Hi Marcelo, debates about the theory of evolution back in the 19th century is not relevant to 21th century science results.

Darwin's theory about evolution has stood the test of time and all challenges and has been supported by many diverse scientific principles,

Physics (isotope dating supports the evolutionary timeline),

Geology (continental drift. The same fossils are found on land masses that were connected but are now separate),

Molecular Biology (genome sequencing, gene homology), 

Physiology (organ function is similar within related species).

Biology (isolated populations develop into new species).

Virology (our and primate genome has inactive virus DNA that fits with Darwin's theory.

Medicine (the last stages of drug trials is to examine their effects in primate models because mouse, rat, rabbit, etc do not have the same response to many drugs.)

Anatomy (so many things-not enough space.)

Again, the theory of evolution does not stand or fall with whatever Darwin wrote back in the 19th century.

Darwin provided the idea that organisms change with time and/or habitat. Diverse scientific disciplines are continually showing that he was right.   

Hi Marcelo, debates about the theory of evolution back in the 19th century is not relevant to 21th century science results.

Darwin's theory about evolution has stood the test of time and all challenges and has been supported by many diverse scientific principles,

Physics (isotope dating supports the evolutionary timeline),

Geology (continental drift. The same fossils are found on land masses that were connected but are now separate),

Molecular Biology (genome sequencing, gene homology), 

Physiology (organ function is similar within related species).

Biology (isolated populations develop into new species).

Virology (our and primate genome has inactive virus DNA that fits with Darwin's theory.

Medicine (the last stages of drug trials is to examine their effects in primate models because mouse, rat, rabbit, etc do not have the same response to many drugs.)

Anatomy (so many things-not enough space.)

Again, the theory of evolution does not stand or fall with whatever Darwin wrote back in the 19th century.

Darwin provided the idea that organisms change with time and/or habitat. Diverse scientific disciplines are continually showing that he was right.   

No discussion?

Hi Marcelo, this is your thread.

Is there anything you want to post in order to keep this discussion going? or at least get it started? 

Anybody?

Hi Kenneth, Marcelo initiated a discussion on the works of St. George Mivart, (of whom  I have never heard of).

Do you know anything about this Mivart character?

Nevermind.

Personally, I don't think that scientists in the 21st  century should entertain or regurgitate debates that happened >100 years ago.

That ship has long since sailed.

Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:

(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.

(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.

(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.

(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).

(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

From the paper:

" Examining natural history, researchers have also reported that many living organisms never evolved into different novel anatomical structures; rather, they continued unaltered, even over a period of hundreds of millions of years.8 This non-changing aspect of an organism is known as stasis in the fossil record. In molecular genetics, organisms deliberately and aggressively act to correct or destroy random mutational changes.9 Many similar observations in the literature establish that species preservation is a natural characteristic of life."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Hi Bhakti,

"(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness."

Really? So neurology, neurobiology, etc. are just made up professions? Alzheimer's does not affect patient consciousness?  What about glioblastoma, Parkinson's, etc.

"(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities."

Really? So newborns are capable of speech and cognition? After all, they were exposed to language for 9 months as multicellular organisms.

Hi Kenneth,

You shouldn't waste your time explaining evolution. Most evolution deniers do not understand biology, geology, paleontology, physics, physiology, etc.

Evolution deniers are limited to a small toolkit of phrases that are repeated ad nauseum:

"I have never seen X give birth to Y"

"I don't understand radiometric dating, therefore it is bad physics"

"I believe (...insert Deity or Holy Book here...) more than human scientists"

"Abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing"

"Evolution is wrong because it is constantly being modified with new discoveries"

"DNA mutations always produce bad results" 

"No translational fossils exist"

"All hominid fossils are fakes"

Please add to the list.

"It's only a theory" is a good one!

As for Holy Books, I was watching "Banned from the Bible" on the History Channel.

The books included in the Bible were chosen by committee of early Christian  church leaders (Council of Nicaea).

But there are many different Bibles in circulation. Which one is the true Word of God?

Many have been killed over that argument. 

On this paper there is an interesting discussion going on: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/online_sadhu_sanga/Mcv2O-yhqLE

It is very easy to attain the cure of a particular disease using a known medicine, but, it is much more difficult to discover the medicine by a trial and error methodology. Moreover, in an attempt to treat disease using a trial and error methodology, if a poor doctor is only coming up with wrong medicines, then the disease will never be cured. On the other hand, using reason and experience, any doctor can easily verify the power of a known medicine to cure the disease. Unlike modern science, following the above analogy, in ancient Vedāntic tradition, the emphasis is more on verification than on the endless time consuming discoveries. The Vedāntic explanation that a unitary Supreme Cognizant Being is the source of everything is founded on two scientifically verifiable axiomatic facts: (1) Life comes from Life, and (2) Matter comes from Life. Consciousness arises from consciousness, or life comes from life. Where there is life there is consciousness. Consciousness does not originate from that which is unconscious or impersonal, and life is not a product of insentient matter. The conception that life comes from life (biogenesis) is the only scientific idea that has ever been verified by experiment and observation. The second axiomatic fact ‘Matter comes from Life’ is apparently observable in nature. A scientist cannot create even a blade of grass in the lab, but Nature endowed with the life principle can easily produce it. Every species produces their own chemicals necessary within their bodies. ‘Life comes from Life’, and ‘Matter comes from Life’ are two scientifically observable deductions from Vedānta. On the other hand, materialism (life originates from matter) is an unverified ideological presupposition that has no scientific or observation-based evidence to support it. Hence, a trial and error methodology in biology will always fail to substantiate the material explanation of life and its origin.

Hi Bhakti. Please tell everybody that  you stand behind your previous posts:

(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.

(ss comments Really? So neurology, neurobiology, etc. are just made up professions? Alzheimer's does not affect patient consciousness?  What about glioblastoma, Parkinson's, etc.)

(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.

(ss comments Really? So newborns are capable of speech and cognition? After all, they were exposed to language for 9 months as multicellular organisms.)

Please be forceful and decisive in your response. You need to make your master, Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. SCSI Institute (located next to A.K. Food Mart), happy.

Hi Manuel. My perception of reality tells me that your perception of reality is flawed.

Hi Manuel. You do have the flair for the dramatic, but my perception is now telling me that you might be a crackpot.

Please take the test.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/are_you_a_crackpot_take_the_test.html

Hi again Manuel. Sorry, I made a mistake. I should have looked at your site. No self respecting crackpot would have a sports website with an online store.

http://temptdestiny.com/store.html

"NFL Licensed NY GIANTS Super Bowl Print Set. Win one of five limited edition prints ($1200 value) of the historic artwork that helped to change how science is done (details to follow). Each limited edition print is hand signed by Olympic artist, Manuel Morales."

"Get your Tempt Destiny football card game in time for the holidays and the BIG GAME by clicking on the PayPal button below (only $29.95 - FREE SHIPPING)."

"Official Olympic 1992 Team USA Signed Limited Edition Prints. ONLY 10 prints are being made available by the artist, Manuel Morales, on a first come basis, so don't delay!

I do have to include that I think you are a good artist.

I have been told that realistic human hands and fingers are very hard to draw. 

Hi Kenneth, is there a full moon out tonight?

I have 54+ publications in peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science and I have 3000+ citations of my work and growing. I have coauthors and collaborators that respect my expertize and work and want to be on my papers.

I am conducting science and being published in peer-reviewed journals.

So Manuel, what about you?

Hey Manuel, here is a real challenge for you:

Try to get yourself published in a peer reviewed journal.

This will be a win/win for you!

If your papers are accepted, you can say that the "scientific establishment" agrees with you.   Yay!    You can do science and stop doing unsolicited NFL posters.

If you are rejected, you can say that the "scientific establishment" is suppressing your ideas, just like it did for Galileo, Copernicus, Semmelweis, Pasteur, etc, .

If all else fails, I am sure that there are some NFL teams out there that want your art. 

(If I owned a team I would hire have you do the artwork. You draw hands and fingers very well).

Manuel, get yourself and your "Final Selection Thought Experiment" published in a peer reviewed journal.

Until then, Auf Wiedersehen.

How many times has it been cited in peer reviewed journals?

Please seek help.