; might be the right moment since we reached a stopping point:
Taxonomy: Life's Filing System - Crash Course Biology #19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F38BmgPcZ_I
Evolution: It's a Thing - Crash Course Biology #20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo
Big History Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6MZ3dJaoU
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4e9AQVlcJTQdxGeeApugAEomCc02lchm
These few things are the best summary of how all life is related, why evolution is the best explanation to have for why it is the case, and where does the evolutionary story fits into the overall story of our universe, planet and the people living on it. It's a summary of what we, humans, collectively know right now about how things came to be. It does not imply any philosophical conclusions regarding the nature of reality itself, but it is the best explanation we can give, so far, regarding how things came to be the way they are today. And since this blog is supposed to be about Atheism, let's point out that this does not, in any way, disprove the existence of gods. There are lots we don't know about, but the core facts remain and we can only try to refine the story and make it more accurate. Denying that this is part of what we know is just that, denial.
Hugo Says,
“…you keep mentioning how it's just a big fairy tale that offers nothing but support for failed philosophical ideas. But what if it's only because you don't understand it, don't look at the data correctly, and refuse to actually revisit what you 'think' you already know about the topic? You know what I think about it, obviously. I think that this is exactly what's happening here.”
How many times have I said that I’m completely open to empirical facts, determined using a rigorous, disciplined scientific method? By now, maybe hundreds of times. Yet: nothing but stories do you bring to the table. And then, with clock-like precision comes the following: Stan, you’re ignorant; you need to educate yourself, you don’t understand it like I do, etc. ad nauseum. And yet when I present the quotations of others regarding things like micro/macro, the death of Darwinism due to new biological findings and so on, you denigrate the experts because they do not reflect YOUR understanding of evolution. Your understanding of evolution is, frankly, at the grammar school level: pure Darwinian gradualism from common ancestor to all species.
You have denied that micro/macro is an issue. I showed you expert testimony otherwise. No response.
You have maintained that deep time and gradualism = evolution. I have showed you expert testimony otherwise. No response.
Further, I have provided the calculations which show the massive improbability of any of the claims actually happening – so improbable that rationally speaking it did.not.happen. No response.
Well, no response to the actual evidence, anyway. The response is the standard evolutionist wail: “you are ignorant; you just don’t understand it the way that I understand all the FACTS which compel belief in the absolute Truth of evolution.
Hugo. Just stop it. You have nothing of any rational consequence to present as valid evidence for evolution. So the ignorance is within yourself: you are ignorant because you can’t discriminate between fantasy and valid fact. You are such a devout believer that you cannot stand that anyone might have a valid case against your belief object and its obvious destruction of your worldview which is based at least in part on that false belief object.
As I said, you're right Stan. It's time to take a break and focus on school. Got a test already this Monday night. But you also said you would ignore my messages, and you couldn't. You had to reply.
So, because it's obvious you would do that, I wanted to write a response ahead of time. Basically, this is what I wrote right after posting the last series of comments, but didn't post.
No Stan, you still don't get the point. You are simply wrong about many of the facts of evolution. It has nothing to do with anything else. It's not a cult, not an ideology, just a scientific theory of how life diversified on Earth. It's part of a larger story, a macro explanation of what we think has happened in the Universe over at least the last 13 billion years. It relates to all the other fields of scientific studies.
You're simply wrong about that one part under the umbrella of Biology: you're wrong about the facts surrounding common ancestry, mutations and evolutionary changes, and why the Theory of Evolution by natural selection is the best set of explanations for these facts. Evolution is a biological process affecting every single individual, including us, but it is noticeable more remarkably at the population level, as it causes the appearances of new features, colors, digestion, reproduction, bone structure, vision, scent, and even skills, emotions and intuitions. That's all.
And you have nothing to offer regarding any of that. You're in denial, and I cannot help you anymore. It's obvious that the problem is that you don't want to believe in a world where intuition has evolved. Well, at that point my friend, go talk to Week Fisher. She understands what she's talking about, unlike you.
Good luck
”The case of James Shapiro, for instances, was the best thing so far. Unless you visit anti-evolution sources who take his quotes out of context, Shapiro makes a lot of good points about why some old ideas regarding evolution are wrong. But he does not refute the basic facts; he embraces them.”
So what?? You asserted your bigotry first off the bat, crying “Christian!!!” to denigrate his credibility. Now you approve of him?? Who cares? What he said, stands: Evolution does not in any manner have the credibility that physics has, in the fields which are a) testable and b) falsifiable. Evolution has zero credibility due to its total lack of ever being FALSE. It absolutely MUST be True IFF it cannot be possibly be FALSE, right? So I don’t care whether or why you suddenly approve of the person you condemned before. Bigotry is just bigotry. Live with it.
I assume that you found this quote as being from Shapiro:
” "There is no question that evolutionary novelties arise. We see them in the genome sequence record. And we know in considerable detail the underlying molecular mechanisms for many of these changes. We regularly observe the same processes occurring in real time in our laboratories and fields.”
This is false, no matter who said it. What is seen in the genome is not change; it is differentiation between existing creatures which is INTERPRETED as “novelties arising”. It is exactly no more than that, no matter who says it. If Shapiro said it, he is wrong on this point. I have said precisely why that is wrong, and that’s the difference between me and you: You never, never, ever address the contrary issues, the blatant issues which illuminate the non-factual, imaginary character of the entire basis for the belief – BELIEF – in the Cult of Evolution.
No. You say stuff like this:
” The fact that evolution science changes over time with new molecular evidence should not be surprising to anybody. That is how science works. [...] There is much that remains to be learned about the evolutionary process. Many problems remain without known solutions. But the sources of genome variation, including rapid changes throughout the genome, are no longer mysterious. We can describe how dozens of them occur in detail, down to the level of individual phosphodiester linkages in novel DNA structures."
That’s utter crap. UTTER CRAP. There is nothing but conjecture. There is no falsification possible for this sort of crap, is there?? Is there? Answer that: IS THERE???
You never will address that. But I will: NO, THERE IS NO FALSIFICATION POSSIBLE.
And no, science does NOT work that way. REAL science works through falsification. REAL science does not modify its fantasy science fiction stories to accommodate new contingent factoids – real science is falsifiable. Evolutionary claims – all of them – are not falsifiable, and the claims made in your statement above are completely NON-FALSIFIABLE, and are belief statements, nothing more. Pure belief statements.
” Unfortunately, I don't know why you don't embrace that same attitude toward the Theory of Evolution. I assume you might like to be proven wrong as well, in other cases, but it's not happening here.”
You have provided ZERO falsifiable, empirical evidence. You cannot prove anything, much less prove me wrong on that point. Zero empirical evidence = zero credibility. But evolution is Truth, anyway, right?
” Or perhaps I am wrong, and you really despise being proven wrong and would rather just ignore subjects where it does happen; perhaps some form of misplaced pride where you would rather stick to your story instead of admitting mistakes. Because the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and refuse to look at the big picture about evolution, and why we know that it's accurate, makes you look strangely dogmatic on something that has no consequences whatsoever on your life.”
Where is the credibility of a faux science which has no, NO, empirical, falsifiable contingent factoids? You claim mistakes, but you show none. Like evolution, the validity of your claim must be accepted purely on faith. Because that’s all you have. You have NO credible empirical evidence AND you cannot and do not refute the obvious case against the credibility of the imaginary stories – maybe those are the mysterious mistakes you keep blathering about? It’s a mistake to consider any contrary claims made against the Cult? Yes. That must the character of the mystery mistakes: it’s a mistake to consider anything but the imaginary belief itself.
” - You still think that the quotes, from people such as Shapiro, support your view that novel features cannot arise naturally through evolution, even if that's exactly what he says.”
What he said, and I quoted, is that evolution is not a reputable science; physics is.
If he contradicts that, then he has an internal contradiction in his claims, doesn’t he? Now that you find that his statements are logically paradoxical and non-coherent, you suddenly think well of him, after having denigrated him earlier. That suits your position perfectly.
” You don't understand that he is only arguing about the details of 'how' evolution works, not 'if' it works, to create new species with completely novel features. Shapiro clearly agrees that common descent is a fact and that evolution over long periods of time, i.e. macro-evolution, is responsible for the diversity of living things on Earth.”
A) You don’t believe in macro-evolution, so stop using what you don’t believe in.
B) Shapiro denied that evolution is a science, then appears to claim that it is True: blatant contradiction. Now you accept him after having thrown bigotry at him: That’s your internal contradiction. He’s a Christian, so you cannot accept what he says. But now you do.
” - You still think that the Theory of Evolution is 'just' a story. But it's much more than that. Yes, it is 'a' story but it's 'the' best story we have…”
FALSE. It is the best "Materialist Story" that Materialists can come up with, except for distributed panspermia, which fits the fossil record much better, of course. And pamspermia is still a purely Materialist, science-fiction, Just so Story, so it fits right in with the mental processing of the True Believers even if it contradicts their stories. It’s the belief that counts.
It is totally the belief that counts. One must suspend all contact with contrary thought: contrary thought is anti-science in the sense of anti-Cult; it must not happen, and when it is found, it must be stamped out and not faced head-on. To face the contraries head-on risks finding plausible, even uncontrovertable reasons and reasoning to dump evolution for actual logic. That is the risk, and it is not worth it, especially for the Atheists who might lose their ungrounded faith.
The following is the Official Lie:
to explain why we see all the millions of species around us today. Biology studies these animals and its branch that focuses on 'how' they came to be that way is Evolutionary Biology. They go hand in hand and cannot be dissociated from each other. They are part of the same scientific whole.”
Here’s the reality: modern biology does not use a single prediction made by evolution. Evolution predicts everything and nothing, so there is only “pan-prediction” of nothing specific. Thus Modern Biology needs evolution like Aunt Martha needs a goiter. The claim of being part of the scientific whole is completely false. Evolution is purely a parasite, a scavenger on the principled empirical findings that Modern Biology develops, and develops with zero assistance from the imaginary stories of evolution.
”” - You still think that nothing could disprove the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact that you listed an example of something that would falsify it: finding out that all of the phyla appeared simultaneously. You requested that as some example of 'evidence' for the theory when it would actually disprove it. With that 1 request, you have simultaneously (pun intended) shown that you still don't understand the Cambrian explosion period AND given proven that the Theory is falsifiable. But you repeat that this is just a fictional story nonetheless, with no falsification possible.
Nice try. What I ask for would qualify as falsifiability, IFF the evolutionary Cult could recognize that imaginary stories are not empirical, objective evidence, much less Truth. That will never happen until a new generation far, far down the road insists on a resurrection of REAL science and objective knowledge. So actual evidence is of no value to the Cult, and no evidence is even examined, as you have proved. Where there is no concept of falsification none will be acknowledged, as you have proved.
You even sneered at Dawkins’ admission that high complexity is presupposed, and then imaginary tweaks are applied, and that makes evolution credible.
You constantly refer to the anonymous “experts”, but then you reject all experts who are presented – unless they engage in internal contradiction, and then you approve of them.
Your mistakes and omissions and illogic is legion and I outline it for you. You claim that I make mistakes, but never say what exactly is mistaken (except that you occasionally whine about the injection of logical analysis being injected into the imaginary stories).
”- You still don't understand the various mechanisms that cause living things to evolve. You ignore the modern findings in the field of evo-devo…,”
I have written about it in the past month. Wrong again, and the toll you are racking up is impressive.
” which Darwin for example couldn't possibly know about, as if they had nothing to offer in terms of explanation.”
They certainly do have a litany of speculations, none of which are accompanied by corresponding empirical facts. Saying that “X evolved” doesn’t prove that X actually evolved, especially in light of the lack of evolutionary data.
Again, you do not present facts. You present beliefs within the Cult, beliefs which are imaginary and unfalsifiable and therefore automatically True to the Cult members. They can only be True.
” Somehow, you think that knowing how evolution can work both rapidly and slowly is disproving the entire Theory.”
Sure. I understand that there is absolutely nothing that evolution cannot do. Fast/slow. Simple/complex. Or nothing at all. I’ve said that over and over and over. I’ve also said:
Prove it. No stories, just actual, legitimate, testable, falsifiable, unfalsified, REAL science. Prove it.
Do it. (I know this is fruitless, because your belief is not based on actual REAL science).
But you could summon up the integrity to admit it.
” You simply don't understand that gradual changes are always the cause of evolution, even if we now know that some jumps can be bigger than others because of regulatory genes. That's why you wrongly state that nothing is specific; you refuse to look at the details, the causes, the mechanisms, and everything that actually explain how evolution works.”
LIE. Stop it. Stop the LYING. I have looked for a substantial part of my life for “causes” that are actually proven to be the REAL cause for the claims of evolution. NOTHING. There is nothing, and you know it or you would produce it.
So I come to this. I surmise that you are a fraud. Here’s why:
1) You claim facts that you do not have.
2) You lie about my experience in the evolutionary sphere.
3) You do not ever consider any argument against evolution.
4) You do not accept that there even ARE any legitimate arguments against the imaginary and false “science” of evolution – especially the lack of material evidence for it, and the overwhelming logic and mathematics against it.
5) You repeat the exact same trash, over and over and over.
6) Evolution is a “necessary and sufficient Truth” which you must evangelize for relentlessly, even though you never present any necessary and sufficient objective knowledge in its favor.
7) Rather than discuss the objections, you call them “mistakes” which must be overcome by accepting the Cult’s belief statements (imaginary scenarios, speculations, fantasy science-fiction), and call it a respected science which Modern Biology can’t get along without.
That position is fraudulent, especially not considering even leaving the cult in the face of its logical irrationality.
” - You still don't understand how to properly use the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. They are simple qualifier that are used for nothing but time references.”
You are SO full of shit. Here is the second Expert Opinion which supports my statements and not yours:
From the text book intended specifically for evolutionary graduate students: ”The Cambrian Explosion”, by Erwin and Valentine, Roberts and Co. pubs, 2013, pg 10, 11:
”In general, microevolution treats changes within populations and species, underpinned by the natural selection of genetic variation that arises through mutation or recombination within the genome.”
[…]
”These two macroevolutionary areas – relative richness and relative novelty – are clearly related, with differences on body plans being responsible for some differences in branching patterns in the tree of life. The change from studying microevolution to macroevolution involves a hierarchical step (Erwin 2000; Jablonski 2007) that is important because it moves the focus of interest from processes that affect individualswithin species to those that affect species within higher order groups. Thus, the move from micro to macro forms a discontinuity.”
[Emphasis added]
Just exactly what I said. And exactly not what you say.
As I have said before, JUST STOP IT. You don’t know what you are talking about, and you talk crap with the authority which you abdicate to your failures like this. And failures of logic. And math. And REAL science.
Repeat: You do not know what you are talking about. And here it is on full display:
” You're the one who insist on using them as you think that there is a clear cut difference between the two. You think that 'micro' is what we see within a genome, as in all cats evolved from one, or a few, original cats but they are still cats; but then you think that 'macro' is that mysteriousjump, that magical thing that cannot be proven, which makes the whole Theory fall apart. For you, the 'macro' part of Evolution is just a story, just a fantasy. You simply don't understand that changes in individual can lead entire population of animals to change over time, when isolate from each other. You cannot wrap your head around the fact that it's the accumulation of these so-called 'micro' change that give rise to long-term, i.e. 'macro', changes over populations.”
Wrong. But emphatically so wrong and in so … many … words.
Will you admit it?
Will you?
We’ll stop right here to see if you can admit that you are completely wrong and are making false statements and accusations, OK?
Will you?
I can’t resist this one last huge error you make:
”All we can tell is that you don't understand how small changes, micro-evolution, lead to big changes over time, macro-evolution. You don't understand that there is just 1 overall process, evolution by natural selection, which is driven by many local and specific processes, which are studied by biologists in order to come up with the best "story", the best explanation, the best scientific Theory.
Two things which YOU do not understand: 1) You are wrong about this entire paragraph. 2) It is patently obvious that you are wrong.
If “science” stops at inductive cladistics categorization without any objective knowledge to support it, and specifically falsifiable objective knowledge, then it is not science at all. No matter what the Cult calls itself, it is not science, it is merely inductive categorization based on extrapolation and imaginary scenarios – including the imaginary biological clocks which, like all things evolution, are grounded in absolutely nothing, not even in decent assumptions and certainly not in calibration standards.
Everything evolutionary is an embarrassment to rational, objective, falsifiable, REAL science. A total embarrassment. Intellectually self-humiliating.
Hugo,
Your farewell hit was embedded in my uploads. I just now read it. And you still have not addressed any of the actual issues which destroy the credibility of evolution as a purported "science". Like a true evangelist, you just say the same thing for the ten thousandth time and make no attempt to acknowledge, discuss, much less refute, the mathematical case against evolution, the logical case against evolution, the empirical case against evolution, the non-falsification case against evolution, the biochemical/biomolecular case against evolution. You just say, “It is TOO a science”, as if that means anything against the obvious evidence that it is NOT a science at all because it produces no objective knowledge.
You do not even understand that your personal interpretation of evolution stopped being accepted three quarters of a century ago, when the Modern Synthesis became hardened and left you behind. You are unwilling to admit that you don’t even understand what is currently going on in the world of evolutionary story telling. You’ve been left in the dust, because the old stories didn’t work under scrutiny, so all new stories are coming out all the time.
But you feel so confident in your own outdated understanding that you preach your own version as Truth, The Only Truth, and anyone who actually knows better is called “ignorant”.
You don’t have a need to address the issues raised – even within the Cult itself – about the credulity it requires to accept this stuff you call Truth/fact. All you have to do is appear to know everything about it. And you appear to think that “appearing to know” things that others don’t know is enough to establish yourself as an expert. That observation is supported by your refusal of the actual quotes from actual experts in the field, a refusal that can be explained only by your “appearing to know” fixation. Your “knowledge” trumps mine and the experts I quote.
It really makes you look quite foolish and arrogant, not to mention completely out of touch with the reality of the evolution industry/cult, as it currently exists in the field and is taught in university settings.
Finally, you lament that you cannot “help” me anymore. Help me do what… misunderstand the current evolutionary thought and hypotheses in the same manner that you don’t understand or even recognize them?
What a head trip you are on.
It was not really a "farewell" per say; you know I cannot stay silent. I just don't have as much time and should avoid writing 6-comment long posts with links, quotes, etc...
You mentioned that you would ignore what I write, and I was willing to leave it at that. But of course, you had to reply, so here I am, also replying back.
No, I am not arrogant; you are. I am merely explaining what scientists in the field are saying. You "think" that I am disagreeing with them, but I am not. You think, on the other hand, that you are qualified to write mini courses on evolution, that magazines such as Nature/Science are wrong, that bodies of scientists are wrong, that universities and their natural history museums are wrong, etc...
Yes, I do repeat the same things a lot, because you repeat the same mistakes. How many times did you ask how we can get non-frogs out of frogs now? At least 3, with frogs, cats, dogs, I think...? and I probably missed some.
What I just won't do anymore is explain to you what you get wrong about Evolution. It just takes to much time. You see, this quick comment was not even 5 minutes; just a quick break before going to class actually. But to go in details, quote the thing you badly represent, send links to justify my claims, etc... takes a lot more time. For just 2-3 sentences, I need to write an entire comment block sometimes. I just cannot do that anymore; it's not good use of my time.
Therefore, it's hard to quickly explain 'why' you are wrong to think I am behind the curve, why you are wrong to state I am at odd with modern evolutionary theories, why you are wrong to think I disagree with scientists, why you are wrong to think I somehow adhere to Darwin's theory like glue.
And by the way, you confused Shapiro with Ian Hutchinson, and you still don't understand why I pointed out Hutchinson's religion.
Again, you're simply wrong Stan, and it's Biologists who say that, not me. You even acknowledged that Shapiro, a Biologist, is wrong according to you, right after you used his quotes to supposedly support your views... But I am getting tired of explaining you 'why' Biologists say what they say, because you are too emotional about the topic and keep going around in long circles; such long circles that you forget what we discussed and then come back with the same mistakes, misunderstandings and misrepresentation.
And you know what, I must say that cannot help but think one thing almost every time I read your posts: calm the f*** down Stan. You might actually still be able to learn something here, if you just cool your head a bit and try to understand the details you get wrong. Again, not my opinion...
So we agree on this: no amount of actual documentation from actual experts will mean anything to you. Your concept of micro/macro is just your personal concept. It is not the concept of the actual experts to whom you refer so consistently (at least to their stories). If you don't believe them, why should anyone believe your constant admonition to believe what the experts tell us?
I should list the internal contradictions and circularities involved with True Belief. Maybe I will when I get lots and lots and lots of time.
You said that you disagree with Shapiro, and many others. I said I agree with him, and all the other Biologists you quoted actually, afaik. To give a precise example, you said that novelties dont arise because of biological evolution. Biologists say the opposite. So clearly, you were talking about yourself: no amount of actual documentation from actual experts will mean anything to you. If you don't believe them, why should anyone believe you instead?
OK. Good then. You agree that you have been wrong all along about your personal definitions of micro and macro evolution, and that you now agree with the quoted definitions which are identical to my definitions, because that's where I got them.
And that also means that you have been wrong all along about how speciation or closed clades arose, according to the experts, because that relates to macroevolution, which you now acknowledge is NOT just deep time, since you now agree with the experts.
Or will you come back and deny that? Just like you deny that science requires the production of objective knowledge, testable and falsifiable and not mere opinion?
Again you are lying about what I said. That is approaching my limit of toleration.
Here is what I said:
"This is false, no matter who said it. What is seen in the genome is not change; it is differentiation between existing creatures which is INTERPRETED as “novelties arising”."
The claim is false until it is proven otherwise. It is presumed, not proven. It is merely an assumption. That assumption is declared an axiom by the metaphysical authority of the Cult. It is not an axiom; in REAL science such false claims of axiomatic truth would not be allowed.
I said nothing at all about Shapiro in that post; I posted - without comment - his assessment of the hardened Modern Synthesis. I did that to place that theory in a chronological context, followed by both Dawkins and Gould who both refuted the necessity and sufficiency of the Modern Synthesis (your only personal model from 75 years ago).
Then, to properly refute your own complete misunderstanding of macroevolution, I presented several contrary statements by other evolutionists. And beyond that, I have just above quoted a post graduate text book which absolutely refutes your definitions totally.
But you just blather on as if you were right all along, and top it off with false statements about my position. And a phony Tu Quoque attempt. All false.
That is pure intellectual dishonesty.
Ok, I am really trying to be nice here, and if you want to continue with some short messages like that, it might lead to something, but I would appreciate you remain civil and avoid charges of intellectual dishonesty and lying. We're just two people having a conversation; it's not a contest as to who can make the other one look stupid. If that's too much to ask, fine, I will just continue to ignore the silly bits, but I got to ask once in a while...
So, no, my understanding of micro vs macro evolution has not changed, I still agree with the quotes, and they do fit with my statements. My understanding of speciation has not changed either; it's only observable over lots of generations. And yes, that takes into account things we learned in the last 75 years. So I don't know what I am "denying" exactly here, and I would be happy to correct any contradiction you may have found. But so far, what you "thought" were contradictions were just different ways of expressing the same things about the Theory of Evolution.
So I really don't get what you are talking about, nor why you say I am lying because: do you or do you not accept the fact that novelties arise through evolution? It seems that the answer is clearly 'no', which is what I said in my last comment. So why are you saying I am lying about that?
The quotes absolutely refute your statements. You cannot admit that, that is obvious.
You self-contradict whenever necessary: you say that dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, and yet you say that microevolution plus time equals speciation.
Novelties just occur. They just happen, given enough time. But of course the dog will remain a dog, forever. No matter if the dog loses its fur, develops a blow hole and goes into the ocean, loses its walking ability, develops flukes, a fish tail, and the ability to sound for two hours at a time, etc.
Totally contradictory.
Another example: the quote I gave above completely refutes your micro/macro understanding. You absolutely cannot admit that. Here it is again:
From the text book intended specifically for evolutionary graduate students: ”The Cambrian Explosion”, by Erwin and Valentine, Roberts and Co. pubs, 2013, pg 10, 11:
”In general, microevolution treats changes within populations and species, underpinned by the natural selection of genetic variation that arises through mutation or recombination within the genome.”
[…]
”These two macroevolutionary areas – relative richness and relative novelty – are clearly related, with differences on body plans being responsible for some differences in branching patterns in the tree of life. The change from studying microevolution to macroevolution involves a hierarchical step (Erwin 2000; Jablonski 2007) that is important because it moves the focus of interest from processes that affect individuals within species to those that affect species within higher order groups. Thus, the move from micro to macro forms a discontinuity.”
[Emphasis added]
Totally contradicts your stated concepts. Totally agrees with mine. You refuse to admit it, when it is obvious.
That, sir, is intellectual dishonesty. If you don't like being called out, then be honest and admit your error. Otherwise you remove any value from continuing to converse with you.
As for novelties arising randomly in an entropic universe, I see no reason to accept any conclusion which is not based in empirical evidence. Obviously, for Atheists to say "I have no X theory" is de rigeuer, but it is not acceptable in the Cult of Evolution. All that the evidence materially provides is that certain animals existed in certain layers, differentially found in locations around the world. The actual evidence says no more than that. Nothing else is known, objectively.
Yet you continually refer to "facts" which are not in any manner of the word, factual. One fine example is the molecular clock, which I plan on addressing in a post soon.
I see no reason to give any credence to a story telling, science fantasy credo which refuses to include the evolution of the very first living thing, because the story tellers realize that they cannot even conceive of a material-based story to cover for that: so ignore it. Why give any credence to a story telling, science fantasy credo, that will not accept or address any critiques which are fatal, such as probabilities based on REAL biochemistry science, the internal contradictions surrounding the Cambrian Explosion, the lack of any common ancestors found, and the lack of any shred of objective validation - not to mention the Cult behavior of the cult itself, which demands the exact same respect as REAL science, which is demonstrably is NOT.
The inability to admit to, and address,, these issues other than claiming that they are "mistakes" and "ignorance", is intellectually fatal. The empty claims such as the "best explanation", "science denial", "anti-science", "ignorance", "creationism", are logical failures, since they are pure rhetorical attacks with no empirical substance. The issue remains: NO empirical substance. Without that, evolution is not empirical, and is not a science.
Don't bother coming back with any rhetoric regarding ignorance, mistakes, etc. If you have no objective empirical validation, then admit it and address it head on.
Here is a final example of your dissembly; I gave you this quote, amongst the others:
"Excerpts from an interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger: “The Miracles of Darwinism”
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
Q: What is your definition of Darwinism?
S: The most current, of course, a position generically embodied, for example, by Richard Dawkins. The essential idea is well-known. Evolution, Darwinists argue, is explained by the double action of chance mutations and natural selection. The general doctrine embodies two mutually contradictory schools -- gradualists, on the one hand, saltationists, on the other. Gradualists insist that evolution proceeds by means of small successive changes; saltationists that it proceeds by jumps. Richard Dawkins has come to champion radical gradualism; Stephen Jay Gould, a no less radical version of saltationism."
You say that gradualism is true and the ONLY definition, and that I am mistaken/ignorant. Yet you also say you agree with ALL the quotes, which included this one and others which directly contradict you. Pure falseness. And failure to be honest, intellectually.
I'm now at the point where either you admit to your errors, or I will just delete any of your further comments. I see no future in discussions with you, as things stand.
After carefully reviewing your our posts, here are the 2 errors you correctly identified, in order to comply with your requests to fix my mistakes:
1) Micro vs macro evolution is not 'just' about time. I was wrong to oversimplify. There's a discontinuity in the analysis process as macro is about populations, while micro is about individuals.
2) It was incorrect to point to gradualism as the only mechanism for evolution; this was also an innacurate oversimplification. Some evolutionary changes are hardly gradual, as some small changes to regulatory genes can cause vig changes, for exemple.
Therefore, let me attempt to give a more accurate summary of the unifying principles of evolution:
- Reproduction with modifications affect individuals
- Natural selection works at the population level
Do you agree with that?
OK, pretty close; the distinction is that microevolution produces variability while remaining "within the genome", while macroevolution is higher level speciation which leaves the genome.
Good. Now, where would you like to take the conversation?
Sure, 2 things, which are related to each other I believe:
1) What about clarifying what you mean by 'leaving the genome'?
2) And what about that question I just asked, regarding some of the unifying principles of evolution, or perhaps I should have said 'some basic facts regarding living things':
- Reproduction with modifications affect individuals
- Natural selection works at the population level
Do you agree with that?
1. Evolution from a common ancestor requires either a) that the genome be modified every time a new innovation (say a previously non-existing organ, limb, set of feedback information systems, etc.) is created, thereby creating a previously non-existing species due to the new part of the genome. A new genome has to be created to accommodate the innovation. Perhaps all of the originating genome is kept; perhaps not. But the new genome contains information not in the originating genome, which is specific to the innovation.
Or it requires that all of the information for innovation be present in the common ancestor, clear back to First Life. This means that all species' information, animal and vegetable, must have been present in the First Life to have evolved from minerals.
2. Yes, I agree that those are definitions currently in use by the evolutionistas.
Now: what we have resolved is merely what the people who get paid for this stuff have agreed upon as definitions. Definitions have no logic or evidence to discuss, because they are merely tautologies. What is debatable is whether the definitions have any falsifiable correlation in observable material existence: that depends on what is considered to be that sort of evidence; how that evidence relates to objective knowledge; and whether there exist rational falsifiers at any point in the chain of premises/hypotheses, and the evidence claimed for support of the hypotheses (truth value of the premises, the necessity/sufficiency of the content as well as valid form of the claim.
After all, objective science is the rational and intellectual genetic daughter of logic and math, right?
Sure, this makes sense: objective science is the rational and intellectual genetic daughter of logic and math.
Now, even if it was just 1 comment box, you raised many points. But I want to stick with just 1 to avoid spiraling down to giant 6-block comments again... Looking at #2, you said that those are definitions currently in use by the "evolutionistas". Therefore, it implies that it's not definitions that you would use. But my goal was to find some common ground, so let's make it simpler:
- Reproduction with modifications affects every single individual living thing; biological reproduction is not a perfect mechanism.
Do you agree that this is an objective fact of Biology?
No, because mitosis produces two identical daughter cells, and that occurs in all prokaryotes. The DNA in the parent cell is un-twisted, and each daughter gets one strand when the cell divides into two daughters.
Biological reproduction via mitosis actually is perfect when in the absence of outside interference which entropically mutates the DNA somehow. Biological Reproduction via meiosis in eukaryotes is more complex, and thus there are more steps which are exposed to outside intervention, yet the process itself is perfect until interference occurs. In other words, mitosis and meiosis processes would work perfectly if they were in an entropy-free universe.
If the reproductive process, especially meiosis, receives interference from the environment, the effect is commonly neutral or deleterious, as is seen empirically. Beneficial entropic interference is speculated by the necessity of the evolution hypothesis, but not documented in legitimate empirical studies.
You said 'no' but you do agree that biological reproduction is not perfect since there's always interference from the environment; it's only in theory, should some living thing be completely isolated from any environmental influences, that reproduction 'would' be perfect. What am I missing to get from 'yes' to 'no'?
You cannot get to "no", if the process itself is, in fact, perfect. I do not agree that "biological reproduction is not perfect since there's always interference from the environment". There is not "always interference from the environment". That is an unfounded categorical statement without hope of proof. It doesn't take isolation from the environment; all it takes is for the DNA not to be modified, so there is no reason to believe that all acts of biological reproduction are subject to those types of mutations.
I said this: "If the reproductive process, especially meiosis, receives interference from the environment..." Anything which is "perfect" in its nature can be destroyed by entropy, but will not necessarily be so destroyed. If you accept entropy, then you accept that complexity and information are created by interference of entropic degradation. Unless the law is repealed, then entropy works only the neutral and negative side of Kimura's neutral law due to the impossibility of "negentropy" in the second law of thermodynamics.
Apparently you would prefer that the answer not be No rather than what it observably is. How would you prove your statement that all reproduction has interference and therefore there are always either beneficial mutations which accumulate (which I'm sure is where you are headed); Kimura's neutral mutations which also accumulate; or dilatory mutations which are most commonly seen via birth defects... and the reproduction process is never completed without such interference - and therefore cannot ever be a "perfect process"?
In fact, evolution demands that the process of reproduction be even better than perfect, since it has the capability of producing selectable innovations, making the organism a better fit or candidate for selection by the environment. This has to be a "good" thing if continued ability to compete and persist as a species is a "good" thing, as opposed to extinction (from the perspective of the species or clade, of course).
I am not jumping to any conclusions and not even discussing evolution directly, yet. Just trying to understand why you don't seem to agree that reproduction is an imperfect process.
So let's stick to the point and clarify the statement I made above. It's true that it could have been better worded. The usage of the word 'always' made it sound as if each instance of reproduction is imperfect, which is not always true. Moreover, the environment is not necessarily the cause of these imperfections; the process itself can introduce errors.
It is thus more accurate to say:
'Biological reproduction always takes place within an environment that can potentially affect the process. Sometimes, errors occur during that process, i.e. mutations.'
I tried to find some publication that would give a similar summary; this seems to be pretty good:
"While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations."
Does that make sense to you, or you think it's wrong and mutations never survive?
Yes, I agree that that statement reflects the current knowledge status. However, a process that has the capacity to produce outputs which are without flaws is not an imperfect process. The question becomes this: what is the source of the occasional flaws: the process, or external forces outside the process which affect the data/material that the process uses?
Obviously mutations do survive, as birth defects demonstrate, materially and objectively. However, afik there is no material reason to believe that the vastly improbable "beneficial" mutation would survive, then accumulate with other mutually dependent beneficial mutations which accumulate to ultimately form into novelties such as heart/lung/vascular systems including livers and kidneys, etc.
A process that has the capacity to produce outputs which are without flaws is an imperfect process; sometimes it works perfectly, sometimes it doesnt. Its success rate is somewhere between 0 and 1, hence not perfect.
The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations, which can be neutral, positive or negative. For example, slightly different eye colors or fingerprint (neutral), slighlty better fitness level (positive), malformed organ which lead to death (negative).
These mutations can be passed to the individuals' offspring and affect the population they are part of by shifting the average of affected traits a little one way or another.
Nothing more is claimed yet; no novelties, no speciation, no source for the variations, no other conclusions. So does that also seem right to you? Or is this contradicting your belief that biological reproduction is indeed perfect in some way?
”A process that has the capacity to produce outputs which are without flaws is an imperfect process; sometimes it works perfectly, sometimes it doesnt. Its success rate is somewhere between 0 and 1, hence not perfect.”
That’s just false. A house which has stood and performed as a perfect shelter for 350 years, yet burns to the ground after a lightning hit is not an imperfect house. It is a perfect house affected by external forces into a state of imperfection.
This statement is a clear case of setting up phony premises which you intend to support your “final cause”: evolution. So at this point you must prove that you know that it is true that the process itself produces errorsall by itself, without outside causal forces intervening. E.g., full objective, yet contingent knowledge that, say, jumping genes jump with absolutely no outside force inducing that to happen (an effect with no cause). Or that gene switching changes from A to B with absolutely no outside force inducing that to happen (another effect with no cause). Or any other error occurs without an outside force inducing it to happen (an entire class of effects without causes).
As always I accept empirical, objective, real science in the form of inductive observation of causes for error, hypothesis generation of a general law for the class being inductively created, testing devised to falsify the hypothesized general law, experiments run and data taken, published in peer reviewed journals with complete, open data for all to see and replicate exactly… you know, actual, real science which produces actual, real, objective knowledge, albeit contingent.
Didn’t take long to get back to this point of contention, did it?
And the following is also egregiously false:
” The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations,”
Because your first statement is logically false, the remainder is also false. You can claim that the process, which is perfect, can be and sometimes is corrupted, but not by referring to eye color changes as corruption within an imperfect process. That is specifically because those are normal parts of the process, which perfectly provides for the combination of previous genetics into unique individuals. It is definitely NOT the case that unique individuals are the result of defects in the process.
I do not agree, because your claim of imperfection is a claim of effect (defects) which occur with no cause. That means that the process changes internally, without causation, from perfect to defective.
Again, I am not drawing any conclusion right now, not at all, and your so-called "point of contention" is not a point of contention at all, since it's obvious and applies to anything; of course we both agree that we should rely on actual, real science which produces actual, real, objective knowledge, albeit contingent.
Regarding the reproduction process, the process itself is not perfect, even without interference from the outside. But even if it were, it is affected by the environment and thus not always yielding perfect results. Basically, causes of DNA replication errors include many things, both internal to the process and external. I am no expert but it seems that there are quite a few causes that have been identified over the years. Here are some examples I quickly noted from the sources below; some might actually repeat since I am not sure what the details all in every single case:
- Tangle of intersecting DNA
- Shift in position of the nucleotides
- Strand slippage
- Tautomeric shifts
- Wobble-induced replication errors
- Chemical/Water damage
- Radiation damage
- Insertion of xanthine or hypoxanthine
- Spontaneous mutagenesis
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409 http://news.mit.edu/2012/dna-metabolic-errors-0131
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_04
http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3.rhtml
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-errors-in-the-replication-of-DNA
http://web.stanford.edu/~kendric/PDF/B42.pdf
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-errors-in-the-replication-of-DNA
Basically, all of this is really to make just 1 point, which I thought you agreed with: biological reproduction is not a perfect process. But you rolled back to saying that the process is perfect, so I would like you to explain where you stand. So that's just Point #1 that have been trying to settle for a few days now.
Then, the next step is to discuss uniqueness, which is Point #2: biological reproduction is not a perfect process and new unique DNA strands are thus sometimes created during the reproduction process.
Hence, why do you say that the outcome is a 'not' a new individual with a unique DNA sequence? Errors that happen during biological reproduction affect the DNA directly. It's not the same as the mere recombination of perfectly copied genes, which is what you seemed to be talking about, right? Don't you agree there is a difference between the 2 mechanisms?
An example would be the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_Stiles
This is an example of a human being who was born with lobster-like hands. If it were the product of a perfect recombination of genes, it would mean that humans, somehow, have the capacity to spawn such weird-looking hands. Yet, it almost never happens, and Grady Stiles was actually the 6th in a line that began with the birth of William Stiles in 1805. So, what is more likely here: a mutation occurred in 1805 and survived through the generations down to Grady Stiles, or every single human being has the gene for lobster-hand and, for some reason, we never see the gene being expressed?
OK. You are asking for clarification. But you don't connect with the clarification when it is given. Here's an example:
Hugo said:
”Hence, why do you say that the outcome is a 'not' a new individual with a unique DNA sequence?”
I did not say that, and I never have. Here’s what I said:
Stan said:
”You can claim that the process, which is perfect, can produce outputs with errors, but not by referring to eye color changes as corruption within an imperfect process. That is specifically because those changes are normal parts of the process, which perfectly provides for the combination of previous parental genetics into unique individuals. It is definitely NOT the case that unique individuals are the result of defects in the process.”
The process is perfect; unique individuals are caused by two things: a) errors in the incoming material to the process (pre-existing mutations in DNA)[1]; b) normal variation due to the design of the process which combines the DNA of two parents to form a unique individual. Neither of these is a process error.
The discussion was about normal variation (eye color) in the process output, which is part of the design of the process: to normally produce outputs that vary from the specific genomes of the inputs. The process can be corrupted to produce abnormal products; lobster hands show that, but that is not caused by the normal, perfect process itself, as you admit: it is due to external causation which is a corruption of input materials: a mutation. Can a mutation carry forward? Of course it can until it is too deleterious to breed into future generations, and is purged by selection. Mutations are to the material, DNA, and are externally caused. To claim that they are part of the normal process, and therefore the normal process is defective, i.e., “not perfect”, is false.
Comment: if a process is not teleological, working toward a presupposed desirable output, then it cannot have errors since any output will do. Given no final objective, there are no erroneous outputs. Meiotic reproduction is teleological; evolution is not teleological. By observation, evolution is either entropic on material (DNA), or it allows the teleological operation to proceed unmolested.
Notes:
1. The exception is “spontaneous mutagenesis”, which sounds ominously acausal. But it is not. Here is the list and analysis done at NCBI.NLM.NIH:
Misrepairs:
“Misrepairs” seem to be named for a process error, when in fact the process is dealing with faulty DNA. Thus the process is not the cause of the “misrepair”, unless the failure to detect atomic shifts in the repair process is considered a defect.
Transition mutations: are caused by the “misrepairs”.
Transversion mutations:
Flip-flop of two bases in the DNA; a DNA error at the parental level.
Frameshift mutations:
frameshifts arise when loops in single-stranded regions are stabilized by the “slipped mispairing” of repeated sequences. Again, misrepairing is a function of faulty DNA.
Deletions and Duplications:
”How do deletions and duplications form? Several mechanisms could account for their formation. Deletions may be generated as replication errors. For example, an extension of the Streisinger model of slipped mispairing (Figure 16-4) could explain why deletions predominate at short repeated sequences. Alternatively, deletions and duplications could be generated by recombinational mechanisms (to be described in Chapter 19).”
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Chapter 19 is not available on-line that I can find. Book is ordered.
Spontaneous Lesions.
”In addition to replication errors, spontaneous lesions, naturally occurring damage to the DNA, can generate mutations. Two of the most frequent spontaneous lesions result from depurination and deamination.” I.e., parental DNA error, incurred during the life of the parent.
It is clear that the referenced “spontaneous mutagenesis” class of defects, errors, mutations are contained solely within the starting product DNA, as received from the parent, not caused within the process of replication. These errors are found usually and repaired, and some few are transmitted on along. The parent has received the mutation, and passed it along. The process is charged with replication of whatever is passed along, with some repair capacities for some errors but not all. And there are not analysis and repair stations at every stage, or for every possible combination of errors received in the parental DNA.
That any analysis/repair in a molecular process is even done is a subject which refutes Philosophical Determinism and Philosophical Materialism at the molecular level. The driving causal forces cannot be rationally attributed to the four forces of physics, nor can the intent of the process, teleological, be denied as being purposeful. The entire non-living universe is driven solely by the four forces of physics which act entirely entropically and never teleologically, going through processes of decay of order and information.
The existence of bacteria, plants and animals which have not changed over many geologic eras is proof that the processes, mitosis and meiosis, are perfect. Within some genomes, the only meaningful (non-neutral) mutations ever to exist within the DNA have been eliminated (or never received at all), leaving the original to be perfectly replicated over the eons.
Ah great, now I get it! These clarifications made me understand several things a lot better. Never realized exactly 'why' we disagreed, but it all makes sense now. Thank you for your time!
Looks like I had missed to include the 1 summary sentence of what I did understand; silly me probably removed it by mistake when adding formatting...
You confuse the complexity and reliability of the cell machinery with intentional design.
Everything else flows from there and it all makes sense now; it explains your entire position on evolution and why intelligent design is clearly what you accept, even if you do everything you can to avoid saying it. But now, it is obvious.
While that sounds like something that you or Dawkins would say rather than me, a search of the entire comment space turns up no place where that phrase, or even just "intentional design" is used. Not by anyone.
Since I did not say it, then your erroneous deduction is, well, erroneous.
Now if you are accusing ME of something, you must show evidence which supports your accusation. What you did was merely to show, in bold, your prejudicial presupposition which cannot be proved or falsified in any manner and thus is just another prejudice entered into the fantasy science of evolution.
Here's what I believe:
Evolution is a collection of fantasy stories without the slightest hope of being either falsified or verified.
Belief in evolution as science or as truth is completely irrational.
Because evolution has no falsifiability or verifiability, you cannot prove that my position is incorrect any more than you can prove that yours is correct. However, my position is based in observable, objective evidence; yours is not.
It would make no sense for me to say it to you, or anyone who is a true believer because it specifically does not apply. The accusation makes sense only if you applied it to me.
Of course you didn't use exactly those words; that would be defending your positive beliefs regarding the diversity of Life on Earth, which you are not doing regarding as you stated many times. You prefer to "debunk" the evil Theory of Evolution and its irrational believers.
This was inferred from what you said. To quote just 1 sentence for now:
"The driving causal forces cannot be rationally attributed to the four forces of physics, nor can the intent of the process, teleological, be denied as being purposeful."
Are you saying this doesn't imply intelligent design?
I positively believe
a) that no one knows or ever will know the answers;
b) the pretense of having objective knowledge where it is functionally impossible to have objective knowledge is pure fraud;
c) Evolution is fraud;
d) Evolution is weaponized fraud;
e) Evolution has caused many deaths, just as Nietzsche forcast;
f) the deadening of the modern mind to the use of fables, fantasy, and raw opinion as models for developing immutable and unquestionable stories which have no basis in objective fact is a consequence of the rush to iconize evolution and Darwin by the Atheist Leftist Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century. It is directly involved in the rise of Marxist fables and stories, and the consequences of that are well known.
"The driving causal forces cannot be rationally attributed to the four forces of physics, nor can the intent of the process, teleological, be denied as being purposeful."
You may infer anything you wish. Saying what it is not is not the same as saying what it is. Saying what quantum entanglement is not, is not the same as saying what it is.
However, because the obvious characteristics must be denied due strictly to the diktat of evolutionary cant, and not because any type of proof or even logic is presented, one can reasonably assume that the entire enterprise is consumed with diktat and not with finding truth where it lies.
For example if there are 1,000 necessary systems that are required to sustain life in a cell, and that each system has a probability of 10e-50, and yet the insistence that the material necessity is that the first cell came from random combinations of atoms, then the rationality is not just suspect, it is a rational failure. In real sciences that is the case; not in evolution which solves that problem by expunging it from existing in the science of stories.
But that situation exists in spades during the Cambrian Explosion. Evolutionists scramble to come up with deflections for the obvious, because that obvious observation cannot be accepted. It is outside the ideological boundaries for acceptable investigation (stories) on the one hand, and it threatens careers on the other hand.
What would happen to an evolutionary story spinner who goes public with the admission that "we don't know, and we can't know, and all evolution is a stack of science fiction fantasies"? He'd be living in a culvert in a geologically short time.
It is funny that you deny all evolution based on the Cambrian explosion, but there is 570 million years beyond that time. The argument is similar to there is no cars before 1700's, so cars don't exist now, and can't have existed since then. This fallacy is self evident.
There is evidence of trilobite evolution within the Cambrian, for example the genus asaphus, which becomes quite diverse with time. So why the "explosion". The obvious solution is first life contained no shells or skeletons, thus fossilization was rare. So there is an illusion of a sudden appearance of life. Inventing an intelligent being is hardly parsimonious, when there is a simpler answer.
There is not a credible science who thinks that the first cell had 1000 necessary systems. Let's not use strawmen arguments.
Any scientific theory can be weaponized. Gravity was used for dropping bombs. If people didn't beleive in gravity, it would still exist.
Every major component of evoltuion has been observed.
1. Heritable characteristics.
2. Mutation.
3. Natural selection.
4. Change in function and form.
There are peer reviewed studies that show that the explosion was really just a radiation.
Fedonkin, M. A.; Waggoner, B. M. (November 1997). "The late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism". Nature (abstract). 388 (6645): 868–871. Bibcode:1997Natur.388..868F. doi:10.1038/42242. ISSN 0372-931
Martin, M.W.; Grazhdankin, D.V.; Bowring, S.A.; Evans, D.A.D.; Fedonkin, M.A.; Kirschvink, J.L. (2000-05-05). "Age of Neoproterozoic Bilaterian Body and Trace Fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for Metazoan Evolution". Science (abstract). 288 (5467): 841–845. Bibcode:2000Sci...288..841M. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.841. PMID 10797002. Retrieved 2007-05-10.
Life such as single cell prokaryotes appeared in the Paleo-Archean, stromatolites(algae), cloudina (undefined phylum), kimberella (probably mollusca), cnidarians (jellyfish), existed in the Ediacarian 630 to 542 million years ago. Then of course the Cambrian 542-488 million years, or approximately 50 million years in duration. So the total period of the first evidence of life, to the end of the Cambrian is a bit over 2 billion years.
So your idea, is that an intelligent designer started seeding life, and took 2 billion years?
Anonymous comments are usually deleted. I'll address this one, but if you come back for more discussion, kindly choose a moniker, or your efforts will be wasted.
” It is funny that you deny all evolution based on the Cambrian explosion, but there is 570 million years beyond that time. The argument is similar to there is no cars before 1700's, so cars don't exist now, and can't have existed since then. This fallacy is self evident.”
Had I said such a ridiculous thing, it would indeed be a fallacy. But I have never done so. I have attacked evolution based on every claim which has been made, none of which rise to the level of objective knowledge based on demonstrable empirical validation/falsification of hypotheses which arise from inductive direct observation, from which a testable deduced hypothesis can be derived which is falsifiable. There is no such knowledge which arises from the constant designation of inference as Truth, which is the fallacious basis for all evolutionary claims.
”There is evidence of trilobite evolution within the Cambrian, for example the genus asaphus, which becomes quite diverse with time. So why the "explosion". The obvious solution is first life contained no shells or skeletons, thus fossilization was rare.”
And what does this solve? Here we go:
”So there is an illusion of a sudden appearance of life. Inventing an intelligent being is hardly parsimonious, when there is a simpler answer.”
You are not even addressing any position which has been taken. No one, and especially not myself, has ever said that the first life occurred in the Cambrian Explosion. No one thinks that. No one said that. What occurred in the Cambrian Explosion is the modification of pre-existing prokaryote life into all the modern phyla, virtually simultaneously in a compact geological era which is reduced in time with frequent archaeological finds. The most recent to my knowledge is the delta t = 5 million years to evolve from mitotic prokaryotes to meiotic eukaryotes which represent all phyla.
”There is not a credible science who thinks that the first cell had 1000 necessary systems. Let's not use strawmen arguments.”
Oh really? The Fallacy of OverGeneralization coupled with the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority, coupled with the Equivocation Fallacy of the term “credible”, is a tour de force of fallacious claims in one sentence.
What is your evidence to the contrary? Exactly how many are there? How many have yet to be identified?
”Any scientific theory can be weaponized. Gravity was used for dropping bombs. If people didn't beleive in gravity, it would still exist.”
That is an absurd and false analogy. No one claims that gravity cannot be tested for falsification; it obviously can be, and that is a trivial, everyday experience. Gravity is not a theory which is weaponized, it is a constant fact of life. The comparison is absurd. Theories which are useful to Marxist ideologists are those which cannot be (dis)proved, and are props for either Marxist Atheism, or Marxist Class War (AGW).
”Every major component of evoltuion has been observed.
1. Heritable characteristics.
2. Mutation.
3. Natural selection.
4. Change in function and form.”
(1)Heritability is just micro-evolution in meiotic life. That is not an issue.
(2)Mutation, taken as a simplistic, unitary concept, is not an issue. The issue is binary and is this: there is no observable positive mutation which can survive the overwhelming deleterious effect of the negative mutations which are observed, and are selected out.
(3) Natural Selection is actually observed to occur only in a negative fashion, selecting out mutation defects. It is NOT observed to create, because it is not a force. And the four forces of physics do not create. In fact, selection services the path of entropy which is toward destruction. The claim of selection as a force is false. The claim of selection to have differentiated in favor of “new, more complex mutations” is a fantasy created to cover for the necessity of accounting for increasing complexity in the face of the demands of entropic physics.
(4) There is no observed “change in function and form”. None. If you have falsifiable evidence otherwise, then share it with us.
”There are peer reviewed studies that show that the explosion was really just a radiation.”
Fedonkin, M. A.; Waggoner, B. M. (November 1997). "The late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism". Nature (abstract). 388 (6645): 868–871. Bibcode:1997Natur.388..868F. doi:10.1038/42242. ISSN 0372-931
Martin, M.W.; Grazhdankin, D.V.; Bowring, S.A.; Evans, D.A.D.; Fedonkin, M.A.; Kirschvink, J.L. (2000-05-05). "Age of Neoproterozoic Bilaterian Body and Trace Fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for Metazoan Evolution". Science (abstract). 288 (5467): 841–845. Bibcode:2000Sci...288..841M. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.841. PMID 10797002. Retrieved 2007-05-10.
Life such as single cell prokaryotes appeared in the Paleo-Archean, stromatolites(algae), cloudina (undefined phylum), kimberella (probably mollusca), cnidarians (jellyfish), existed in the Ediacarian 630 to 542 million years ago. Then of course the Cambrian 542-488 million years, or approximately 50 million years in duration. So the total period of the first evidence of life, to the end of the Cambrian is a bit over 2 billion years.”
No one here claimed otherwise. I don’t think you understand the fundamental issue surrounding the Cambrian Explosion. Nor the issue of First Life, which is an entirely unrelated timeframe, and is related only – only – by the common characteristic of the fast creation of massive complexities in parallel, starting from far, far simpler prior initial conditions.
”So your idea, is that an intelligent designer started seeding life, and took 2 billion years?”
Nope. That is definitely not my idea. That is a result of your misinterpretation of what you have read here.
Final comment. Observing some of the components of evolution does not in any manner warrant the belief that all the components existed and came into play in order to create massive complexities which were completely functionally complementary and even contained a rational double-coded record, repair system and complex replication process, all of which function metabolically (i.e., not dead).
Since the four forces of physics do not justify any concept of life, much less evolution of life or first life, then evolution is a contrary backwater story which is exo-physics, and contradictory to all real, actual observations. In other words, it doesn't even rise to the level of an Induction theory, much less a falsifiable Deduction contingent factoid.
You can always tell when Hugo is bored...
Did I get suckered again??
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. After all, you and I both know that you're NOT going to change Hugo's mind. He's a True Believer. In fact, if it hadn't been going for 250+ comments, I would say the most astounding thing about Hugo is his willingness and ability to rationalize his True Beliefs over and over and over... while steadfastly ignoring everything you place in front of him. He has persistence, I will grant him that.
You, on the other hand, are using him as a sounding board to go into detail on just exactly why Evolution is a crock. An entertaining crock, to be sure, and that counts in this shallow day and age. A crock supported by the consensus of 100% of the atheists out there (and there are quite a few).
But as Fred Reed is often pointing out, the smartest of a bunch of hamsters is still a hamster. The best of a bunch of evolutionary theories is still... a crock. My only objection is that it is being swung like a hammer onto the noggins of the 'nekulturni', who take away that if Evolution is a fact, then 'ain't no God'.
And as Dostoevsky pointed out, if there ain't no God, then everything is permitted. Provided you have the power to enforce it, ANYTHING is permitted.
Thus the value of your efforts to enlighten the current readership by playing off Hugo. And to be honest, I don't think he can help it. He HAS to reinforce his own fantastic vision of the way the world it by coming here and getting it out on the screen.
Apparently Atheist echo chambers just don't work for him anymore.
(Also, note where he claimed you two were in accordance by putting words in your mouth that you never uttered?)
http://fredoneverything.org/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/
This shit is *good*. It's a collection of his previous work on this topic, with a huge new introduction. For an agnostic, Fred Reed asks some pretty penetrating questions.
Steven,
This place is interesting for discussion. If you guys want to read more into it, it's your problem.
Look, I have not even written on an Atheist blog in years, literally years, and perhaps only 2 other theists blogs, besides this one.
Reading other points of view is highly valuable. We can learn a lot from that. As I have said many times, I changed my positions on many things because of what I read here.
But, does it work like that the other way around? I don't know, you tell me... but you guys sound so extreme that I don't believe for 1 minute that it is the case. There is no nuance in what you write, only typical rethoric American right-wingers talk about. I.e. YOU are in an echo chamber, YOU don't care about objective facts. It's all about opinions on your side, and what your chummy Stan agrees with.
Sure, Hugo, that's it. We're extreme. What the heck would you know about a typical American, let alone a right-winger, other than that they disagree with your world view? I don't know about Stan, but speaking for myself, the minute someone starts slinging 'right-winger' and 'extreme' and other accusations, the discussion, if there ever was one, has ended.
Andrew Klavan is right: all you really want, Hugo, is for folks to agree with you. If they don't, then they're crazy and need to shut up. If they won't shut up, you start in with the flippancy, insult and accusation.
Stow it. Find some other place to amuse yourself.
SJWs always lie.
SJWs always double down.
SJWs always project.
You fit right into the AtheoLeft. You are a True Believer. Let that keep you warm in your old age.
Steven,
I am not talking about the average American; I am talking about you, or Stan should I say, since all you do is agree with him and never, ever, engage in discussion. You make it personal, as you did many times before, yet always refuse to keep a civil discussion going. You just want me to leave, whatever that means, after throwing insults at me...
Basically, what you are missing here is that I am doing 1 thing and 1 thing only: REPLYING to what is written. It is a REACTION to what Stan posts on his website. Yet, somehow, you conclude that I am the one who wants to change minds? This is what I am doing now, just replying to you, nothing different...
So, why do I say that you 'sound' extreme? Because of what I read here, and the reactions I get when I try to correct some of the details I read about, just some... But you don't care about that because you show extreme reactions to every single bit of information that's thrown your way. And you never engage in the actual topic. NEVER. Stan, at least, tries to, but he gets offended very quickly and just cannot ignore comments, so he had to 'ban' me and erase comments as soon as they get posted.
The comments you just wrote are perfect examples of what I just described. You think I am calling others 'crazy' and that I want them to 'shut up'. Did I ever write any of that? No... This is such an extreme caricature of what I wrote! I am not writing any insults, but you get offended anyway because of the 'labels' I used. Isn't it ironic? You guys are appalled at so-called SJW who get offended if someone makes a slightly inappropriate joke, and then 'you' get offended if I dare label you as right-wing, or say that you 'sound' extreme? Or perhaps the problem was that you did not get the subtle use of the word 'sound' here? I never implied that you are some sort of extreme 'person', some extremist who will 'do' extreme things. It's just about what you write...
Yet, what do YOU do? You use labels for the SOLE purpose of insulting. You used the label SJW because you think it applies to me, obviously. Then you say that SJW always lie, always double down, always project. Pure insults, nothing else. And it does not apply at all obviously since I disagree with the SJW approach. But, again, you don't care about that because you are lumping everyone together who disagree with you! You know, exactly what you said I am doing!
So, what I am actually saying is that you SOUND extreme in many things you write or, again, that Stan writes. Evolution, the topic of this thread after all, is one of the best examples.
On one extreme, you have people who say that Evolution explains everything and even proves that there is no God. On the other extreme, you have people like Stan who claim that Evolution is complete fantasy:
- an egregious lapse out of rationality, and into fantasy
- Evolution is pure myth. It is a continuum of fantasy stories.
- The elements are these: fantasy assumptions; calculations; conclusions. Because the basis is fantasy, imaginary steps, sequences, and/or causation, then the entire enterprise is fantasy.
These are EXTREME statements. They don't only state that 'we are not sure', no, Stan is certain, convinced, that scientists are delusional, they believe a fantasy.
What does the general public think about that? Somewhere in between of course. Most people don't pretend to be so sure... Some understand that we know a lot, but not everything, and that yes it's certainly possible that a god was involved (my opinion), while others think that it's a nice story but they find it hard to believe. They don't think it's necessarily impossible but they are not convinced, and they most likely conclude that some god got involved in the process, but not all of them think so. These are the MODERATE views. Stan's views, and yours by association, is on the EXTREME of the spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design
But why do I say that you sound extreme, more generally? Because Evolution is just 1 example but the principle applies to a lot of others things such as Abortion, Climate Change and Political issues.
Therefore, you are right, there is no conversation. But not for the reasons you write. The main one is that you prefer not to engage, and on Stan's side, it's because he gets annoyed when I engage too much. It's that simple. All the rest is noise from your "side" in order to paint a different picture. It's exactly what you complain about: insults instead of substance.
Hugo,
What annoys me most is that you make and insist on two narrative claims which you cannot support with objective fact (you do not even accept any need for objective fact): 1. Evolution is based on objective knowledge beyond the existence of fossils in layers.
2. Evolution must be accepted because of Appeal To Authority.
The same goes for AGW. And abortion is a human rights issue which has been perverted into a woman's right to kill a Class of humans.
So it is extreme to demand objective knowledge of X before believing in X.
And it is extreme to preserve human life as it is transmitted from two parents to their progeny.
"Extreme" is a relative, unmeasurable charge which is subjectively discerned and is without metrics other than comparison to "self" or "self's" vision of the world, its population, and its grounding. I.e., your vision has no grounding but your own opinions. I have provided the grounding for mine. But of course, I am the radical, the extremist.
When a society goes haywire, as has western civilization in response to postmodern anti-rationality, it is the anarchy in worldviews, relationships - especially sexual and family, law and government, which has transformed into extreme caricatures of civilization. Yet those of us who learned and know what civilization requires are now the extremists.
The norm is weaponized Classism, negated moral principles purposely inverted from previous principles without regard for consequence; incivility at all levels; ideological violence almost exclusively from the Left.
It is entirely possible that the majority of the population has been maleducated into the proto-socialist fantasy to the point that no crimes, including treason, will keep them from voting for a sickly, chronic liar, because that's how they have been bent away by a post-modern, anti-rational maleducation system.
You have been challenged numerous times to produce empirical quality objective knowledge of even a single evolutionary fact. You always produce subjective inferential extrapolations, and you never, ever admit that. You continuously claim to "know" about evolution, which means that your concept of "knowledge" is far afield from the classical sense of objectivity in evidentiary requirements for belief to be justified.
That is raw evidence that you are ideologically attached to the post-modern anti-rationality which has infected the west for the last half century.
So when you charge Right Wing Extremism, you are doing so out of pure anti-rationalism.
Now back to evolution. Bring me one, just one (1), shred of falsifiable, objective evidence. You can't of course. But you will not admit that not having even one shred of real, obejctive, falsifiable evidence should affect one's belief. Why? Because: Appeal to Authority.
That is extreme, when compared to rationality as is found in physics and chemistry.
When the extremists are the majority, that doesn't change their extreme departure from the principles of rationality.
"Then you admit that the entire enterprise is not based on even a single piece of demonstrable evidence"
That's not what he said at all, Stan. You're twisting people's words again. He said it was based on multiple accumulating pieces of evidence. No one piece of evidence proves macroevolution, but all together they do.
"I positively believe … Evolution has caused many deaths"
What a strange fantasy-filled world Planet Stan is. Apologies for the "whataboutery", but the theory of evolution demonstrably never killed anyone: religion has killed its hundreds of millions.
"It is directly involved in the rise of Marxist fables and stories"
Simply not true. I know you want to think it's true, because it bolsters your anti-evolutionism, but it's a lie.
Now back to evolution. Bring me one, just one (1), shred of falsifiable, objective evidence.
Evidence of what? You have made it very clear that evolution is not possible according to your understanding of cell machinery. The funny not-so-funny picture you posted of a washing machine with clothes fully folded inside of it shows why it's impossible to show you anything that would convince you. The facts/hypothesis/theories behind evolution do not support that kind of silly outcome.
Let me make it more explicit:
- You strongly believe that cell machinery is a perfect system. It is not just like a machine, it is a machine, literally.
- You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention.
- The cell machinery is thus never failing. When errors happen, when mutations occur, they are deleted and the original design remains, barely changed.
- Therefore, any kind of actual evolution is impossible. The cell machinery cannot possibly allow for the kind of changes that would cause speciation, or actual macro-evolution where novel parts arise naturally.
So, when I asked 'Evidence for what?' above, I meant it. What evidence would make you change your mind about these sentences above?
p.s. I had also written a bunch of stuff regarding the commentaries you included. But I decided to not include them, since you might actually be interested in civil discussion again. The only thing I will specific is that I don't think you are an 'extremist', I only meant that some of your positions sound extreme. I can explain if you want, but I don't think it's productive, so I am moving on. Fair?
Martyn says,
"Then you admit that the entire enterprise is not based on even a single piece of demonstrable evidence"
That's not what he said at all, Stan. You're twisting people's words again. He said it was based on multiple accumulating pieces of evidence. No one piece of evidence proves macroevolution, but all together they do.
There is no – NO – objective, empirical, falsifiable material evidence for evolution. The use of the word “evidence” as a concept which you have placed into a Truth assertion is empirically false. There is none. If there existed empirical, testable, hypothetico-deductive, falsifiable evidence of evolution, then you or he would present it. But you merely use the term as if such empirical, falsifiable evidence of evolution actually exists somewhere, and use that false presumption to make a false claim. Evolution is not empirical; it is purely subjective, inferential, extrapolative opinion which is declared by the evolutionary clerisy. There is no objective test to determine any truth value of any claim for evolution: therefore it has none.
"I positively believe … Evolution has caused many deaths"
What a strange fantasy-filled world Planet Stan is. Apologies for the "whataboutery", but the theory of evolution demonstrably never killed anyone: religion has killed its hundreds of millions. ””
As it happens, I can point to the direct influence of evolution on the Marxist philosophers who were the basis for Lenin and Hitler and Mao. The influence of evolution gave two philosophies which became Atheist worldview fundaments: 1. Man is an accidental animal without any inherent value; 2. Directed evolution, i.e., “New Man” philosophy, required elite intervention in all societal affairs, including the eradication of “defectives” while breeding the “best to the best”. It thus became an Atheist moral principle, which allowed and even demanded the 20th century purges under Atheist Communism.
Further, you have prejudicially used the term "religion" as if that were applicable to all religions. When one differentiates between wars of aggression vs wars of repulsion of aggression, what do you find? I'm asking you: what do you find?
"It is directly involved in the rise of Marxist fables and stories"
Simply not true. I know you want to think it's true, because it bolsters your anti-evolutionism, but it's a lie.
It is far, far more historically accurate than is any claim which is made for evolution, which is entirely subjective inferential fabrication from top to bottom.
The Marxist/Atheist gleeful acceptance of evolution allowed them a "scientific Atheism" (Lenin's terminology) which provided their new, self-derived morality of New Man purification under evolutionary principles.
It is obvious that you deny it in order to preserve your perception of the purity of your Atheism.
”Now back to evolution. Bring me one, just one (1), shred of falsifiable, objective evidence.
Evidence of what? You have made it very clear that evolution is not possible according to your understanding of cell machinery. The funny not-so-funny picture you posted of a washing machine with clothes fully folded inside of it shows why it's impossible to show you anything that would convince you. The facts/hypothesis/theories behind evolution do not support that kind of silly outcome.”
Really? Evidence of what?? It is patently obvious. Falsifiable, objective evidence that evolution occurred by any of the various stories which claim that it did occur. Evolution is True (Jerry Coyne) Pick a story which you can prove empirically. Any story whatsoever. Pick one of Coyne’s or any other story. You know that is the challenge; it has always been the challenge, and it still is the same challenge.
And because they are stories only, all outcomes are possible including nothing at all. So the dryer analogy fits perfectly. In Deep Time, anything can happen, right? In fact, the dryer analogy is more probable than the platypus, the bombardier beetle, the caterpillar to butterfly transition, etc. etc. etc.
You continue to merely whine about the unfairness of my use of the necessity of rational analysis for what you falsely call “facts” of evolution. When hypotheses and “theories” (a false term for more hypotheses) cannot be tested, then they are not justified as any form of actual, objective knowledge. How many times have we been through this exact same discussion? How many times do you NOT bring forth any objective, empirical contingent factoids which have been validated and not falsified? Are we going into the thousands of times that this conversation has been replicated here?
Yet you do not accept any need for empirical non-falsification, and you even continue to falsely use terms which cannot apply: “facts”, “theories” do not exist. You have proved that ad nauseum, yet you continue in your inability to accept any analysis of the transparent content-free nature of the evolutionary stories.
The folded clothes in the dryer is an absolutely fair analogy for the accidental jumps from simple to massive complexity which evolutionary hypotheses demand – and demand without a shred of molecular hypotheses as to how it could, in fact, happen. The story is merely, that somehow, who knows how, who cares how, it is Truth, Fact, Theory. No justification or falsifiability is required for this Truth. It is obviously religious in nature: blind belief, without any mote of hope of rational, replicable, falsifiable, empirical scientific proof.
You do not even argue against that. You actually can’t. You merely complain that there is no way to convince a person who exercises the slightest skepticism. And you are right. And because you are right about that, it should persuade you to ask yourself why it is that you blindly believe, why you cannot exert any skepticism yourself, why you do not change your fallacious terms which infect your thought process. But your persistence proves that you cannot do otherwise, because the evidence shows exactly that – so far.
Now for the following, which is absolute bullshit:
” Let me make it more explicit:
- You strongly believe that cell machinery is a perfect system. It is not just like a machine, it is a machine, literally.
- You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention.
- The cell machinery is thus never failing. When errors happen, when mutations occur, they are deleted and the original design remains, barely changed.
- Therefore, any kind of actual evolution is impossible. The cell machinery cannot possibly allow for the kind of changes that would cause speciation, or actual macro-evolution where novel parts arise naturally.”
False. You have cherry picked what you want, out of what I said. Let’s see what I can do to correct this. I don’t really know why I bother, because you always do this.
1. Without using the indefinite term, “machine”, a cell has been compared to the functioning complexity of a major city (not my analogy, but an adequate one). So a cell is a set of controlled systems which function toward a mutual purpose, and which are complementary and mutually dependent. These systems are contained in a protected, purposefully semi-permeable environment (specific gates to the exterior), and they sustain the functions based on metabolism which services all the internal systems, which systems are compatible with that metabolic output. The function (purpose) of the cell is to support its timed-delay function of mitotic reproduction, without which the very first cell would have been the only cell. Contained within the cell is a separate function, that of apoptosis, which is necessary to create cell death upon certain conditions, and without which the cell would not die until destroyed by external forces. Also within the cell are temporary structures which self-assemble only for certain functions, such as “taking out the garbage” and the specific timed complex structures necessary for splitting the DNA just prior to compressing the cell into two identical daughter cells. These structures self-disassemble when the timed function has completed. As for DNA, the process of templating for creation of amino acids can produce errors, but the cause for the errors is not known, and most likely is external such as alpha particle damage. There is DNA editing and error correction internal to the cell. The DNA is double coded with specific information needed for the cell to a) exist, b) function.
If you need more specific information I can provide it.
2. Cell functions perform quite well, and have done so by the uncountable zillions for what, billions of years or so. Certainly cells can be damaged by external intrusions such as radiation, heat, pressure, lack of external nutrition availability, improper pH, etc. Thus mutations could occur if a damaged cell managed to survive. This is not the fault of the cell, nor of the cells internal processes.
3. Mutations have not ever been shown to be beneficial. Show otherwise.
4. Until specific positive mutations are shown to accumulate sufficiently and are not overwhelmed by negative mutations which are fatal, then there is no reason to believe that they exist. In fact there is more than sufficient reason to believe that the do not exist. Either way, there is zero empirical evidence to support that claim. Zero. Such a belief is a belief without objective evidence, and is a blind belief. The story being told is far too fantastic to be believed by anyone with the tiniest particle of rational skepticism. Not to mention mathematical inclination.
We have been through this ad nauseum also. But you do not accept any analysis of the stories.
” So, when I asked 'Evidence for what?' above, I meant it. What evidence would make you change your mind about these sentences above?”
And this is an example of more AD NAUSEUM keystroke repetition from you. One word for you: empirical. That’s what is required for objective knowledge (how often must I say it before you even acknowledge it?) and without objective knowledge which by definition is replicable and falsifiable, then you have nothing. NOTHING.
You have a zealous blind belief in non-credible, non-falsifiable science-fiction stories. That equals religion and you exhibit religious zeal. What would it take to convict me of the Truth of your blind belief? One more word: Empiricism; falsifiability.
Because you do not even acknowledge empiricism and falsifiabilty, nor any need for objective evidence before belief, you exhibit the self-induced hermetic closure of cult-mind, or maybe hive-mind. Everyone in the evolutionary hive believes, and they do so without any need for objective knowledge which is replicable and falsifiable. Those are the “authorities”, the clerisy you would have me bow to.
And that is all you want. You want me to suddenly claim the Truth value of unsupportable, non-empirical claims about physical reality, claims without any hope of rational proof for their material Truth. Presumably from there, once you have won that departure from rationality from me, you can then argue for the necessary VOID of Atheism, based on the creation story of evolution of humans from mud, submerged geothermal vents, or just “ignore First Life altogether, don’t even talk about that, or the Cambrian Explosion for that matter”.
BTW, I understand your distaste for the dryer analogy; hits home doesn’t it?
"BTW, I understand your distaste for the dryer analogy; hits home doesn’t it?"
No distaste on my end, because it's inaccurate. The dryer analogy fails to represent how evolution works because the clothes are constantly moving while the machine is ON; nothing remains stable to allow some sort of pile to progressively form.
Evolution, on the other hand, acts via small localized changes; the rest does not change. i.e. there are mutations each time an organism reproduces, but most of the genome does not change. It's the exact opposite of the washing machine, where the entire pile of clothes is disorganized at every turn.
"3. Mutations have not ever been shown to be beneficial. Show otherwise."
There are 3 problems here :
1) You disagree with the concept that lasting mutations happen.
(Correct? I don't intend to misrepresent your points.)
2) You disagree with the concept that mutations can change the organism in a novel way; your opinion is that changes are always just a re-shuffling of the information that was already in the genome of the organism, but unused. Again, correct?
3) Therefore, mutations are necessarily 'not' beneficial, since they are breaking something, not just changing something. The changes do not propagate since it can only decrease the likelihood that a mutant will survive, being broken. The changes thus fade away instead of giving rise to novel species.
As I mentioned before, because mutations are nothing but changes:
The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations, which can be neutral, positive or negative. For example, slightly different eye colors or fingerprint (neutral), slightly better fitness level (positive), malformed organ which lead to death (negative). These mutations can be passed to the individuals' offspring and affect the population they are part of by shifting the average of affected traits a little one way or another.
” Let me make it more explicit:
- You strongly believe that cell machinery is a perfect system. It is not just like a machine, it is a machine, literally.
- You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention.
- The cell machinery is thus never failing. When errors happen, when mutations occur, they are deleted and the original design remains, barely changed.
- Therefore, any kind of actual evolution is impossible. The cell machinery cannot possibly allow for the kind of changes that would cause speciation, or actual macro-evolution where novel parts arise naturally.”
"False. You have cherry picked what you want, out of what I said. Let’s see what I can do to correct this."
Ok, my bad, I don't intend to misrepresent your points. So I will go over what you actually wrote after that to be on the right track:
"These systems are contained in a protected, purposefully semi-permeable environment (specific gates to the exterior), and they sustain the functions based on metabolism which services all the internal systems, which systems are compatible with that metabolic output. "
You used the word 'purposefully' here. This is what I meant by:
- You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention.
The way I see this semi-permeable membrane is just like anything else in nature. Yes, its the 'purpose' of the membrane to do what you described, but it does not imply any 'intention' to make it like that. So, is that what you believe or not? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Moreover, the gates are nothing but chemicals processes that react to the environment. It's a good analogy to compare them to gates, but they are not 'literally' gates in the human sense, where the gate can be open-close externally. The chemical gates of a cell are passively doing their job through chemical reactions.
"The function (purpose) of the cell is to support its timed-delay function of mitotic reproduction, without which the very first cell would have been the only cell."
Nobody knows what the first cell looked like, nor what can actually be called a cell, precisely. Were the first self-reproducing molecules cells for instance? It's not entirely clear... that's a huge fascinating topic.
But in any case, what's the point here? You don't accept the possibility that one or a few cells ended up diversifying, creating new cells species, which eventually collaborated so tightly that they formed simple multi-cellular organisms, which in turn evolved into multi-cellular organisms that reproduce sexually, i.e. you don't accept the idea that Eukaryota cells evolved from simpler cells.
So the first cell means nothing here, there were no such first cell, or cells... Under your opinion that the fossil records show sudden appearances of complex living things, for instance, it means that the so-called 'first cell' is really more like a pair of animals, a male and a female; perhaps in the form of 2 fertilized eggs? They then went on and reproduced after their own kind, creating only variations within that genome.
Again though; unless you meant something else?
"BTW, I understand your distaste for the dryer analogy; hits home doesn’t it?"
No distaste on my end, because it's inaccurate. The dryer analogy fails to represent how evolution works because the clothes are constantly moving while the machine is ON; nothing remains stable to allow some sort of pile to progressively form.
You are depending upon that which you cannot prove, and are declaring odds against, based on what you know of dryers in general. That is the exact same form and logic of the odds against First Life self-assembling from randomized atoms and simple molecules in the complexity containing compatible metabolic functions, stabilization feedback systems, and double coded, splitable, cogent DNA for replication, as well as timed sequential processes for replicating. All suddenly happening in a single cell.
The odds against that are significantly higher than the dryer analogy, in which the clothes fold themselves as they fall to the bottom the moment the dryer is turned off, which is a story that fully explains the photograph, just like all – all – Darwinian stories explain. Can you prove it didn’t happen that way? Or do you believe the odds against it, based on your knowledge of your own experience and the lack of any possible objective knowledge being generated in order to falsify the story?
The dryer analysis works for the cladistics maps and the Cambrian Explosion as well, thereby analogically defeating all of Darwinian theory.
One thing I’m certain of: you can’t accept this analysis because you must defend the stories in which you are indoctrinated to fully believe without considering – skeptically – their (im)probabilities, based on biological and physics knowledge of the real world.
”Evolution, on the other hand, acts via small localized changes; the rest does not change. i.e. there are mutations each time an organism reproduces, but most of the genome does not change. It's the exact opposite of the washing machine, where the entire pile of clothes is disorganized at every turn.”
Against which claim I submit Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, which claims otherwise. In anticipation of your next claim, accumulation of positive mutations, I submit the observation of reality: there are massive amounts of deleterious mutations which would clear out any positive mutations before they could accumulate in the huge organized genes required for novel, useful organic additions, AND, there are never any positive mutations observed, only neutral mutations. Again, the odds against are vastly higher than the tiny odds for positive mutation of novelty. This is especially obvious in the Cambrian Explosion of not just one new gene for one new organ, but for numerous new genes, all at once, which play together in amazing harmony.
And of course you are still asserting a term which is completely without any meaning, mutation, unless it is referencing specific mutations at specific locations on DNA. Further, it is a term which is totally blind to the necessity of destroying pre-existing uses of that location on DNA, which is necessarily deleterious at the same time evolutionists claim benefit from that destruction.
A minimum size gene, for a new novel feature contains 76 base pairs are for tRNA (80,781 base pairs in humans). [1] So the probability against creating tRNA from mutation of one of the molecules of the base pair is p = 2^-76 x 2^-4 = 2^80. This excludes introns and exons, which vary and are specific, and include regulatory instructions. [2] If a minimum intron size is assumed to be 400 base pairs, then an additional 2^-400 x 2^ -4 is required. For new exons, an additional 2^-700 x 2^4 is required.
So the probability of even the smallest simple mutation-directed new feature (tRNA) is 2^-1908.
Remembering that mutations destroy prior DNA functionality, the probability of the viability of the Host after that destruction of 1,908 positions on the organism’s DNA occurs and the likely hood of the organism’s failure is assuredly quite high, even if completely incalculable, due to the randomness of the location of the destruction.
Evolutionists do not speak in these terms. In my experience they NEVER acknowledge these real world mathematical arguments which destroy Darwinism at its core.
NOTES:
1. https://www.genome.gov/dnaday/q.cfm?aid=639&year=2010
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7952825_Intron_Size_and_Exon_Evolution_in
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6959108
"3. Mutations have not ever been shown to be beneficial. Show otherwise."
”There are 3 problems here :
1) You disagree with the concept that lasting mutations happen.
(Correct? I don't intend to misrepresent your points.)”
Correct. What you assume are mutations (eye color, etc.) you cannot prove to be actual mutations, except by asserting Philosophical Materialism (It must be so, there is no physical explanation for anything genomic, or even biological, other than the mystery of non-specific, unknowable mutations, which therefore must be believed).
”2) You disagree with the concept that mutations can change the organism in a novel way; your opinion is that changes are always just a re-shuffling of the information that was already in the genome of the organism, but unused. Again, correct?”
Mutations do, in fact change the organism in a novel way: observations in real life tell us that mutations produce defective organisms, some to the point of not surviving to replicate. That is novel, but not useful.
”3) Therefore, mutations are necessarily 'not' beneficial, since they are breaking something, not just changing something. The changes do not propagate since it can only decrease the likelihood that a mutant will survive, being broken. The changes thus fade away instead of giving rise to novel species.”
See the calculations in the prior block. Then produce your own to support any opinion otherwise.
”As I mentioned before, because mutations are nothing but changes:
The outcomes of that imperfect biological reproductive process are unique individuals, each with their own mutations, which can be neutral, positive or negative. For example, slightly different eye colors or fingerprint (neutral), slightly better fitness level (positive), malformed organ which lead to death (negative). These mutations can be passed to the individuals' offspring and affect the population they are part of by shifting the average of affected traits a little one way or another.”
Show your calculations for the likelihood of each of those possibilities as they occur randomly in DNA. Use specific known information for minimum gene size, intron/exon size and the loss of information which is destroyed.
Then we have something specific to discuss. The term “mutation” is a fog term without meaning in the abstract. Only in the specifics of change to DNA does it have meaning.
And, finally for now, show where a positive mutation is undeniably causal, and what previous function was destroyed by the mutation (introns, code, exons).
Gotta go for now. I'll address the remainder later.
"These systems are contained in a protected, purposefully semi-permeable environment (specific gates to the exterior), and they sustain the functions based on metabolism which services all the internal systems, which systems are compatible with that metabolic output. "
You used the word 'purposefully' here. This is what I meant by:
- You strongly believe that this machine exhibits purpose. The process shows intention.
The way I see this semi-permeable membrane is just like anything else in nature. Yes, its the 'purpose' of the membrane to do what you described, but it does not imply any 'intention' to make it like that. So, is that what you believe or not? I don't want to put words in your mouth.”
Intent was not mentioned, was it. Your belief is that the entire cell occurred altogether at the same time (necessary for a single source of life). The odds against that make your belief spectacularly irrational, and without any correlate in observable reality. Even the odds against the spontaneous creation of useful, positive mutations with in the atoms of the base pairs within DNA information make that belief a spectacularly irrational belief also, and again without any correlate in observable reality, which shows the opposite. Reductio Ad Absurdum logically annihilates those conclusions.
Intent was brought up by you, apparently because you wish to add it to my analysis as a straw man to attack. No such claim is made, or need be made, in order to show the irrationality of the Darwinian evolutionary claims. Those claims fail all on their own. Darwinism is blatantly irrational. Darwinism is objective-evidence-free. Darwinism eschews the requirements of REAL science for objective knowledge based on falsifiability of replicable evidence based on testable hypotheses. Darwinism effectively falsely destroys the inherent value of humans.
”The chemical gates of a cell are passively doing their job through chemical reactions.”
Of course they are. And according to your Darwinism, that logic function occurred purely by accident, due to the destruction of a molecule in a base pair in DNA, repeatedly and in a rational sequence which produced not only the membrane, but embedded logic function of the directional, discriminatory gate.
And there’s not just one dedicated-function gate, either. But your reaction is very blasé in terms of the likelihood of that occurring. You accept the general fog of the term “evolution” and “mutation” as final causes. Those have no meaning because they are merely the titles of supposed molecular processes.
So forget mentioning mutation. Go straight to the atomic causation, and its probability vs its proposed impact.
”"The function (purpose) of the cell is to support its timed-delay function of mitotic reproduction, without which the very first cell would have been the only cell."
Nobody knows what the first cell looked like, nor what can actually be called a cell, precisely. Were the first self-reproducing molecules cells for instance? It's not entirely clear... that's a huge fascinating topic.”
That’s a huge cop out. HUGE. At some point all the components became the complete First Cell. The first ancestor of us all. Common descent, remember? It’s the Law! Darwinism is, in fact, law. At least in the USA.
What component can a minimal cell do without? Surely you’re all read-up on the minimal viable cell size, right? 244 genes are the minimum number of genes in known genomes (Streptococcus pneumonia). [1] The minimum gene size is 50kb (sequenced kb/gene). [2] So, the minimum possible cell requires 244x50,000 base pairs, or 12,200,000 bp, or 24,400,000 molecules of Adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine.
This results in the necessity of 2^24,400,000 instances of correct positioning of individual molecules in the DNA, and likely vastly underestimates both gene size and intron/exon sizes.
So the FIRST cell required a) completely functional operation of the living cell which was coincidentally also endowed with DNA of 24,400,000 correctly positioned molecules which happened to describe every aspect of the cell, including timed functions for separation of the DNA just before the cell split into two identical halves, each containing all the elements of the original cell plus DNA for future division.
The odds against this arising from individual atoms, minerals, or benzene rings is preposterously gargantuan, given that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, and one Planck time is 5x10^-44 Sec.
The possible number of events in the universe is calculated as follows (numbers rounded out to extremes for conservativism):
Planck times since Big Bang to present:
= (years) * (days/year)* (seconds/day)*(planck times/second) = Planck times since Big Bang.
=13*10^9 * 24 * 3600 * 10^43
Possible events in the universe:
(10^82 atoms in universe) x (10^57 possible planck times) = 10^139 possible events in the universe.
There is no possible way that the positioning of 2^24,400,000 (10^0.3001)^24,400,000 = 10^7,322,440 correct random events required to create the First DNA could occur in 10^139 possible events in the entire universe, much less just here on earth.
Further, the probability that all the proteins would be left handed is this:
” This would give the probability of the needed group of 239 protein molecules being all left-handed.
The number is beyond all comprehension, namely 1 in 1029345”[3]
Should you deny this, then show your own calculations. And actually, you do need supply your own calculations, since these calculations absolutely annihilate any possibility of evolution or First Life occurring randomly, per Darwinian hypotheses.
NOTES:
1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_genome#Number_of_Essential_Genes
2. http://www.cshlp.org/ghg5_all/section/gene.shtml
3. http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c04.htm#ec04f02x
”But in any case, what's the point here?”
It’s really quite simple: Darwinian evolution is false; it didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen. That’s all there is to it. Evolution is false.
The lack of any objective facts should have been a trigger for you. But you still haven’t addressed the issue of Objective Facts – which I’ve been bringing up ever since you were a pup. But you make no comment on that. Instead of addressing the need for falsifiable, objective facts, you keep insisting that there ARE facts, but they always turn out to be not facts, but opinions, fatuous extrapolations, fictions created to support the Darwinian narrative. All of them. There is no attempt ever made to falsify evolution, because that would result in banishment from the cult.
So there you have it, just as before and before and before. Nothing has changed. It’s always the same. You bring stories and then you wonder what it would take to convince me that the stories are facts. You never bring atomic-level data, probability calculations, falsifiable hypotheses – none of the stuff which makes science a legitimate source of objective - yet contingent – factoids. Those do not exist because they cannot exist for the Darwinian simplistic and unfalsifiable claims. Despite those fatal deficiencies, you persist.
"That is the exact same form and logic of the odds against First Life self-assembling from randomized atoms and simple molecules in the complexity containing compatible metabolic functions, stabilization feedback systems, and double coded, splitable, cogent DNA for replication, as well as timed sequential processes for replicating. All suddenly happening in a single cell. "
This assumes 2 things that you have not defended:
1) There is somehow a clear definition of what the 'first cell' was, with the characteristics you listed here. But how can we know about that?
2) This cell could not have evolved gradually, because it had to 'suddenly' have all the characteristics you listed. But evolutionary theories state the exact opposite: that there was no sudden appearance of these things that you listed. Basically, you believe that a first cell 'appeared', not 'evolved', and then complain that evolution doesn't account for this 'appearance'. That's just asserting your position; not defending it.
I have mentioned the work of Jack W. Szostak before; it's relevant here:
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
http://www.ibiology.org/ibioseminars/evolution-ecology/jack-szostak-part-1.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
That last video is 8 years old now, and I have listed it on your blog before I believe. You also mention Szostak yourself, twice in 2016 as I can see from my email... Yet, you reject is work! The idea is not that this is the absolute truth about what/how things happened, but it's a great 'possibility', which contradicts your argument that it's 'impossible' because of the odds. It also shows a gradual process, not a sudden appearance, which is what we expect from natural systems. This is what debunks your attempt at using math, covered below.
" The odds against that are significantly higher than the dryer analogy, in which the clothes fold themselves as they fall to the bottom the moment the dryer is turned off, which is a story that fully explains the photograph, just like all – all – Darwinian stories explain. Can you prove it didn’t happen that way? Or do you believe the odds against it, based on your knowledge of your own experience and the lack of any possible objective knowledge being generated in order to falsify the story? "
Yes we can prove it did not happen that way, because the odds of the dryer doing what the picture shows are '0', literally zero. We know how dryers work: they tumble the entire pile of clothing in a circular manner. Hence, the odds that individual pieces of clothing suddenly fall flat, straight down, and folded neatly, is literally 0. It will never happen like that because of the physical properties of the machine and the clothes, which we actually know about.
”1) There is somehow a clear definition of what the 'first cell' was, with the characteristics you listed here. But how can we know about that?”
That’s hysterical. Really. Now you assert skepticism? Finally?
Did you use the references? There is a test-defined minimum cell size, empirically determined. The one empirical, replicable, falsifiable fact is the one which you can’t know about. Genes are removed one at a time until the cell is no longer viable. By removing any of the remaining elements it is determined that they are necessary, because the cell cannot survive.
Here’s what you really can’t know about: accumulated positive mutations occur; they occur sequentially in order to form a new gene or genes; that explains the fossil record except when it doesn’t.
”2) This cell could not have evolved gradually, because it had to 'suddenly' have all the characteristics you listed. But evolutionary theories state the exact opposite: that there was no sudden appearance of these things that you listed. Basically, you believe that a first cell 'appeared', not 'evolved', and then complain that evolution doesn't account for this 'appearance'. That's just asserting your position; not defending it.”
That is bull. You are the one defending an absurd and irrational theory which totally evades common sense. The theory is sacred and cannot be wrong. But there’s a problem, empirically. Cells cannot be built over time, one element at a time, because there is a minimum number of mutually dependent systems required for the survival of every individual component. That is empirically, falsifiably proven.
For you, the theory is a First Principle which cannot be violated; therefore, actual empirical science does not matter IF it doesn’t support the fiction of the theory. Which, of course, is not a theory, it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis which fails empirical evidence for First Life, and thus denies any intellectual responsibility for First Life. Darwin avoided it, because the text he stole from Wallace didn’t include First Life.
”I have mentioned the work of Jack W. Szostak before; it's relevant here:”
And I have written about Szostak’s admission to complete failure in his lab’s attempt over decades to produce non-information-bearing RNA (not even DNA) in the laboratory, which is why he finally gave that up, and started his attempts to create lesser molecules which he also has not done so far. So, yes it is relevant, because it is proof of the probability AGAINST the random creation of even non-information-bearing replicators. To get the perfection of correctly double-coded information-bearing molecules is even more unlikely (impossible).
”Yet, you reject is work!”
He rejected it. He failed. I agreed. QED.
So where are the Just So Stories which tell us exactly how First Life/Common Ancestor happened within the absurd hypothesis of Darwinian Necessary and Sufficient Fictions?
The following is rich:
”Hence, the odds that individual pieces of clothing suddenly fall flat, straight down, and folded neatly, is literally 0. It will never happen like that because of the physical properties of the machine and the clothes, which we actually know about.”
And we “actually know about” the minimum required cell size for life. It is empirically, falsifiably determined. It is objective knowledge. You reject empirical, replicable objective knowledge due to your belief in the unprovable, unfalsifiable (religious) narrative. That is irrational blind belief.
When an empirical determination doesn’t fit with the unprovable narrative, which is wrong?
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
Mitosis cannot occur, except in a fully functional cell of minimum complexity. Mitosis is the replication process, not mysterious “replicating molecules”. PROVE OTHERWISE. But use empirical, falsifiable data, only.
"Genes are removed one at a time until the cell is no longer viable. By removing any of the remaining elements it is determined that they are necessary, because the cell cannot survive. "
This has nothing to do with the evolution of the first self-replicating molecules and/or complex cells. It's starting with
"Here’s what you really can’t know about: accumulated positive mutations occur; they occur sequentially in order to form a new gene or genes "
Accumulated mutations occur; period. You insert the word 'positive' because you don't believe such type of mutations can happen. This is the recurring theme here.
"Cells cannot be built over time, one element at a time, because there is a minimum number of mutually dependent systems required for the survival of every individual component. That is empirically, falsifiably proven."
No that has not been proven. You are claiming 'irreducible complexity' as proof that something cannot have evolved. This is not a logical argument against the Theory of Evoution. It's actually a prediction of the theory; we expect to see such systems in nature if they evolved from other life forms.
Remember? That was one of the key elements that Behe tried to bring forward in the Dover trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
That aired in 2007 by the way. Almost 10 years since Behe and the Discovery Institute failed to support their views, and nothing has changed since.
"And I have written about Szostak’s admission to complete failure in his lab’s attempt over decades to produce [...]"
This has nothing to do with the point I brought forward. The mere 'possibility' of an explanation is enough to debunk the idea that it's 'impossible'. And your claim IS that it is 'impossible'. You have not rationally justified the belief that the first self-replicating molecules could not have arisen through natural means, you have not justified your belief that evolution of these molecules into complex molecule is impossible, you have not justified your belief that evolution of these complex molecules into multi-cellular organisms is impossible. You justify nothing; you reject everything.
Why? Always that same 1 thing: you believe the cell machinery is a perfect system that cannot possibly yield neutral mutations that accumulate over time.
"So where are the Just So Stories which tell us exactly how First Life/Common Ancestor happened within the absurd hypothesis of Darwinian Necessary and Sufficient Fictions?"
That's what the video show; a possible explanation of how simple organic building blocks can lead to self-reproduction and eventually cells. Evolution can then act on these self-reproducing molecules by selecting the best performing ones.
But again, this implies that mutations do happen, can accumulate, and thus create independent lineage of descendants.
"And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality."
This is an example of an insult. You write tons of insults like these, and yes, I will continue to ignore them. Or perhaps you prefer me to reply back with insults of my own?'
I had not finished replying to the top portion; you replied before I got to post the rest, so it might become hard to follow but here is some of it...
Would anyone able to truly create a story that would explain a 'possible' way of that happening? No, because the machine does not work like that. Yet, you just claim that this is a story that fully explains the photograph; why would you say that? Can you demonstrate a logical possible pathway between a dryer in action and a pile of folded clothes? Of course you cannot... it's physically impossible, again, because of the properties of the machine and the clothes in it. You need a specific alignment, which the machine cannot physically provide by just turning.
On the other hand, what you pejoratively call "Darwinian stories" are in fact possible scenarios. Even if you don't believe this is what happened, you should agree that it's at least possible, or show otherwise. But in light of our recent discussions, I now understand why you believe that it's impossible: because of how you perceive the cell machinery, which is a perfect system that never generates sustained changes, in your opinion. It all comes back to that. This is the only point that matters in this entire conversation; it explains entirely your rejection of evolution. It is the starting point, the rock, of your entire line of argumentation against evolutionary biology.
" The dryer analysis works for the cladistics maps and the Cambrian Explosion as well, thereby analogically defeating all of Darwinian theory. "
Not at all. Successive small changes are what are needed for the Cambrian Explosion, not some random sudden appearance of something more complex. You are reversing the narrative so that it fits what you already believe: sudden appearance. Then, you reject the evolutionary explanation because it does not account for a sudden appearance. But you have not established why we should believe there was some sudden appearance in the first place!
========
”Evolution, on the other hand, acts via small localized changes; the rest does not change. i.e. there are mutations each time an organism reproduces, but most of the genome does not change. It's the exact opposite of the washing machine, where the entire pile of clothes is disorganized at every turn.”
" Against which claim I submit Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, which claims otherwise. "
No, that does not address my point at all; evolution works by changing parts of the genome, while the dryer machine changes all the clothes at the same time. Punctuated Equilibrium is a red herring, but I will bite because it links to the next point:
Punctuated Equilibrium has nothing to do with the underlying modifications that happen to the genome; these changes are constantly happening, each time an organism reproduces. Punctuated Equilibrium has to do with the selection process. If the environment in which a population lives is very stable, so will its collective genome be. But if some big change happens to the environment, the balance can be thrown off and organisms that are different might become more successful at surviving, creating a period of rapid evolution. The neutral mutations that make some organisms slightly different from others can suddenly become advantageous, which brings us to your next point:
" In anticipation of your next claim, accumulation of positive mutations, I submit the observation of reality: there are massive amounts of deleterious mutations which would clear out any positive mutations before they could accumulate in the huge organized genes required for novel, useful organic additions, AND, there are never any positive mutations observed, only neutral mutations. Again, the odds against are vastly higher than the tiny odds for positive mutation of novelty. This is especially obvious in the Cambrian Explosion of not just one new gene for one new organ, but for numerous new genes, all at once, which play together in amazing harmony. "
It's contradictory to state that we see neutral mutations but never beneficial mutations, as we cannot tell right away whether a neutral mutation will become advantageous / disadvantageous, later on. You brought up black-vs-white moths not too long ago. It's an example of a neutral mutation that can yield a beneficial outcome. The change of color, on its own, is neither good nor bad; it's neutral. Some moths are just different. In an environment where color does not matter, say because predators like white and black moths equally, and can perceive them as often, a mutation causing a color change is neutral: it has no effect on the survival of the mutant. However, if the change in color does have an influence on the survival rate, we can conclude that the mutation that caused the change of color was in fact beneficial, or not, depending on which way it went.
"...term which is completely without any meaning, mutation, unless it is referencing specific mutations at specific locations on DNA. Further, it is a term which is totally blind to the necessity of destroying pre-existing uses of that location on DNA, which is necessarily deleterious at the same time evolutionists claim benefit from that destruction."
This is the same principle again: your view of the cell machinery makes it impossible for changes to be neutral. Your interpretation is that changes are always breaking something. Hence, mutations affection specific locations in the DNA are necessarily making that DNA do something 'wrong', not just 'different'. You even go as far as stating that it's evolutionists who see benefits from destruction, disregarding the fact that this assumes that it is indeed destruction in the first place. In other words, you start with the view that all changes are destructive, and then point out that it's illogical to see such destruction as beneficial. Well, of course, if you label something as destructive to start with, anything contradicting that fact will appear illogical. But the problem is that you have not justified the position that any/all changes to the DNA are destructive.
" A minimum size gene, for a new novel feature contains 76 base pairs [...]"
I don't understand what the point of these calculations is, after that quote. Evolution is not about things suddenly appearing fully formed. It seems that the calculations are meant to show how unlikely it is that something complicated like a full gene would come to be, suddenly. But that's the opposite of what evolution explains: a sudden evolution towards that complex composition. So this actually support the evolutionary view: 76 base pairs, for example, are unlikely to just suddenly self-arrange.
There is actually something slightly different right after:
" Remembering that mutations destroy prior DNA functionality, the probability of the viability of the Host after that destruction of 1,908 positions on the organism’s DNA occurs and the likely hood of the organism’s failure is assuredly quite high, even if completely incalculable, due to the randomness of the location of the destruction. "
But this assumes once again that a mutation is necessarily destruction. We are back to the cell machinery and its 'perfect' operation.
" Evolutionists do not speak in these terms. In my experience they NEVER acknowledge these real world mathematical arguments which destroy Darwinism at its core. "
You are right; nobody discusses evolution using these terms... except people who reject evolution. Somehow, that makes you conclude that they are purposely ignoring this type of arguments? What about the other possibility: evolutionary biologists don't speak in these terms because they are inaccurate...
"What you assume are mutations (eye color, etc.) you cannot prove to be actual mutations, except by asserting Philosophical Materialism (It must be so, there is no physical explanation for anything genomic, or even biological, other than the mystery of non-specific, unknowable mutations, which therefore must be believed)."
That's the problem of the cell machinery again. Since you believe that mutations cannot possibly occur, in the neutral sense, you claim that I am the one assuming that mutations occur. But that's because you assume that you are correct about the cell machinery being 'perfect', yet you have not demonstrated that.
On the other hand, I have given you several sources that explain what mutations are and why they happen. It’s not a 'complete' mystery; there are physical explanations for real mutations, actual changes to the DNA, not just reshuffling of stuff that was already there. Yet, you persist that your opinion is correct: neutral mutations do not really exist, because actually mutations are changes that destroy the DNA and can thus only break something, never just alter it.
Moreover, mentioning Philosophical Materialism is another red herring. Nothing we are talking about here has to do with philosophical positions regarding the nature of reality, or what it means to exist physically or non-physically. It only show a failure to support your claim that mutations are always bad, always breaking rather than just changing the existing DNA sequence.
" Intent was not mentioned, was it. Your belief is that the entire cell occurred altogether at the same time (necessary for a single source of life). "
No. I don't believe it's possible for a cell to just suddenly appear out of nowhere, fully formed. This is actually the exact opposite of abiogenesis theories and evolutionary biology. You are attacking a strawman.
" Intent was brought up by you, apparently because you wish to add it to my analysis as a straw man to attack. No such claim is made "
Ok, sure, thanks for correction.
But why do you insist that the walls of the cell have a 'purpose' exactly? I was trying to understand the point of the long explanation of what a cell is. What was the point? Why are you so insistent on describing the marvelous complexity of the cell machinery? I already know that you believe it to be a perfect machine, which does not cause random mutations to occur, but was there more to it here?
"”The chemical gates of a cell are passively doing their job through chemical reactions.”
Of course they are. And according to your Darwinism [...]"
Same thing here, I don't understand why you go into 'according to your Darwinism...' instead of explaining why you raised that point in the first place. You go at length to discuss how special the cell is, how the walls have a 'purpose', and you insist on that fact, but when I ask why you mentioned this, as this is nothing but an example of chemical processes, your answer is to attack 'my' interpretation? This makes no sense, you brought up the point, why don't you want to explain why? Or, perhaps there was nothing to explain because it's another straw man... because that's what you wrote after this quote, it was a huge straw man.
"That’s a huge cop out. HUGE. At some point all the components became the complete First Cell. The first ancestor of us all. Common descent, remember?"
Exact same thing again here. You brought up the concept of a first cell, then you complain that I am trying to create cope out? But it's your point, not mine... Yet, you even insist that yes, you do know what a minimal cell would look like. But you don't know Stan, because nobody does.
The description you inserted is arbitrary; it's what you think a cell needs to be, and you believe it just appeared like that it seems. But that's not what evolution states. Evolution is not concerned about how life started, but it does indicate that the first cells evolved from simpler building blocks; no evolutionary biologist would claim sudden appearance.
So, again, why do you care about the notion of a first cell? Even if it were supernaturally created by an agent, you would reject the evolution of the diversity on Earth from that cell, since you reject any kind of evolution of novel features. Hence, what you have to believe to be consistent is that complex animals were created as is. Cells don't mean anything on their own since they cannot yield multi-cellular organisms through evolutionary means.
The math can be addressed to show how your views assume this 'sudden' appearance, and affirms your bias that cells are perfect machines that cannot possibly have evolved, and cannot possible even make mistakes:
"244 genes are the minimum number of genes in known genomes (Streptococcus pneumonia). [1] The minimum gene size is 50kb (sequenced kb/gene). [2] So, the minimum possible cell requires 244x50,000 base pairs, or 12,200,000 bp, or 24,400,000 molecules of Adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine."
You're talking about what we can observe today; it has no bearing on what the first self-replicating molecules were nor what the first complex cells were; meaningless numbers in that context.
"This results in the necessity of 2^24,400,000 instances of correct positioning of individual molecules in the DNA, and likely vastly underestimates both gene size and intron/exon sizes."
No, that's the number of possible arrangements; another meaningless number.
The rest of the calculation being based on this initial false start, there is no point analyzing further.
Regarding 2 of your sources:
One is a Creationist source whose mission statement is:
"Creation Safaris (TM) is a ministry of Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation dedicated to helping young people (and adults) understand and follow God's plan for their lives, and for the whole world, as revealed in the Bible"
This is not a scientific organization; it shows why this discussion is really about intelligent design. It is not about evolution on its own, as you suggest, because the rejection of evolution is based on the strong belief that the cell machinery is an example of DESIGN, it is an example of irreducible complexity, it's an example of INTELLIGENCE in action. You are trying really really hard to avoid that, and I don't know why... because at the end of the day, it does not change anything, it's already obvious that this is what you believe and the reason why you reject evolution.
Your reasoning is ideologically driven; belief in evolution is not. The support for that statement is that many people who believe in God also accept evolution; the Catholic Church being a great example. Again, I don't know why you try to hide that... Your reasoning is logical, but it does start with a belief that I think is not supported: the cell machinery is perfect and thus clearly designed, or the other way around, it's too complex to have evolved. That's also why you posted a video with Berlinski, who is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, another religiously-driven pro-Inteligent-Design organization.
On the other hand, you also quoted Science Daily who, today by coincidence, had this article featured on their home page:
"Oxygen levels were key to early animal evolution, strongest evidence now shows"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160923100751.htm
But that's just another so-story?
"The lack of any objective facts should have been a trigger for you. But you still haven’t addressed the issue of Objective Facts – which I’ve been bringing up ever since you were a pup. But you make no comment on that. Instead of addressing the need for falsifiable, objective facts, you keep insisting that there ARE facts, but they always turn out to be not facts, but opinions, fatuous extrapolations, fictions created to support the Darwinian narrative. All of them. There is no attempt ever made to falsify evolution, because that would result in banishment from the cult."
Yes, I do try really hard to ignore all of your insults because I try to keep the conversion civil. Yet, you don't hold yourself to that standard. You use ridicule and conspiracy theories to support your view that the cell is an example of irreducible complexity. You claim the so-called Darwinian narrative is wrong but you misrepresent it by stating that it's all about 'sudden' appearances, the exact opposite of what it states.
"So there you have it, just as before and before and before. Nothing has changed. It’s always the same."
I disagree, we now have a much clearer understanding of what we disagree on. At least I do. I repeat, everything here, all these 8 comment blocks (assuming they all show up...) are about that 1 same thing.
" You bring stories and then you wonder what it would take to convince me that the stories are facts. You never bring atomic-level data, probability calculations, falsifiable hypotheses – none of the stuff which makes science a legitimate source of objective - yet contingent – factoids. Those do not exist because they cannot exist for the Darwinian simplistic and unfalsifiable claims. Despite those fatal deficiencies, you persist."
This is more commentary, which I try to ignore, but you seem to insist that I should reply to every single word that you write. So that's what I am doing today...
It's not my fault that you cannot differentiate between the facts and the theories, which you call stories. The theories explain the facts, which are actually based on falsifiable hypotheses, hard data, observations, objective contingent truths, etc... All you do is claim that it's all impossible; all of it. It's so ridiculously wrong. But I finally understand why so I find it more interesting than before, because this strong belief is reflected in everything you write about evolution, and it shows how you come up with mental gymnastic to make sure that nothing contradicts that basic belief.
Stan, check out the comments section of this entry:
Metacrock's blog: Answering Sotnak's Argument on Moral Outrages Objectivity
There is this guy named Gary that said this (among other things):
This is where we humans get our "morality", our "ethics". It is an evolutionary development. We don't need an invisible god to tell us to be nice to the children in our "herd". It is an instinct, passed down in our DNA over millions of years.
”Accumulated mutations occur; period. You insert the word 'positive' because you don't believe such type of mutations can happen. This is the recurring theme here.”
It’s not just me, is it. It’s part of Kimura’s Neutral Theory… which you have denied in the past.
And as this exchange will demonstrate in its fullness, you will reject any logic, any calculations, any reasoning which doesn’t fit the bogus hypothesis, purely because it doesn’t fit the bogus hypothesis of Darwinism, along with blatant cultish authoritarianism.
”No that has not been proven. You are claiming 'irreducible complexity' as proof that something cannot have evolved. This is not a logical argument against the Theory of Evoution. It's actually a prediction of the theory; we expect to see such systems in nature if they evolved from other life forms.”
And there it is. How about this: Fuck the theory of evolution. Hurrrah for actual probable physical known facts which can lead us to realism rather than the bogus boundaries of the Cult. Just physical facts, empirically determined, applicable to life on earth.
And I love this: ” No that has not been proven.”
The ENTIRE DARWINIAN CULT is based on unproven claims. ALL OF IT. Now you want proof for the definition of a Darwinian concept: First Life. Sorry: It’s a definition; a tautology.
And now actual empirical science has proven the minimal complexity required for cell life. There is empirical evidence that the minimal requirements for First Life, are falsifiably, replicably testably and tested: irreducibly complex. It’s empirical biology. And it defeats Darwinism mathematically and rationally. Further, it is actual science; not Darwinistic claims from people who never leave their desks where they make up stuff and write books for rubes.
And don’t mix up the issues: First Life does NOT depend upon prior life(!!!) So your entire comment and thought process is off the rails completely. First Life does, in fact, as a coherent concept, absolutely require an entire working assemblage of internal components, all of which have interrelated compatibility and interdependency, which has timed replication functions, and which has a minimal size which is now empirically determined – in the lab, by actual biologists.
You have rejected actual valid science in order to preserve your belief in the fables of Darwinism.
” This has nothing to do with the point I brought forward. The mere 'possibility' of an explanation is enough to debunk the idea that it's 'impossible'.”
Seriously? That is one of the most absurd “logic” statements I have ever heard.
Szostak went forward to determine if it were possible. He failed to determine that it is possible, even in the most sophisticated laboratory conditions of modern biology. And he admitted that the creation of RNA is nothing like creating DNA, much less DNA which is information-bearing with the correct double coding for life and its functions. He failed to prove that even RNA can be created in the lab – much less that it could even just randomly assemble.
“Possible” is not a state of existence. It is a state of imagination without regard to either process, environment, or necessary complexity, or probability against actuality. And that is the reason that Reductio Ad Absurdum actually is a tenet of logical analysis.
It’s possible that I killed Jimmy Hoffa, and fed him to Democrats at their convention. But what is the probability? That’s for you to calculate. And that would take some empirical facts.
Well we’ve got empirical facts for the minimum cell size.
” And your claim IS that it is 'impossible'. You have not rationally justified the belief that the first self-replicating molecules could not have arisen through natural means,”
My claim is that believing that probabilities against X such as are rationally, mathematically determined to be so colossally negative yet do not stop belief that X is the correct answer, is irrational. Such belief is emotional due to an emotional need, not a rational conclusion.
And that applies to the first cell, a coherent unity which also contained coherent double coded DNA and functions for coherently replicating and was NOT DEAD.
” you have not justified your belief that evolution of these molecules into complex molecule is impossible, you have not justified your belief that evolution of these complex molecules into multi-cellular organisms is impossible. You justify nothing; you reject everything.”
This is your non-dialectical response: pure false rhetoric. I provided real probability calculations. I notice that evolutionists never address probabilities. Evolutionists have True Belief that First Life just came into being from minerals for no reason at all. So probabilities are merely a side-show, an annoyance which if ignored will go away. It HAD to happen, because: Darwin. Darwin created stories about that. So it’s possible, right?
And there is this:
”"And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality."
This is an example of an insult. You write tons of insults like these, and yes, I will continue to ignore them. Or perhaps you prefer me to reply back with insults of my own?'”
Actually, it is a statement of observable fact, coupled with a probability. If that is an insult, then so be it. The probability is based on this fact: if objective facts are required in order to believe a thing, then Darwinism has nothing to present, no basis for being believed, and is pure fantasy in the form of science fiction and to some extent, Scientology. Thus there is virtually zero probability that a Darwinist will ever admit to the necessity of having objective knowledge for a thing in order to believe in the thing.
I do believe I’ll stop here, for now. When I get to it, I’ll try to summarize your objections, and see which ones are empirical, objective fact-based vs. those which merely object to the source (Ad Hominem) and those which object to claims which are outside law of the Darwinian Cult… such as above.
Stan, on that link, I sent Gary the link for this debate, and he says that there is no debate because Evolution is confirmed by science. Wow!!!
@JB
Yep, that guy Gary is correct. There is no debate. What we are having here is not a debate, it's a discussion regarding Stan's rejection of the scientific consensus in order to pinpoint exactly what/where the disagreement is about. If you are following, which would be shocking, you can see that we have now established exactly where Stan's specific views stem from. It's interesting because it all flows logically from 1 false belief: that the cell machinery is a perfect system, too complex to have arisen naturally.
Stan said:
"It’s not just me, is it. It’s part of Kimura’s Neutral Theory… which you have denied in the past"
You reject Kimura's points; I don't. Here's an explanation:
A heated debate arose when Kimura's theory was published, largely revolving around the relative percentages of alleles that are "neutral" versus "non-neutral" in any given genome. Contrary to the perception of many onlookers, the debate was not about whether natural selection does occur. Kimura argued that molecular evolution is dominated by selectively neutral evolution but at the phenotypic level, changes in characters were probably dominated by natural selection rather than genetic drift.
"actual empirical science has proven the minimal complexity required for cell life. There is empirical evidence that the minimal requirements for First Life, are falsifiably, replicably testably and tested: irreducibly complex. It’s empirical biology. And it defeats Darwinism mathematically and rationally"
No, empirical science has not proven what you advance here. You presented an example of a small cell, from which components are removed, in order to justify the idea that this is what the smallest possible cell can be. This contradicts the principles the theory of evolution is based on; it does not disprove it, it attacks a strawman.
Irreducible complexity, on the other hand, is what is expected by evolution. This is empirical biology, yes. It supports the Theory, which explains the diversity of life on Earth and its origin from simple self-reproducing molecules, all the way to complex multi-cellular organisms we see today.
In other words, the very same cell machinery that you consider to be evidence 'against' evolution is actually evidence 'for' evolution. It not only does it job so well that it allows for stability, but it also has just enough imperfection to allow for slight modifications every time an organism reproduces, enabling evolution by natural selection.
"Szostak went forward to determine if it were possible. He failed to determine that it is possible, even in the most sophisticated laboratory conditions of modern biology"
It's not because something cannot be reproduced in the lab that it cannot happen in nature. Have you found empirical evidence that abiogenesis is impossible through natural means? Of course not... research is still in progress because scientists agree that it's possible, even if nobody knows precisely how/when it happened. i.e. that was misrepresenting what Szostak has/hasn't accomplished.
"My claim is that believing that probabilities against X such as are rationally, mathematically determined to be so colossally negative yet do not stop belief that X is the correct answer, is irrational"
The claim written here is correct. Yet, you reach the wrong conclusions because of a bunch of false deductions based on 1, and only 1, false belief: that the cell machinery is a perfect system, too complex to have arisen naturally. As I explained in another comment block, which you will hopefully go back to, the calculations you provided are innacurate. They do not show that it's impossible for complex cells to have evolved naturally.
"that applies to the first cell, a coherent unity which also contained coherent double coded DNA and functions for coherently replicating and was NOT DEAD. "
You have yet to justify this claim that the first cell had to have certain precise characteristics, or even just DNA. You are saying that DNA just suddenly appeared; this is a strong claim. How can you justify it?
Stan had written: "”"And I predict that you will continue not addressing the need for OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE through falsifiable empirical processes before believing a thing concerning physical reality.
I replied:
This is an example of an insult. You write tons of insults like these, and yes, I will continue to ignore them. Or perhaps you prefer me to reply back with insults of my own?'”
Stan replied:
"Actually, it is a statement of observable fact, coupled with a probability. If that is an insult, then so be it."
Here, I was just talking about what I quoted, specifically. It was an empty statement what serves no purpose other than insulting. It's like saying 'what is true is true', well, duh...
And you wrote more after that, more in your last comment boxes... you know, the kind of things that would get me banned, but I will just continue to ignore.
Hugo,
That sort of habitual false statements concerning what I actually say and have said is the precise reason that I started deleting your comments. You know that it is false. I have told you n^p times why evolution is not an empirical science. I am SO tempted to start deleting again.
It is true that this is not a debate. That's because you do not admit to the demands of having objective knowledge in order to believe a thing, and because you falsely claim the findings of actual contemporary modern biology, a REAL science based in modern life characteristics, as the facts on which evolution is grounded. The grounding for modern biology does not provide grounding for evolution. Evolution is inferred from the REAL science of modern biology by imagining stories which cannot be proven.
You cannot provide empirical, falsifiable evidence of evolution. There is none.
Therefore you believe in an unprovable proposition. Blind belief, as in religious. It is useful, in fact, as a creation story in your cult: Atheism.
Reductio Ad Absurdum:
1. First life randomly assembled itself.
2. First life was not a complete cell.
3. First life was flawed. (not a perfect set of complementary, necessary and sufficient functions; not at all like modern prokaryote life).
4. First life produced erroneous offspring, because the process was flawed and not perfect. (How an imperfect, incomplete/flawed process could actually produce offspring is ignored as an issue at this point).
5. Yet subsequent generations flourished because: evolution=mutation/selection/gradualism. (circular: use of hypothesis to prove the hypothesis). I.e., some subsequent generations contained individuals that mutated into perfect cells, containing all the functions necessary and sufficient for life (finally) including metabolic, energy acquisition and conversion, properly double coded DNA, DNA testing and DNA repair, timed DNA splitting machinery including temporary scaffolding from centomere, cell splitting containing a DNA half in each daughter cell, completing the bilateral DNA in the daughter cell before compacting the DNA into gene form, and repeat - for billions of years.
An original cell which contained partial functions, and/or incomplete replication processes, and/or faulty processes which produced faulty products, thus was defective - not perfect, containing all the necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation - still maintained life, replicated, and produced subsequent cells which functioned properly because they somehow developed the necessary proper functions, albeit late in the process of propagation of early life.
Conclusion: the idea of imperfect (faulty: without all necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation) First Life is absurd, at nearly every necessary step.
Therefore, all the necessary and sufficient elements required for life, replication, and double coded DNA absolutely must have existed and functioned properly in First Life.
Because that is rationally, statistically impossible, then that is not how it happened.
Further, there is no objective, empirical, falisifiable evidence which gives any reason to believe that it is possible, other than asserting Darwinian hypotheses as necessary Truths without evidence, and asserting the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (which depends fully on hypotheses without evidence as Truth, in the form of imagined stories).
There is no rational reason to believe that these claims must be believed, or should be defended by law.
Part 2: Molecular replicators which were not cellular.
1. An unknown molecule self-assembled and then replicated itself perfectly such that a future line of self-replicating molecules existed. Such molecules do not exist now.
2. The unknown replicators did not need a dedicated metabolic function; they existed in some unknown environment which provided adequate energy to sustain replication.
3. For some unknowable reason these replicators acquired another molecule, DNA, and its associated helper molecules.
4. This new coalition required an environment, and for some unknowable reason, developed a semipermeable membrane surrounding these molecules.
5. Now a metabolic source became necessary, so these molecules mutated one into existence.
6. These molecules also mutated into existence a timed process of DNA splitting, DNA separation, and membrane compression at the right spot to create two new cells. Thus, replicating molecules turned into replicating cells for some unknowable reason and process.
7. At this point all the new equipment was defined in the DNA genes, so the original replicating molecules just disappeared, as their job was done and they were no longer needed.
8. Alternatively, the replicator molecules actually became the DNA, which is not a replicator, it is an information carrier (memory) molecule, which is entirely different.
9. Alternatively, the replicator molecules actually became RNA molecules, which cannot replicate themselves.
10. The evidence for each step is: NONE.
11. The probability of this is: ZERO.
12. Therefore it is absurd to believe that this occurred.
Prove the story that neutral mutations can and have turned into positive mutations. The reason that there are no positive mutations is that creaming a base pair member is no advantage to the organism. The definition of a neutral mutation is that it has no effect. That means that it very likely is impossible, since every hit that a base pair takes is bound to destroy the use of that segment of DNA. So the entire concept of Neutral mutations is a fantasy. And the accumulation of such random changes into a new, advantageous gene, is preposterous. Unless, of course, you are constrained to believe even the most preposterous, because that's how the "theory" demands it.
As for moths and colors, it has been shown that both colors exist in the genome, and there is a genomic switch. There is no mutation required. The moth analogy has been discredited for quite some time.
"The claim written here is correct. Yet, you reach the wrong conclusions because of a bunch of false deductions based on 1, and only 1, false belief: that the cell machinery is a perfect system, too complex to have arisen naturally."
Your claim that incomplete/faulty cell machinery could exist, and yet replicate into complete/non-faulty cell machinery fails rational analysis. Try to prove your claim; see what happens. Reductio takes hold, and chokes out your claim.
Any process which is not equipped with the necessary and sufficient equipment, instructions, energy, initial conditions, and initiation procedure WILL NOT produce viable output. You claim otherwise. "Necessary and sufficient" means just what it says.
I have written a quick Reductio Ad Absurdum below. Your claim fails at every step. Yet it is the basis for your beliefs.
"You have yet to justify this claim that the first cell had to have certain precise characteristics, or even just DNA. You are saying that DNA just suddenly appeared; this is a strong claim. How can you justify it?"
Wrong. You, the evolution champion, have to prove that double-coded, meaningful, descriptive DNA, and its RNA and other necessary cohort molecules, were built gradually by random, accidental, accumulated constructions - over any amount of time, and finally became viable, mutually dependent systems of circular dependency. That life and replication mysteriously but demonstrably pre-existed the fully built DNA, RNA, RNAase, and all the left-handed proteins and associated processes which are now known to be fully responsible for all life and reproduction, without exception, and without any known replication process other than that; that life and replication continued without functional DNA, RNA, RNAase, etc, for the eons that it would have to take to gradually build such things, which were not viable until their slow, gradual construction was completed. That is the ACTUAL claim of evolution which is being tested.
The belief that it happened is without any rational or empirical proof. And you deny that any probability calculations can address the issue (they're all wrong, because they defy the idea that evolution is rational).
Thus there is no point in even talking with you. No point at all. You do not present facts which are testable; you do not even address any issues which are outside of the dictated true hypothesis. You constantly misrepresent what I say. You accept no logic except the illogic of Darwinism/evolution.
== SCIENTIFIC CONTENT ==
"1. First life randomly assembled itself."
Maybe, nobody knows. It could still be something else; non-random, non-natural. The point I am making is that it's possible that it was just random assembly of existing organic material. That's what the field of Abiogenesis is trying to figure out. Such as what the video I posted shows ; will you ever address the actual points it is making?
Unfortunately, your line of reasoning for this proof by 'Reductio Ad Absurdum' attempt failed already, since it did not accurately represent the situation, but let's see what else there is...
"2. First life was not a complete cell."
Most likely... but again, it's not impossible that some complex cell was put on Earth, as is. There is that somewhat crazy scenario of extraterrestrial life making its way to Earth, for instance. But that's irrelevant when it comes to Evolution Theory, which works backward from today's observation and extrapolates back in the past, really really far back in the past. But it does not go as far as the first living things themselves; the Theory is silent on the exact start of Life itself because, again, that's Abiogenesis.
"3. First life was flawed. (not a perfect set of complementary, necessary and sufficient functions; not at all like modern prokaryote life)."
All life is 'flawed' in the sense that it reproduces imperfectly. This does include modern prokaryote life.
But you use the word 'flawed' in a different way, it seems. This is because of your notion that the cell is a 'perfect' machine; hence you see it as 'flawed', or broken, if it does not work perfectly.
In reality, this is just the way things are; they are neither flawed nor perfect, living things are all reproducing imperfectly, but that's not even a flaw per se, that's an evolutionary advantage. This is why sexual reproduction, for example, gives an advantage, as it mixes up the genes and thus spans more variety.
== SCIENTIFIC CONTENT ==
"4. First life produced erroneous offspring, because the process was flawed and not perfect. (How an imperfect, incomplete/flawed process could actually produce offspring is ignored as an issue at this point)."
Same problem with the word 'erroneous' here. All life is 'erroneous' in that sense; it reproduces imperfectly. But it's not really a problem, or a flaw, it's just the way living things work. Being able to reproduce with modifications is actually essential for evolution to happen. Nothing is ignored as you suggested.
"5. Yet subsequent generations flourished because: evolution=mutation/selection/gradualism. (circular: use of hypothesis to prove the hypothesis). I.e., some subsequent generations contained individuals that mutated into perfect cells, containing all the functions necessary and sufficient for life (finally) including [...]"
No, there never was any thing that mutated into perfect cells, you are the one who believes there is such a thing as 'perfect cells', without good reasons. You start with that faulty belief that 'perfect cells' exist and then conclude that evolution is false because it could not work with 'perfect cells': they make no mistake, never mutate and thus never give rise to new species. That's true, Evolution wouldn't work with perfect cells, and that's what your rejection of evolution is based on: evolution cannot happen because it requires imperfect cells, but that cannot be the case because cells are perfect. But why would anyone believe cells are perfect? Certainly not because of research such as Kimura's, which do not contradict evolution by natural selection nor the variation within the genome of organisms...
I.e. the Theory of Evolution is based on the observations, the empirical fact, that organisms reproduce imperfectly. Variation has always been the grounding behind the Theory. DNA only confirmed that there is indeed a mechanism that can account for those variations.
" An original cell which contained partial functions, and/or incomplete replication processes, and/or faulty processes which produced faulty products, thus was defective - not perfect, containing all the necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation - still maintained life, replicated, and produced subsequent cells which functioned properly because they somehow developed the necessary proper functions, albeit late in the process of propagation of early life."
We are just talking about self-reproduction here, nothing else; just chemical processes causing reproduction. As these self-reproducing systems multiplied, with modifications, the better ones survived, evolved. It does not matter what the exact starting point was because, again, that's what Abiogenesis is about, not the Theory of Evolution.
== SCIENTIFIC CONTENT ==
"Conclusion: the idea of imperfect (faulty: without all necessary and sufficient elements for life and procreation) First Life is absurd, at nearly every necessary step.
Therefore, all the necessary and sufficient elements required for life, replication, and double coded DNA absolutely must have existed and functioned properly in First Life.
Because that is rationally, statistically impossible, then that is not how it happened."
The idea of 'perfect' life is absurd, be it the first self-replicating molecules, the first complex cells, or today's living things. None of that is 'perfect' in the sense you need them to be in order to claim that evolution is false and that living things could not have had a natural start. You are attacking a straw man, a comical representation of what Biology studies.
Then, there was another deduction presented, starting with:
"Part 2: Molecular replicators which were not cellular.
1. An unknown molecule self-assembled and then replicated itself perfectly such [...]"
You start with the word 'perfectly' again, yet this concept makes no sense when it comes to living things. No point addressing all of this deduction as well.
More repeated links, from the Big History Project, which explain better than I can what we know, or don't, about the origins of Life on Earth and what the likely scenarios are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og9baLjHRH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTVDRbLX2_o&list=PL4e9AQVlcJTT5fcCI8VwJfIUqMnW0lbFa&index=6
== COMMENTARY ==
"That sort of habitual false statements concerning what I actually say and have said is the precise reason that I started deleting your comments. You know that it is false. I have told you n^p times why evolution is not an empirical science. I am SO tempted to start deleting again."
A) Who cares? Delete my comments if you want; it's completely inconsequential. There are actually a few reasons why you would do that of course. It could be because I am not being civil, but that would be false. It could be because you are getting tired, yet unable to just ignore, which could be the case. It could be because it proves you wrong, which you certainly are. Or something else? Of course, your answer is that I am being illogical and dogmatic... but the 3 comments under the == SCIENTIFIC CONTENT == label above are consistent with modern biology. Your views aren't; it's that simple.
B) What you know is that the entire field of Biology is on my side. Your way of discounting that fact is by stating that Evolution is not Biology, which is a complete lie. The example of Kimura, one of many, is very telling. You completely misunderstood what his research was about and you completely disregard his conclusions and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I pointed that out to you, yet you ignored it in that last set of comments, just like you did the last time. If we are to continue having exchanges on that topic, it will come up again for sure, because you keep re-using the same faulty arguments are.
That explains why most of what you write is nothing but empty insults, like what I am quoting and replying to right now. And even though I remain civil in my discourse, and focus on the empirical facts of science.
" It is true that this is not a debate. That's because you do not admit to the demands of having objective knowledge in order to believe a thing, and because you falsely claim the findings of actual contemporary modern biology, a REAL science based in modern life characteristics, as the facts on which evolution is grounded. The grounding for modern biology does not provide grounding for evolution. Evolution is inferred from the REAL science of modern biology by imagining stories which cannot be proven.
You cannot provide empirical, falsifiable evidence of evolution. There is none.
Therefore you believe in an unprovable proposition. Blind belief, as in religious. It is useful, in fact, as a creation story in your cult: Atheism."
How can we summarize that? 'NO NO NO nononononono, Evolution is false!!!! It's an Atheist conspiracy! Har Har!'
That's all there is here, but said with over 100 words. You cannot help but just write these same platitudes over and over again. Plus, let me repeat this fact again: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DISAGREES WITH YOU. How can you still call this an Atheism-cult related issue? That's the biggest mistake of it all. It shows how emotional YOU are about that topic. I could not care less whether Evolution is true or false, it does not inform any grand philosophical question. But what I do care about is the spread of misinformation, especially scientifically proven information, and that is what the intelligent design crowd does. It's a disservice to humanity, and you are contributing to it. Therefore, it's interesting to pinpoint the reasons why people like you think that way, in order to better understand the source of this irrationality.
The point I am making is that it's possible that it was just random assembly of existing organic material. That's what the field of Abiogenesis is trying to figure out. Such as what the video I posted shows ; will you ever address the actual points it is making?
It is not even conceivably possible that the first cell was randomly assembled. You make these claims without any analysis of the problems with that. You merely jump to your conclusions, because the actual issues involved don’t matter to you, so long as you think you can make a case for Darwinism/evolution. Address the actual issues for a change, rather than making general assumptions which make no sense whatsoever.
Why don’t you make the points so I don’t have to waste time on bogus videos? I watched all of Szostak’s videos, and in the final video, he tells why he gave up.
”Unfortunately, your line of reasoning for this proof by 'Reductio Ad Absurdum' attempt failed already, since it did not accurately represent the situation, but let's see what else there is...”
That is not a refutation, it is self-contradictory, coming immediately after admitting that you don’t know what happened, then you claim that the “necessary and sufficient” empirical baseline is not what ould possibly have happened. You really do think I’m stupid, or you would not make such claims – which no one would ever believe. You just write off that which actually falsifies the entire Darwinian proposition, because you cannot defeat it. You do not address most of that which I present, you just say to the effect, well it doesn’t fit Darwinism/evolution so it’s wrong. When in actually, Darwinism/evolution does not and cannot fit logic, and is therefore an empty hypothesis which is not worthy of any respect at all.
”But that's irrelevant when it comes to Evolution Theory, which works backward from today's observation and extrapolates back in the past, really really far back in the past. But it does not go as far as the first living things themselves; the Theory is silent on the exact start of Life itself because, again, that's Abiogenesis.”
I know that that is the current propaganda. It is false. Common descent, as a concept requires First Life, and its descent. But evolutionists, in their very cowardly way, try to gloss over that essential element. As with all of this, we have discussed this in great detail, and you ignore everything I say, and merely claim that it can’t be right because the actual logic doesn’t fit into Darwinism/evolution. That is inverted rationalization, and is anti-rational. If Darwinism/evolution can’t accommodate the empirical facts, and it cannot, then it is wrong. Period. It is not the case that the facts must fit Darwinism/evolution, or the facts are wrong, because that is blind belief while rejecting reality: a religious cult rationalization.
And you effectively destroy your own claim of “using current observation and extrapolating back into the past” when you claim offhandedly that the Reductio is just wrong, with no reason or reasons given except that it doesn’t fit Darwinism/evolution, and that again is backward reasoning, and is anti-rational.
”All life is 'flawed' in the sense that it reproduces imperfectly. This does include modern prokaryote life.”
Again with the Equivocation of terms. You wish to believe that there is no exact reproduction of a cell, no completion of procreation which is not flawed. That was empirically disproved by the Lenski Long Term Cellular Evolution experiment, which looked at thousands of generations of e coli replication in order to find mutations. One set of strain acquired a negative mutation, loss of DNA repair capability, and went on to acquire many neutral mutations. (cause of the mutations is not known, or at least not stated).
You use the terms “flawed” and “erroneous” to describe the system which works perfectly, producing minor variations as its function permits. But these are not flaws; there is no erroneous operation if the system produces what the system is set up to produce, working perfectly according to its function and material input. Those minor variations do not apply to macro-evolution, which requires deviations (positive mutation) away from the normal operation of the replication system. The system which performs as it should without producing anything outside of the expectation of the output of the machinery and input material, is producing an output which is the necessary and sufficient replication which is expected. Mutations are unexpected flaws, introduced by unknown sources outside of the replication process, which force the replication process to produce an output which is outside the expectation. As the Lenski long term experiment shows, when these occur they are either neutral or negative, with a rate of one “positive” mutation per trillion.
Next you corrupt the meaning of the term “perfect”, which is an undefined concept unless you use the definition which I provided: the necessary and sufficient, correct output of the uncorrupted process machinery and the uncorrupted material input, thereby conforming to the replication expectation of the process and material input.
You claim that there is no such thing as a perfect cell, one which faithfully represents the expectation of the replication process. That is absurd. Your Equivocation of the terms leads to a false belief. That false belief leads to false conclusions, as is the nature of false beliefs.
It is a fact that, without external tampering which causes mutations, the output of the biological replication system does, indeed, produce daughter cells which are, indeed, necessarily and sufficiently within the expectation of the process/material, and are, indeed, capable of sustaining life and replication as expected, without terminal blemish or defect.
”But why would anyone believe cells are perfect? Certainly not because of research such as Kimura's, which do not contradict evolution by natural selection nor the variation within the genome of organisms...”
Why would anyone believe that all cells are faulty? The very idea is absurd. And Kimura’s work has nothing to do with normal process variability, it describes mutations, not normal processes of replication.
You still seem unable to separate macro from micro. You still want to claim that unmutated processes/materials produce “evolution”, which is a general term being misused to confuse normal variation contained within a genome with generation of differentiating novel, beneficial features/organs, never seen before (macro-evolution). I thought we had that settled.
But it is not settled, because now you claim that there is only faulty replication; there is no replication which conforms to the specifications of the process/material/DNA genomic expectation. Why you want this false concept to be accepted is not yet clear, but it cannot lead to any correct conclusion because it is blatantly false. Here is your statement where you regress to micro-evolution, which is never, ever the subject here:
”I.e. the Theory of Evolution is based on the observations, the empirical fact, that organisms reproduce imperfectly. Variation has always been the grounding behind the Theory. DNA only confirmed that there is indeed a mechanism that can account for those variations.”
And that is why the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is false. The micro-evolutionary theory of Darwin cannot be true. The genome must be changed – mutated – for the very idea of evolution to even make sense at the narrative level, much less at the molecular level. That was the obvious reason for the generation of the “MODERN SYNTHESIS”, some 70 years ago. And now even that is challenged internally with the EXTENDED SYNTHESIS”, because it is obvious that even random mutation cannot produce novelty.
Why do you persist with the discarded notion that evolution=(normal variation)*(time)? Evolutionary theory has moved on. You haven’t.
And finally, because you have no concept of how it actually could have occurred, you reject any intellectual responsibility for the most important evolutionary event of all: evolution of First Life from minerals.
Hugo is banned, permanently. This blog will go on moderation for the duration.
I was on Metacrock's blog this week, and Ryan (a frequent poster on Skeppy's blog) was ripping on Pogge's definition of evolution (the guy on the Science against Evolution blog). Here is what he said:
Do not use that "Science against Evolution" site as a source. Their definition of "evolution" is not the evolution studied by biologists. Their definition of evolution is actually abiogenesis + the belief that all living things have a common origin. While abiogenesis is often studied by some biologists, it is not a logical implication of what biologists call "evolution", and in fact many theistic believers in evolution would be surprised to see abiogenesis added to the definition of evolution (Kenneth Miller, for example).
I told Pogge about that, and he re-directed me to an article of his. In that article, he said that evolutionists exclude abiogenesis when it is good for their purpose. Is this true?
Part of Rhetorical defense is the scheme to limit the discussion to only those points that you can actually make a rhetorical case for or against. In other words, defense means to eliminate concepts which are 100% destructive to your position. Abiogenesis is 100% destructive to the principle of Philosophical Materialism. Philosophical Materialism is substituted into the faux science of evolution as the replacement for Voluntary Materialism of real science. Physical sciences depend upon physical testing and falsification to determine if a hypothesis is contingently valid.
Evolution has no possibility of testing the stories created in support of evolution, and thus has no need for Voluntary Materialism. Instead, full Philosophical Materialism is asserted in order to "prevent a divine foot" from entering a doorway.
So the definition of evolution must stop before the obvious falsifier can be introduced. That is prevented by defining that falsifier OUT of the realm of evolution, a transparently false definition, considering that the First Life had to accomplish the magnificent feat of evolving from non-living atoms and minerals.
That also is the reason that evolutionists never, ever, address probabilities of necessary evolution events in a straight-on manner. Since evolution is purely a mountain of rhetorical, non-falsifiable stories, then rhetoric is the only tool available to defend evolution.
Therefore all sorts of rationalizations will be given to avoid direct confrontations with the inherent incoherences, self-referencing, non-falsifiability, and damaging evidence such as the necessity of the evolution of First Life from dead minerals.
The principle of "rhetoric only" for evolution leads to avoidance and denialism as the sole responses to the fallacies, non-coherence, and constant Appeals to Authority which are charged against the evolution True Believer. Rhetoric is necessary because they have no dialectic case at all.
Rhetoric is the "skill" of convincing an audience without resorting to demonstrable objective facts, and rather using rationalizations and stories as if they were facts. When an audience becomes skeptical, the rhetoric is stepped up to ever higher levels of rationalizations, attacks, denialism, and self-righteousness, all in protection of a cherished but non-falsifiable (blind belief) principle.
My favorite book on Rhetoric is Schopenhauer's "The Art of Being Right", translated in 1896, and published by Dodo Press 2008(?).
It includes a short section on dialectic, and the many tactics of rhetoric.
That is also contained in "the Essays of Arthur Shopenhauer; The Art of Controversy".
Thanks for your input. Yes, Ryan seems to disapprove of anyone other than biologists working in the field to comment on Evolution (he said that you aren't qualified). To that, I said that you can't trust scientists too much.
If a science is not based in the fundamentals of logic, it is both not a science, and not a rational pursuit. Scientists are not more capable of determining logical properties than are those who are trained in logic. In fact, because they are attached to their own hypotheses, for their own gain and egos, they are less able.
The least able to determine the logic quality of a proposition are those who adhere to it for ideological reasons. And that is the reason that Evolution is a success. The hypothesis is valued ideologically far over the valuation given to actual logic and rationality. Were it not the creation story of Atheism, evolution would have been a dead backwater in the history of "science" failures.
On the Science Against Evolution site, Pogge posted the most recent Evolution article by the world famous Fred Reed:
Fred On Everything: Darwin Unhinged-The Bugs in Evolution
It sure is quiet.
Here's a quote I found regarding the famed carbon dating. Prof. Jo Brew, Nobel symposium, Sweden 1969: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it."
On the CADRE, a certain someone has shared this article from Patheos suggesting that RNA may be able to assemble naturally:
Patheos: Origins of Life
It doesn't seem very convincing to me.
Post a Comment