Evolution - True Or False

It's


  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
These statements betray an anthropic bias. We all know genes aren't alive, they don't have intentionality, but we use language as phrases as though they were. It doesn't mean anything, it's just easier for humans to relate. In fact, this is the same reason we posulate a God, because we cannot relate to impersonal complex interactions. We did evolve in small social groups where the ability to distinguish intentionality often meant the difference between life and death.

Computer programs can replicate the principles of evolution in spite of the fact that they are deterministic machines. This means that rather simple deterministic processes can lead to unpredicable outcomes. This is a major implication of chaos (and evolutionary) theory.
 
And they describe the process explicitly better than evolution accpomplishes and with seemingly unrelated implicity from evolutionist themselves.

Our words are sometimes more precise that our intentions.
 
Thinking the cause of complexity is a personality may be emotionally more satisfying, but ultimately incorrect.
 
more correct than 1 and 9 trillion?
Does that betray and emotional reaction or a logical conclusion?

Your statement was absolute yet unresolved. A contradiction in purposes.
 
Meet...Enrique Hernandex-Lemus.

I am a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamicaly feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, and event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician-they are like the signature of a Master Artist.
 
He's entitled to his opinion, but he is in the minority. Evolution is not chance, it is the precise opposite of it. He suggests a strawman, as the chromosome did not appear fully formed out of nothing, it evolved from simpler forms.

He fails to explain how, if complexity comes from complexity, how was the complex creator created?

He also evidences anthropic bias in that, if the universe did not have laws suitable for life, there would be no life to observe them. All life forms capable of the observation will find themselves in an environment uniquely suitable for life.
 
You mean what's popular determins what's right?
How bout prestige...Does prestige prove a thoery?
You're not serious?
"Science" "Right"
Hmm. you need to revisit your basic science textbook.

Scientific consensus ('popularity') simply says "most people trained in the field think that this idea makes the most sense, and fits the available data best." The problem with your question is the word "right". Science doesn't make the world, the world IS. Science drescribes it based on what it sees. Thus, "right' doesn't really apply; "most accurate" would be a much better fit.

I don't blame you here. I blame your parents and your teachers for allowing you to get this far without the ability to comfortably work in grey areas of understanding, where most of the universe exists.


All life forms capable of the observation will find themselves in an environment uniquely suitable for life.
plus, plus, motherf*ckingplus. It isn't a hard concept. In all other places in the universe (like the center of the sun, empty space, everywhere else - nearly 100% of the known universe), we would not be asking this question because we wouldn't be alive. Here, the situation currently exists for us to ask, so we ask. Honestly, for a religion that tries to downplay slef-pride, it is full of very pridefull assumptions, like an omnipotent and omnicient creator made everything with a bunch of morons (myself included) floating around in the armpit of a spec.

Intresting...
Are you really fully prepared and completely equipped to handle such a discusion?

Talk about pridefull. Wonderful! Me and the rest of the morons who believe in evolution will inherit this earth from you, and then we can stop argueing the point.
 
Last edited:
We have heard the authority argument now a few times. How interesting it may seem that a few scientists believe in ID it doesn't constitute science. If you can't even come up with a scientific argument why ID is better than evolution you lost the game.
 
Intresting...

A "Lame Goat"

nevermind....

He fails to explain how, if complexity comes from complexity, how was the complex creator created?

You do appreciate that those odds are extrapolated not from unknown characteristics of life and the inanimate but from what is known. Everything on which Evolution is founded, in other words...

You must face an inescapalbe conclusion that the it is the current theory it's self that makes it impossible in life forms as complex as human beings with mulitple chromosomes that less than 1 in 9 trillion sends the odds into space more than 71 lightyears from Earth at more than a lightyear and a half per chromosome, for them to have happened by mere chance.

Is this really the case of just missing the bullseye by a couple of inches? Or is it missing the mark by more than a couple galactic sectors?

He fails to explain how, if complexity comes from complexity, how was the complex creator created?

I've heard of this reasoning before...It's flawed by Bible standards. Alas this isn't a turnabout is fair play..this is a scientific thread.

Are you really fully prepared and completely equipped to handle such a discusion?
 
If I told you those were the odds of the next near-miss Earth orbit crossing Asteroid of hitting the Earth...

How worried would you be...
 
let's jump back to the original question: does evolution occur?

We have seen speciation in the laberatory and in nature. A majority of antibiotics developed after pennicillin were created by man to counter the changes in bacterial population in response to the introduction of anti-biotics.

We have at our disposal an imperfect physical record of life that existed prior to our own, sorted into layers that are 90% accurate to each other around the world.

Fatty acids in a water medium will self-organise due to thier chemical structure, and form spheres that consume, grow, reproduce, and react to light (move away from light) - all due to chemical and atomic structures.

We have prions and viruses which aren't alive by our traditional definition, but move, reproduce, and in the case of viruses, seek out and infect other living things.

What is missing from this picture (the THOERY of HOW evolution works) that requires God? The why's of physical and chemical forces? Ok, I'll give you that. What else? The gaps in our understanding? Every step that we haven't mapped out to an atmoic force level must have God's fingers in it? How much has God's role in life shrunk over the past 200 years, then? How small are the gaps for him to wedge himself in?


When you see a brick on the ground wet with blood, what do you assume? That god made the brick bleed? Or that something physical being, one that you can show with great certainty exists, got hit by the brick? That most likely that living thing, human or animal, exists somewhere close by, and is hurt?

Apon finding a blood-coated brick, do you go searching for a wounded animal or person in order to help them? Why or why not?

You, right now, are assuming that the Brick bled by the power of God, because somewhere in a book you read, a guy claimed that such a thing happened once. You are hurting your fellow man by doing so; leaving them to bleed in a ditch, in need of your help.
 
Last edited:
Consider even this....

If we could translate 71 lightyears per chromosome into speed and velocity verses the number of different chromosomes on the planet Earth we could travel around the Milky Way's Local Cluster and back.

If we were going...per chromosome....

It would revolutionalize space flight...that's how easy Evolution makes it look. But that's truely how impossible it is.
 
shame that human space travel has nothing to do with [ENC]evolution[/ENC].

You can believe that [ENC]evolution [/ENC]is impossible, but ironically it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt.
 
Last edited:
Consider even this....

If we could translate 71 lightyears per chromosome into speed and velocity verses the number of different chromosomes on the planet Earth we could travel around the Milky Way's Local Cluster and back.

If we were going...per chromosome....

It would revolutionalize space flight...that's how easy Evolution makes it look. But that's truely how impossible it is.

What the hell are you babbling about? You trying to figure out a way to use chromosomes as fuel? Are you attempting math of some kind? Please specify your math so that we can all see the logic behind the statement "If we were going...per chromosome...."
 
Let's look at the odds, then. We don't need to start with a chromosome, which developed later, but only a self-replicating molecule, such as RNA. Given that the early oceans must have been filled with a stew of complex organic chemistry (there was nothing around to eat it), lets assume that the odds of a single strand of RNA developing in any one year are 1 in a billion. In two years, the odds go down to 1 in 500 thousand. After a mere 30 years, the odds are 1 to 1, in other words not just probable, but almost certain to occur.

Even if you start with the odds at 1 in a trillion, give it a billion years, and it is bound to happen.

At that point, it becomes a runaway process as described by evolution and natural selection.
 
lets assume that the odds of a single strand of RNA developing in any one year are 1 in a billion. In two years, the odds go down to 1 in 500 thousand. After a mere 30 years, the odds are 1 to 1, in other words not just probable, but almost certain to occur.
Er, if an event has a 1 in a billion chance of occuring in one year, there's a 50% chance of it occuring (at least once) in just under 700 million years, and 90% in 2.3 billion.
 
"Theory" means EXPLANATION, not speculation

Greetings all,

Notice it's the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, not the Darwinian Law of Evolution.


It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation.

This meaning can also be used in scientific circles of course - such as "tectonic plate theory", which started as a speculative idea to explain some odd facts, but has now been fully confirmed.

Yet it has not graduated to the "law of tectonic plates". That is simply NOT how it works. Many people still repeat this false idea that a "hypothesis" becomes a "theory", then graduates to a "law". That is not true.

Of course, in Darwin's time, evolution was still highly speculative - Darwin formed his theory to explain some unusual facts he observed, but there was a great deal that was unknown at that time. In the 150 years or so since then it has been confirmed by every experiment, every test, and every observation ever done, by anyone, anywhere, every time - millions of individual pieces of evidence ALL support evolution. But it has never been contradicted by ONE single observation. For this reason, evolution is now considered certain. It is as "proven" as things ever are in science.


Now,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION (and/or a model) of how it works, (and allows predictions to be made.)

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electicity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it has been observed many times.
the Evolutionary Theory explains how it works.


Of course - a theory can be wrong.

Consider these two theories :
* The Demonic Theory of disease
* The Germ Theory of disease

The church championed the Demonic Theory of disease for centuries - the idea that disease was explained by hidden "demons".

Of course, we all know the church was wrong.
Instead - science has shown that germs cause disease, not demons.

A good theory must match the facts, and must allow predictions to be made. Evolution is such a theory - it has made many predictions and all have been found correct.


The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.


Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)


Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.


The use of the word "theory" here does NOT mean it is unproven.
Any more than the term "Gravitational Theory" means gravity has not been proved.

Evolution is probably the single most solidly supported theory of all time.
Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

Saying
"evolution is just a theory"
makes as much sense as saying
"gravity is just a theory".


Iasion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top