Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[PackJason]

The key difference is that God is not a created thing. The creation/creator paradigm is not applied because God wasn't created

I could say the same thing about the universe. The difference is I don't jump to that conclusion.

 

[بِسْم الله]

You could say that. But if you said that about the universe you would be agreeing with my version of events except you would be attributing the creation to a different god. So you would have adopted my philosophy (disproving your own even if only in your own mind). you would be validating a belief in God and the question between you and I would then become who's version of God is correct. And by the way please don't be offended with any of my words that may seems rude. Some people have very fragile egos and I hope you're not one of them I've been thoroughly enjoying this match of wits.

 

[PackJason]

You could say that. But if you said that about the universe you would be agreeing with my version of events except you would be attributing the creation to a different god.

Not at all. I don't think it's necessary to involve a god at all.

So you would have adopted my philosophy (disproving your own even if only in your own mind). you would be validating a belief in God and the question between you and I would then become who's version of God is correct.

Again, no. Jumping to the conclusion that a god created the universe is not something I think is rational. In my opinion, jumping to that conclusion is just lazy thinking.

And by the way please don't be offended with any of my words that may seems rude. Some people have very fragile egos and I hope you're not one of them I've been thoroughly enjoying this match of wits.

I don't think it's possible for you to offend me.

 

[metis]

Well, there is an politician that were campaigning about making Evolution theory into facts. And so somebody need to tell him and corporation that is sponsoring him to let them know that it is facts, not assumptions anymore. Do you know what are facts? Facts is something that is proven to be that cannot be change or disputed over. Like the sky is blue, that is a fact, not an assumption. But theories has sent a lot of people into prison for life that weren't true, but the little amount of factual evidence that they had pieced together to come up with their own theory which are assumptions. And so if you want to go around claiming that evolution is facts but not a theory; and so then that you go should go to one of them science boards and complain to them about changing theories into facts.

Maybe start reading some serious science books, or maybe even a magazine like "Scientific American", and then you'll see how we use evidence and not "assumptions". I gave you a definition that we use, and I couldn't care less what a politician may believe one way or the other on this.

Nor is the ToE based on "assumptions" because we do use the "scientific method". Even though Wikipedia is not a science source, it has links in this article to such sources, so you might want to check them out instead of just jumping to false conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[بِسْم الله]

I think it's irrational to set a parameter which states all of the natural world is a relationship of cause and effect, but then exclude the Big Bang. Science rejects randomness except in this instance. It is a philosophy which contradicts itself. A basic principle commonly agreed upon is something which contradicts itself isn't true. The parameters which I've set don't contradict themselves, even though to some they are illogical.

 

[metis]

Actually the BB possibly being "uncaused" is possible under the laws of physics according to the math, as bizarre as that sounds. However, there's no way of telling, at least at this time, whether that happened or not.

 

[Kapalika]

1- Where did I say I was an expert in any of the evolution theories?

2- There were no peer reviewed research when Darwin started to promote his theory.

3- Darwin's Natural selection is the chosen textbook theory because it is easier to explain.

4- Dawkin's and Crick described one scenario where Front Loaded evolution may have been the mechanism on earth.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

That quote is grossly out of context and he was goaded into giving Intelligent Design it's "best shot" at it being true. If i had the connection I'd get the clip where Dawkins explains how he was mislead about the nature of the film. Ben Stein's people lied to him and many others who were interviewed for the film that that is quoted from.

 

[Kapalika]

That is your OPINION and apparently some scientists disagree with you as those are all theories of evolution and many use different mechanisms.

You can't just lay a blanket over them and say I believe them all.

Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotes. It states that several key organellesof eukaryotes originated as a symbiosis between separate single-celled organisms. According to this theory, mitochondria, plastids (for example chloroplasts), and possibly other organelles representing formerly free-living bacteria (prokaryotes) were taken inside another cell as an endosymbiont around 1.5 billion years ago. Molecular and biochemical evidence suggest that mitochondria developed from proteobacteria (in particular, Rickettsiales, the SAR11 clade,[1][2] or close relatives) and chloroplasts from cyanobacteria (in particular, nitrogen-fixing filamentous cyanobacteria[3][4]).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

This example itself even says in your quote of wikipedia that it's just explaining one small moment of evolution, not the underlying mechanisms; it's explaining how evolution by natural selection worked to create the first multi-cellular life.

 

[Valjean]

But then why is it is still called theory not like the rest of the scientific facts?

The rest of the scientific facts are theories:
Earth is round: theory - and fact.
Earth orbits the Sun: theory - and fact.
Germs cause disease: theory - and fact.

It's almost as if "science-minded" people think that because they can explain how something works that means they have explained who made it

No. Science says absolutely nothing about "who," science is only concerned with how.

Regarding the who, as part of observing the natural world around us we deduce logical rulings by which we are forced to operate. I.e. If I saw a building I would assume it had an architect

But there is no known mechanism by which a building -- or a watch on the beach, for that matter -- could create itself. There are known mechanisms by which living things have come to be, that don't require an architect or designer. For that matter, there are known mechanisms by which the Earth and seas came to be, as well.

Perhaps there is a God somewhere, but His intervention is not required to explain the phenomena we observe in the world.

The key difference is that God is not a created thing. The creation/creator paradigm is not applied because God wasn't created

So things can exist without need of a creator.
I'm glad we agree here.

 

[Valjean]

I think it's irrational to set a parameter which states all of the natural world is a relationship of cause and effect, but then exclude the Big Bang. Science rejects randomness except in this instance. It is a philosophy which contradicts itself. A basic principle commonly agreed upon is something which contradicts itself isn't true. The parameters which I've set don't contradict themselves, even though to some they are illogical.

Where did you get the impression that science rejects randomness?

 

[Parsimony]

Science rejects randomness except in this instance.

Randomness is a very important part of quantum physics, actually.

 

[بِسْم الله]

Actually the BB possibly being "uncaused" is possible under the laws of physics according to the math, as bizarre as that sounds. However, there's no way of telling, at least at this time, whether that happened or not.

If this mathematical equation

Randomness is a very important part of quantum physics, actually.

could you give me a basic summary of how randomness fits into physics

 

[Midnight Rain]

But then why is it is still called theory not like the rest of the scientific facts?

Because that is what it is. It is both fact and scientific theory. Just like gravity, germ theory ect.

 

[PackJason]

could you give me a basic summary of how randomness fits into physics

"Random" is a touchy word when you're talking about physics. There are many things that appear very random in quantum mechanics and chaos theory, but the more scholarly scientists will argue against the use of the word "random." These fields are not my strongest subjects, so I'll let others explain it better.

 

[metis]

If this mathematical equation

I don't know what you're saying here.

 

[Parsimony]

could you give me a basic summary of how randomness fits into physics

Events in quantum mechanics (such as the decay of a radioactive atomic nucleus) cannot be predicted with any certainty. Instead, there is only a certain probability that an event will occur after a given period of time. This is the premise behind a "half-life", which is the time it takes for half of the atoms in a radioactive material to decay. However, it is impossible to predict which particular atoms in a material will decay within the span of one half-life. There is a 50/50 chance that any one atom will decay after one half-life has passed. Likewise, it is impossible to predict the location of an electron in an atom with certainty: it can only be expressed in terms of probability based on the shape and size of the "orbital" that the electron occupies. Also, the emergence and disappearance of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum is also random. You can't know for sure what kind of particle will show up where.

 

[بِسْم الله]

I don't know what you're saying here.

I apologize that's an accident on my part

 

[metis]

I apologize that's an accident on my part

No worries.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You look!, we have found the missing link and it is breathing.

How in the world are we going to fit this into the link?

I'll get around to those videos soon. They look funny. But I asked what politician is asking or requesting that scientific institutes place evolution as a fact instead of a theory?

 

[بِسْم الله]

Events in quantum mechanics (such as the decay of a radioactive atomic nucleus) cannot be predicted with any certainty. Instead, there is only a certain probability that an event will occur after a given period of time. This is the premise behind a "half-life", which is the time it takes for half of the atoms in a radioactive material to decay. However, it is impossible to predict which particular atoms in a material will decay within the span of one half-life. There is a 50/50 chance that any one atom will decay after one half-life has passed. Likewise, it is impossible to predict the location of an electron in an atom with certainty: it can only be expressed in terms of probability based on the shape and size of the "orbital" that the electron occupies. Also, the emergence and disappearance of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum is also random. You can't know for sure what kind of particle will show up where.

You're saying the duration it takes to decay is random in the fact that you can't predict it. You say electron location cannot be pinpointed. To me this isn't random and science will likely one day develop a more precise method. By random I mean you will never drop a ball and it will defy gravity. You won't find a radioactive nucleus that doesn't decay. You won't find a cell without electrons. There is an order and law which governs these things. What you call random will soon be quantifiable. My point is that if randomness was a law by which the universe operated human observation would be irrelevant and the sciences wouldn't exist