Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

@Aedes,

The idea that I should observe others thoughts and simply agree is not my idea of a scientific mind.

I still maintain that if circumstances remain the same, nature will make the same determined path. If you introduce variables in those circumstances nature will endeavour to act according to its formula. Natures desire never changes only the circumstances that directs its path. If it has to resolve a problem of circumstances it will use the same tools to adapt. Diversity is brought about by the conditions nature finds it has to resolve.

My desire to drink a glass of wine will not be diverted by my circumstances. I might not be able or given the chance but when the glass is offered, i will drink it. Take that spark of life and that persistent nature we find in life,then life will succeed, given the opportunity.

---------- Post added 12-13-2009 at 05:39 AM ----------

memester;110604 wrote:

Yes, you have the information necessary and the analysing ability to predict, in the case of a glass of wine offered.

The formula is super easy. You like wine, you take what is offered, and some is offered.

it's not a completely accurate way of predicting, as you might not take the glass of wine for whatever immediate reason. Maybe you had enough already, maybe you have to drive, or maybe you are taking a med right now which would interact badly. Maybe you die on the spot and never accept the glass of wine.

so your predicting ability is not really good over the long haul. You can't even predict if I will offer the wine, even though a deterministic process must be behind what I do - according to your argument, eh.

You dont understand my strong need to drink red wine, if you knew me you would not doubt my desire. I can never get enough, only circumstances can divert my desire.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;110883 wrote:

The idea that I should observe others thoughts and simply agree is not my idea of a scientific mind.

I agree with you here. But neither you nor I invented the concept of the scientific mind. It's an idea and an ideal we adopted. We found it persuasive, you might say.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;110684 wrote:

modern physics can be interpreted as implying that nature is ordered possiblity, stochastic probablities. It is no longer clear that nature is determinsitic in the manner you imply. factuals and chaos theory also come into play in this conception or discussion. Do you reject this and claim that all unpredictability is epistomological (lack of information) not ontological (inherent in nature).

While I agree nature strives;, I impute nature with more freedom and creativity than you seem to. The development of some form of intelligent life may have been inevitable but I do not find nature so constrained as to make humans inevitable. Your type of determinism seems to be of the LaPlace's demon type.

It is demonic, it gives no care to failure. It constantly fine tunes the necessity to survive and punishes failures. It will always develop into natural perfection, perfection at the moment is us. The demons who fear our own creation.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;110889 wrote:

It is demonic, it gives no care to failure. It constantly fine tunes the necessity to survive and punishes failures. It will always develop into natural perfection, perfection at the moment is us. The demons who fear our own creation.

Nature is a beautiful monster, isn't it?

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

The Iron Curtain of 2010

Evolution is not driven by randomness. It's driven by a fantastically sophisticated Mutation Algorithm. Cells employ a built-in program which engineers re-arrangement of Mobile Genetic Elements (as observed by McClintock and Shapiro). Genes and Chromosomes are re-arranged in a fantastically beautiful process which produces useful adaptations and new species.

The Mutation Algorithm tests design options like blades on a Swiss army knife. DNA has a huge "bag of tricks" and is able to mix and match combinations of eyes, feet and claws, joints, digits, hair, skin and fur colors and patterns, switching out different "blades" as environments change.

It builds animals on a common chassis of head, spine, heart, lungs, stomach and limbs. It ferociously defends this core chassis from being corrupted by random mutations, while switching out different variables in the head, spine, heart etc.
Darwinism is not scientific. Why? Because it appeals to randomness instead of presuming underlying order. Explanation by accident is not science. It's anti-science.

But SCIENTIFIC theories of evolution postulate that an intentional program directs the development of living things. Towards a goal of occupying every imaginable ecological niche. Of filling the earth with life and beauty.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;117614 wrote:

Darwinism is not scientific. Why? Because it appeals to randomness instead of presuming underlying order. Explanation by accident is not science. It's anti-science.

[/SIZE]
I don't really understand this objection. Firstly what is 'Darwinism'? Is it some sort of label used to describe certain kinds of people who accept evolution, or all of them? Darwin wrote a great foundational text on the subject, and a great many of his suppositions were later proved more or less relevent, but a lot of work and additional understanding has occurred in the 150 years since On the Origin of Species was first published.

And explanation by accident is not really a good objection - random does not equal chaotic and not all the processes involved can be summed up as purely random anyway.

Even if it were like that it wouldn't be "anti-science". Science doesn't rule out accidents. Check out the vast variability of things like Chaos theory, or quantum mechanics - much more 'random' than the processes behind evolution as far as I understand it.
[quote]But SCIENTIFIC theories of evolution postulate that an intentional program directs the development of living things. Towards a goal of occupying every imaginable ecological niche. Of filling the earth with life and beauty.
[/QUOTE]
That's a terrifically romanticised view of both science and life on earth.

Alan - I have to ask - are you really bothered about finding out about the subject - or are you just trawling the web for objections to evolution in the hope that one of them will turn out to actually shake it?

because as far as I can see you are posting similar permutations of the same sort of thing over and over again, and not responding to (or seeming to understand) the responses you receive in return.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Dave,

I see God behind creation a sort of intelligent designer who pushes or orders what we presume to be blind evolution, I admit a trawled the net for my last post, but some express my views better than I can

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;110883 wrote:

The idea that I should observe others thoughts and simply agree is not my idea of a scientific mind.

I still maintain that if circumstances remain the same, nature will make the same determined path. If you introduce variables in those circumstances nature will endeavour to act according to its formula. Natures desire never changes only the circumstances that directs its path. If it has to resolve a problem of circumstances it will use the same tools to adapt. Diversity is brought about by the conditions nature finds it has to resolve.

My desire to drink a glass of wine will not be diverted by my circumstances. I might not be able or given the chance but when the glass is offered, i will drink it. Take that spark of life and that persistent nature we find in life,then life will succeed, given the opportunity.

---------- Post added 12-13-2009 at 05:39 AM ----------

You dont understand my strong need to drink red wine, if you knew me you would not doubt my desire. I can never get enough, only circumstances can divert my desire.

But desire was not the topic

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;117705 wrote:

But desire was not the topic

Oh yes it was....

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;117719 wrote:

Oh yes it was....

not.

Quote:

If you give me a glass of red wine I will predict, I will drink it, but I cant predict you will offer me a glass of wine.

drinking it, not desire to drink .

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;117702 wrote:

I see God behind creation a sort of intelligent designer who pushes or orders what we presume to be blind evolution.

Do we?

Most people in the world presume that a creation myth explains the origin and diversity of life.

Throughout most of history creation myths have been prevalent - evolution has only been 'presumed' this last few centuries really.

Also - is it a matter of presumption when people look at varying accounts and plump for the account supported by the most evidence?

Quote:

I admit a trawled the net for my last post.

And the rest, I suspect.

Which is fine really, only I reckon you're not actually au fait with the objections you're actually raising.

And what is "Darwinism" (in your opinion)?

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;117723 wrote:

not.
drinking it, not desire to drink .

I can assure you if i did not desire it, I would not drink it. Whats your point?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;117732 wrote:

I can assure you if i did not desire it, I would not drink it. Whats your point?

that you would or would not desire it is not the subject.
You were claiming the ability to predict drinking it, not the ability to predict desire

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;117736 wrote:

that you would or would not desire it is not the subject.
You were claiming the ability to predict drinking it, not the ability to predict desire

The desire is predictable, so if the desire is predictable so is the drinking. Have you been drinking my red wine?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;117763 wrote:

The desire is predictable, so if the desire is predictable so is the drinking.

Not true. If I give it to you, you are alive and may be desiring the wine, but you cannot predict that you will drink it, as you may not live long enough to drink it, or anyother number of things could happen that would stop you from drinking it.
someone may bump into you and spill the drink.

You were claiming that you were able to predict events, but as it's seen, you cannot - yet you now go yammering as if it were not proven that you were incorrect.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;117766 wrote:

Not true. If I give it to you, you are alive and may be desiring the wine, but you cannot predict that you will drink it, as you may not live long enough to drink it, or anyother number of things could happen that would stop you from drinking it.
someone may bump into you and spill the drink.

You were claiming that you were able to predict events, but as it's seen, you cannot - yet you now go yammering as if it were not proven that you were incorrect.

Yammering, is this word conducive to reasoned debate? I dont think so. I predict we wont debate till your childish remarks cease.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;117809 wrote:

Yammering, is this word conducive to reasoned debate? I dont think so. I predict we wont debate till your childish remarks cease.

there's not much to debate. I've shown that you are offering untruth, end of story for now.thank you .

1 Reply

@memester,

Another prediction I was spot on with.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;117846 wrote:

Another prediction I was spot on with.

debate or not, you could display honesty, admit your error, and leave it at that. but no.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;117854 wrote:

debate or not, you could display honesty, admit your error, and leave it at that. but no.

Just retract your abuse and the debate might just continue.

1 Reply

Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know