Then what are the alternate explanations for differences in skin color and the pattern of genetic differences in the mitochondrial DNA data?
The problem is that you deny the specifics we do have data for, such as (once again) the causes of differences in skin color and the genetic patterns created by historic human migration.
Like I said in a previous post, you are suffering from projection and you admit it here. You are admitting that you will never change your mind about irreducibility no matter what the evidence is.
Science is about the specifics. The scientific explanations are about the specifics. If you want scientists to look at other explanations those explanations are going to have to deal with the specifics.
I have never seen an explanation of why a specific claim of irreducible complexity fails that even comes close to using that reasoning.
If itās not about specifics, itās worthless ā that was a constant whether in science courses, literature courses, language courses. It takes specifics to build a theme, and logic to connect those specifics to arrive at that theme, otherwise youāre just going on feelings ā and āI feel likeā is a bad approach in any field (what pops into my mind is putting in fence posts for my dad as a teen; putting them where I felt like was always a temptation but it would have led to doing the whole thing over).
So if you challenge something, you need specifics as to why you do so.
No, itās by definition. You donāt get to make up your own meanings for words, at least not if you want to engage in intelligent discourse.
You refer off and on to philosophy; well, here I would say that philosophically if something isnāt about specifics it isnāt about reality.
No ā but they have to be logical. As I said, this was a constant whether in science, literature, history, language, etc. at university.
Principles derive from specifics, or theyāre fantasy.
False. I said science focuses on the specifics. Science is about the specifics. Nowhere did I say specifics must be scientific.
Nowhere did I say that something has to be scientific in order for it to exist.
What I have said is that if you want scientists to consider other explanations then those explanations need to explain the specifics. Vague handwaving isnāt going to do it. āMaybe thereās invisible thingsā isnāt going to cut it.
But in my way of thinking, love is as real as a lung or a heart.
Love may look like a fabrication of the mind. But so what? Lungs and hearts are fabrications of the body. The point is, regardless of their origin, they serve an important organizational role in the living organism ā love for the human mind just as lungs and heart are for the body. And I think love is a very important part of being human.
I wasnāt asking for specifics just the broad outline of your principles, or maybe framework is a better choice of words, you use to understand biology and the TOE.
What is the principle of love? It isnāt anything like the principles of quantum mechanics or the principles of thermodynamics. Thereās no equations that allow us to predict the actions of love.
Love is a subjective human emotion with known ties to measurable changes in neurochemistry, such as the release of oxytocin.
An internet search on the question, āIs there love without oxytocin?ā revealsā¦
Yes, love can exist without oxytocin. Studies on prairie voles have shown that they can form strong pair bonds and exhibit parental behaviors even when their oxytocin receptors are genetically altered, effectively blocking the hormoneās action. This suggests that oxytocin is not the sole determinant of love or bonding, and other factors are likely involved.
This makes me laugh.
I think the human concept of love and its role in human existence is so much more than such pale biological reflections.
Absolutely! Biology explains the objective, empirical portion of humanity, but it is often the subjective human experience that is the important part of being a human.
