Theory of Darwin is not local. What does it mean?

[questfortruth]

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

 

[Altfish]

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

Firstly Abiogenesis is NOT part of the ToE; it never has been it never will be ; there is no THOUGHT about it.
Charles Darwin and others, originally described the process, no scientist describes it as Darwinism, it is called evolution and the mechanisms are still being learnt about BUT evolution happens.
There is no such thing as "Theory of Darwin evolution", it is the Theory of Evolution. We do not call the theory of gravity, the theory of Newtonian Gravity.

Not sure what you're trying to say

 

[questfortruth]

Firstly Abiogenesis is NOT part of the ToE; it never has been it never will be ; there is no THOUGHT about it.
Charles Darwin and others, originally described the process, no scientist describes it as Darwinism, it is called evolution and the mechanisms are still being learnt about BUT evolution happens.
There is no such thing as "Theory of Darwin evolution", it is the Theory of Evolution. We do not call the theory of gravity, the theory of Newtonian Gravity.

Not sure what you're trying to say

please read more carefully. Just to read the title is not enough. Please read the text inside.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

Nobody knows the probability of abiogenesis because we don't know yet what steps are needed. Most of the creationist nonsense about it seems to assume that a functioning cell needed to happen by chance, which is daft.

You lapse into total incoherence with regard to non-locality. From what you've said here, I doubt you even know what it means. Your pdf file makes even less sense than the post - which is a kind of achievement in itself. The last paragraph shows that you have zero understanding of evolution - the rest is nonsense.

 

[Altfish]

please read more carefully. Just to read the title is not enough. Please read the text inside.

I read it all, please don't treat me as stupid, I'm not.

 

[questfortruth]

I read it all, please don't treat me as stupid, I'm not.

You are smart, but you hate me. Because I am nothing in your opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.


More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

First what you have posted is a very confusing contorted portrayal of the Theory of evolution and abiogenesis that does not make sense. It is difficult to respond to something that does not fit the scientific view of evolution and abiogenesis.

Yes, Charles Darwin was the first to present a comprehensive falsifiable proposal for evolution, not abiogenesis, that was the basis for future scientists to bring more research and discoveries into further supporting the theory.
The fact that scientists do not call it Darwin's theory, because the theory was not his. Others proposed the theory before Darwin and did research. All this pretty much irrelevant as to whether evolution and abiogenesis represent valid falsifiable science.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

This is terribly incoherent and does not reflect the science of evolution. There is nothing inconsistent in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution. The sciences make predictable and consistent hypothesis that are confirmed by research and discoveries involving fossils and genetics.

Evolution does not complicate organisms, and this is an oddly worded non-scientific statement. Yes, a life evolved to adapt to different environment life became more complex over time. That is consistent with the evidence for the whole history of life over time by the objective verifiable evidence, the earth, our solar system are billions of years old, an there is absolutely no evidence of a world flood...

 

[Altfish]

You are smart, but you hate me. Because I am nothing in your opinion.

No, you are wrong. I hate no one; I disagree with people but, hate, no

 

[shunyadragon]

You are smart, but you hate me. Because I am nothing in your opinion.

Hate is a strong word, I personally do not hate anyone, but in your case I seriously question your voluntary lack of knowledge of science and basing your view of the nature of our physical existence in an incoherent ancinet worldview and a religious agenda.

 

[questfortruth]

Hate is a strong word, I personally do not hate anyone, but in your case I seriously question your voluntary lack of knowledge of science and basing your view of the nature of our physical existence in an incoherent ancinet worldview and a religious agenda.

Love or Hate there is nothing else. Indifference, selfishness is hidden hate. Because there are two sources only: God and satan.

 

[shunyadragon]

The statement 'Theory of Darwin is not local' does not have any meaning.

 

[questfortruth]

The statement 'Theory of Darwin is not local' does not have any meaning.

It has, but you are not seeing it.

 

[shunyadragon]

It has, but you are not seeing it.

As a scientist it has no meaning, but you can explain and reduce the fog index. I would hope it would be in a scientific context, but I do not believe this will be so. Nothing you have said so far has no relationship to science.

 

[questfortruth]

As a scientist it has no meaning, but you can explain and reduce the fog index. I would hope it would be in a scientific context, but I do not believe this will be so. Nothing you have said so far has no relationship to science.

Am I talking about Theory of Evolution? Yes, I am. Conclusion: my text has relationship to Science. Or the Evolution is not a Science? Is there another good forum?

 

[ratiocinator]

Am I talking about Theory of Evolution? Yes, I am.

No, you're not. You're talking about some bizarre misunderstanding of it. Likewise non-locality. You seem to have no understanding of science at all. Just using the terms that you've read doesn't mean that you understand or are actually talking about the real science.

 

[RabbiO]

It has, but you are not seeing it.

Your problem remains what it has always been. To be blunt, you cannot put together anything but the simplest of sentences before your inability to write any thing longer or more complex in intelligible English betrays you.

For me, it is not a question of liking you or not. It is not a question of respecting you or not. It is not a question of agreeing with you or not, although, to be frank, I find very little, no matter the topic, to agree with you on. For me, it is primarily a growing unwillingness to be an accomplice in your assault on the English language.

 

[Skwim]

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

Because this is gibberish I assume English is not your primary language, but kudos for trying to express yourself in it anyway.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Am I talking about Theory of Evolution? Yes, I am. Conclusion: my text has relationship to Science. Or the Evolution is not a Science? Is there another good forum?

What do mean 'is local?'
It is the Theory of Evolution, and not Darwin's theory.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Love or Hate there is nothing else. Indifference, selfishness is hidden hate. Because there are two sources only: God and satan.

You can try all you like, for as long as you like, but you will never be able to demonstrate that statement as true. It is your opinion, and absolutely nothing more than that.

 

[Valjean]

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

The ToE is associated with Darwin. Darwin demonstrated one of its major mechanisms. But biology has progressed far beyond Darwin's wildest imagination. Biology is not 'Darwinism' any more than astronomy is 'Copernicanism' or anatomy 'Galenism'.
"Darwinism" isn't a worldview, it's a mechanism.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis.

Are we talking about evolution (change) or the origin of life?

I'm not following. "Non-creationism?" "Local theory?" "Luck?" You'll have to explain these. Natural selection, however, selects, it's not 'luck'.
Life appeared almost as soon as conditions on early Earth stabilized enough to support it, suggesting that it's pretty easily generated.

The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

This is gobbledygook. I'm not following at all. You seem to be saying physics is unnatural and that magic is natural.
Please expand on this "non-creationism," "non-local theory" and "inertial physical systems."

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

How do you come to that conclusion? What biochemistry? We can't currently replicate the entire process, so the whole idea is absurd?
It wasn't that long ago that there were no flying machines. Did that make the idea of flight wrong?

And don't get me started on this ridiculous idea of invisible words and pictures flying through the air to far away receivers...

Why must life be "born" fully fledged? We've seen various components of life emerge naturally. True, we have not yet seen something clearly 'alive' created. So what? The laboratory of early earth ran biillions of expriments daily. We've only tried a few. Yet you conclude the whole enterprise is impossible?

Life exists, so it's clearly possible. Are you seriously proposing that magic poofing is more believable than well known. observable chemical processes?

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

What's any of this have to do with Darwin?
You don't understand biology. Complexity doesn't necessarily increase survival chances. Simplicity has worked for billions of years, while most large, complex organisms that have ever existed are now extinct. Moreover, evolution doesn't necessarily increase complexity. Sometimes it simplifies.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

The file is an anti science screed. It's nonsense. Where did you find it?