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

@Aedes,

Aedes;109465 wrote:

Your only real objection can be the use of the word "information" to describe that which DNA encodes. It encodes the "effector" molecules that regulate, build and operate our entire body. So if it's not information, can you think of a better word?

Well - perhaps I can't. But if it is true that DNA encodes information, what of the rest of the argument that this Perry Marshall is putting forward? About the fact that the 'increase in information in a system cannot be attributed to random fluctuations'?

Incidentally, Dawkins gives an account of that video and says it was a bad edit - deliberatly edited to convey a false impression.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;109282 wrote:

I'm trying very hard to evaluate the reasoning behind this last post but i can only answer as I think it is required. Accident , the true evolutionist explains our universe as a probability, an accident. So how can you accidentally by probability have nothing one minute and everything next? What enormous accident gave rise to the BB?

While you try hard, i too am trying to understand your stand point.

A ('true'...????) evolutionist does not, is not, and can not be an expert on Origins of Universe theories. Like you and me they subscribe to certain theories. It is better if we discuss our own ideas, so that the crises of ideas in our own mind may find some semblance of order within.

The origin of universe is a seperate issue of Theoretical Physics. Lets us not confuse with the Theory of Evolution. We will get muddled in the confusion. this kind of regress is typical in this kind of arguments.

THEORY(ies), in physical sciences, are abstract ideas formulated objectively to propound a possible or probable explanation of an unknown phenomenon. It is nothing more than that. Now one has every freedom to choose what fits ones idea of cosmology or ones idea of life..... To each his own.

however, i am indulging in this discussion, on being assured that you are a rational and reasonable individual. So here's my take of your stand point.

Lets come to terms with some terms you used;
Accidents - It can mean as mishaps; meeting of two bodies/forces/entities; unforeseen occurences; collisions; a dash; to merge; to meet; a clash; etc (accident as a word in common parlance is more used in a negative sense describing an unwanted event or harmful event.)

It only points to a kind of event taking place.

Probability, on the other hand is a logical term, used in Logics, to describe a future event, based on inductive or deductive reasonings, from past and present events. Probability suggests an thought or reasonings which possibly is true or possibly not true. It is lets say an abstract of the mind.
Accidents are events, occuring or occurred. It is a given fact. Probability theory is an assumed, deducted or calculated proposition. It CAN be a fact of event if all the laws and principles are laid out and argued (peer review), and when no other better idea explains the past or future event in a better logical manner. 'Probability', as a means, whenever used for past events, becomes controversial when another theory tries to challenge it.

My friend died of an freak incident when he slipped from a cliff, and hit the rocks below. The death or harm that occured is called an accident when we know that there was no plan to the events that occurred. If it is planned than i and you would describe that event as either a murder or a suicide. The PROBability of some theories coming in to play only arises after a doubt is propounded, firstly whether it is PLANNED or Unplanned. If Planned, than the doubt persist, whether it is murder or suicide. If Unplanned it accident.

The origin of universe, whether planned or unplanned, whether accident or creation is all in the realm of speculation. The BB is one such speculation.
It is however true that most scientists today favour the Probability of BB ocurrence. It is not a fact, if you like.

So, your question

Quote:

What enormous accident gave rise to the BB?

The right question to ask would be - What caused the Big Bang? It is simple.
If ever any BB scientist has asked the way you have put it, than i am afraid he is wrong, grammatically, and you may have erred in repeating the question.

If but it is a legitimate thought conceived with Accident as a concept, than i am afraid but would love to hear such a concept/theory where by BB is treated as an accident. I for one would be hardpressed to find any logic in that line of thought.

xris;109282 wrote:

The formula for life, now is there one or not? If you examine what might have caused life, we have to imagine a set of circumstances and a group of elements at the point of the said circumstance. If you have these elements and the correct circumstances, we have the conditions for life. It is a formula..if it is not a formula , it is magic, it is creation. Now choose what you will..creation or a formula?

addendum:

Now as far as the theory of evolution goes, your concepts of 'formula' of life, conditions of life, 'creation', 'magic', is not too clear to me.

Nevertheless, let me guess what you are hinting at.

whats a formula to do with conditions of life?

A mathematical formula or a chemical one? No such formula exists, IMHO.
Some experiments were done, on the hypothesis that a formula may exist. There were no credible conditions created or parameters acheived which is repeatable. If experiments are not repeatable than there is no formulas. It is trial and error techniques.

If at all there is, by this time of communication imperatives, of scare mongering, publicity stunts and media penetration, we would have heard of it. I am sure, i have not heard of it.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Well science does not need to be materialist, nor religion creationist. I believe there is a cosmic intelligence behind everything, but I really don't need to know. Knowing would be kind of like knowing what you're going to get for Christmas, or how the movie ends.

That site I referred to does link to other sites that have earnest arguments for world being 6,000 years old, or Christianity being the One True Faith. I am afraid such ideas annoy me just as much as Dawkin's wretched God Delusion.

There are things we know, and things we cannot know, and I'm OK with that.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

A certain friend falls of a cliff, ah we ask, was it an accident or was he pushed. We discover he was alone and the grass was wet, ah it could have been an accident. So could he have avoided that fall? most certainly if he had been more alert to the dangers. So was it an accident, an accident that could have been avoided? What is an accident that could have been avoided? How stupid do you have to be before its classified as negligent? In my opinion there is no such thing as an accident. So nothing happens by accident, everything has purpose and life has always had purpose. Life and evolution always has purpose, its never by accident.

Probability is the probable cause theory of anything we have no idea about. The BB is the biggest probability, no one knows, so the probability law is wheeled out like a giant exhibit,to impress and to fraudulently answer the impossible questions that give scientists the ad dabs. This probability law is a cop out an it is used with all the authority of quake doctor.

Someone asked what was the tallest mountain before mount Everest was discovered?:sarcastic: What was the formula for life before it was discovered? Ah but has not been discovered...so the formula for life has to be discovered before it exists?:perplexed: The formula for life and the eventual outcome of evolution was conceived at the very moment the BB appeared. Life had destiny it was foreseen , maybe engineered but it was definitely destined to achieve and reach natural perfection. Nothing happens by accident, they are determined.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Incidentally, for anyone still interested in the Perry Marshall 'DNA is code' argument, there is a very condensed critique at Help me out here, won't you?? - FRDB Archives

Also Perry Marshall himself debated that point on the freeratio board back in 2005. I am inclined to believe his argument does not stand up, unless you want to believe that it is true.

0 Replies

@xris,

Now, now...... you seems to be quite determined!

I get a feeling that ..... its going to be very interesting.

I would rather leave your 'deterministic' thesis on accidents aside for a while, though, your thoughts may be very advantageous and well appreciated by the Insurances companies.

Nevertheless, i would like to stick to the evolutionary theory, and explore the possibility of knowing on what grounds it could be wrong. The arguments are not convincing. If you permit, and discuss on that area of thoughts it would be great.

xris;109563 wrote:

Life and evolution always has purpose, its never by accident.

This smacks of a theological argument. I am still not sure why 'accident' is brought into picture. It needs some explanation. But may be later. I wont take it on for now - though quite provoking and inviting.

xris;109563 wrote:

Probability is the probable cause theory of anything we have no idea about. The BB is the biggest probability, no one knows, so the probability law is wheeled out like a giant exhibit,to impress and to fraudulently answer the impossible questions that give scientists the ad dabs. This probability law is a cop out an it is used with all the authority of quake doctor.

This is an opinion. ...... however, you are right when you say, it (BB event) is not known by anyone..... though it is not a quakery. .... It is a theory...... why do you address, as if some one has said it is a fact. No scientist can say that. Is this an under gradute level argument?.... IT is an INFERENCE........ITS A .....T-H-E-O-R-Y.

Strangely...... you do not bring any proof of creations..... 'Creation is also a theory...if you like......... Please bring some proof, which i has requested earlier. ........ So by your logic, quake's are everywhere. Not only on the other side.

The following is more close to the topic, so lets discuss it without emotions spilling over. Lets see how each of the following lines are mere rants.

xris;109563 wrote:

Someone asked what was the tallest mountain before mount Everest was discovered?:sarcastic: What was the formula for life before it was discovered? Ah but has not been discovered...so the formula for life has to be discovered before it exists?:perplexed: The formula for life and the eventual outcome of evolution was conceived at the very moment the BB appeared. Life had destiny it was foreseen , maybe engineered but it was definitely destined to achieve and reach natural perfection. Nothing happens by accident, they are determined.

I do not understand what you are saying. Be more clear and precise.
The first question is a valid one.

The second question,....... What was the formula for life before it was discovered?........ is invalid. The 'formula for life' is your conception, it is not a perception. Mount Everest is a thing/body that can be seen and determined (not in the sense you see in determinism) objectively.

Your major premise is correct, minor permise is faulty and wrong. Two incomparables). Therefore, your conclusion......
so the formula for life has to be discovered before it exists?:perplexed:

.....is invalid, faulty and wrong. An absurd statement in absolute terms and also in relative terms, as I had never meant anything what you are trying to show by this.

After the above lines, now, this is very interesting,....you come out with statements, refering to and supporting the BB theory, except the fact that according to you it is NOT AN ACCIDENT..... but something Conceived, some kind of a destiny play......... is this some kind of a you bluff, i bluff game... there was a card game we use to play, in our innocent days.

You seesm to be disputing the nature of the event, and not the event itself. I am perplexed.

These Opinions are absurd, perposterous and in valid. These are illogical, fallacious and unreasonable, because there are no factual basis on which a good argument is put forth.

It is subjective, and therefore we cannot proceed objectively.

But.... please let us know what do you mean by 'natural perfection'. Thats because, at least, it sounds very interesting.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

If you believe accidents are what you assume them to be, you are verging on the idea of fate and our inability to change our future, almost an act of god. Give me your best example of an accident,the very best you can offer...

You may assume this panders to the needs of a theist inspired plot but that's your problem not mine.

I dont oppose the theory of the BB but the probability laws that attempt at giving causes to this event.

So you now admit that the formula for creating life has always existed? You admit it must have been formulated at the same time as the BB ,or even before. It was written into the fabric of the BB, it was destined to evolve? Does that not give you any idea of conception, that life was destined? Nature has a driving force that we see and experience on a daily basis, it strives to succeed at every opportunity, it has the formula to attain perfection. Natural perfection.

Nature performs to a formula that we have no idea about its origin but it has always existed and the determination was determined and its destination is natural perfection. It is no accident and probabilities are improbable.

2 Replies

@xris,

Formulas as denotative words and symbols only exist after humans discern something and describe it's qualities somehow.

Not to say that "formula" by some other definition could not be considered an applicable word.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;109779 wrote:

If you believe accidents are what you assume them to be, you are verging on the idea of fate and our inability to change our future, almost an act of god. Give me your best example of an accident,the very best you can offer...

You may assume this panders to the needs of a theist inspired plot but that's your problem not mine.

I dont oppose the theory of the BB but the probability laws that attempt at giving causes to this event.

So you now admit that the formula for creating life has always existed? You admit it must have been formulated at the same time as the BB ,or even before. It was written into the fabric of the BB, it was destined to evolve? Does that not give you any idea of conception, that life was destined?

It seems, with all due respect, you have a penchant for putting words on other mouth. I did not 'assume', 'verge on an idea', 'admit' to any of those observations you made. Any.
I would take your leave on the point of 'Accidents', you raise. I get a feeling that you are talking of Accidents as a conceptual term. May be you can start a new thread on that, and i will be there.

I will rather continue with the following points you have gracefully thrown light on.

xris;109779 wrote:

Nature has a driving force that we see and experience on a daily basis, it strives to succeed at every opportunity, it has the formula to attain perfection. Natural perfection.

Nature performs to a formula that we have no idea about its origin but it has always existed and the determination was determined and its destination is natural perfection. It is no accident and probabilities are improbable.

Give me one example of perfection. Nature, according to me, is imperfect.
Where does it strive, like you and me are currently doing?

Again the ghost of the 'formula' haunts me. You speak as if you are God, or your preacher definitely must be. Sorry for the transgression.
How do you know 'Nature' (not yet defined for this discussion) has .... The 'formula'.

Can you smell some kind of quakery out here?. Its Probable that you may not smell it.

Further, The second para in the above quote....... uses the preposition 'has', 'was', 'is' in definite terms.

whose talking? Is it the figment of the mind. If not, it should be the voice of 'God'.????

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;109801 wrote:

Formulas as denotative words and symbols only exist after humans discern something and describe it's qualities somehow.

Not to say that "formula" by some other definition could not be considered an applicable word.

Just because humans have not discovered its secret, does not devalue its relevance.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 01:24 PM ----------

Jackofalltrades;109846 wrote:

Give me one example of perfection. Nature, according to me, is imperfect.
Where does it strive, like you and me are currently doing?

Again the ghost of the 'formula' haunts me. You speak as if you are God, or your preacher definitely must be. Sorry for the transgression.
How do you know 'Nature' (not yet defined for this discussion) has .... The 'formula'.

Can you smell some kind of quakery out here?.

The second para in the above quote....... uses the preposition 'is' in definite terms.

whose talking? Is it the figment of the mind. If not, it should be the voice of 'God'.????

Rhetoric comment is not debate. I dont believe in god friend, so whats your point?You appear to see god when none were described.
Natures perfection, not mans futile attempts and you dont recognise nature how strange? So do you accept a formula exists or not, speak up now.

2 Replies

@xris,

Quote:

Formulas as denotative words and symbols only exist after humans discern something and describe it's qualities somehow.

Not to say that "formula" by some other definition could not be considered an applicable word.

Quote:

xris said: Just because humans have not discovered its secret, does not devalue its relevance.

What is the "it" you refer to ? Denotative words and symbols, and description ? I don't think that fits what you mean by "it".

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;109847 wrote:

Rhetoric comment is not debate. I dont believe in god friend, so whats your point?You appear to see god when none were described.
Natures perfection, not mans futile attempts and you dont recognise nature how strange? So do you accept a formula exists or not, speak up now.

sir, with all due respect, i have tried as far as possible to lay bare my point which i thought is inconsistent with your point of view.

You don't believe in God!..... thats strange. You talk about 'Determination', 'Conceivement', 'accidents do not occur it is destined'. What then determines? What conceives? Who writes the laws of destiny????

Possibly, i may be wrong..... But, hey. did i talk about 'creation' first....... or perhaps in your scheme of things 'creation' takes place without a so called 'God'....... What creates?

As far as the 'formula' goes...... you still insist on this monkey to be on my back. well. I had said it in quite a few words, but perhaps you read it too fast. The straight answer is NO...... (Before replying please consider what memester has said about 'formula's).....

As far as rhetorics goes, it is useful so long as it deals with the issue.

I dont give short answers, they can be construed as rhetorics.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;109853 wrote:

What is the "it" you refer to ? Denotative words and symbols, and description ? I don't think that fits what you mean by "it".

It, is the formula.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;109857 wrote:

It, is the formula.

OK, that's a repetition. Now suppose we use an example.

There exists flour and eggs and oven and so on. From there an entity can make more composite things such as a cake.

The entity can take all the available materials, including oven, and eat them at once, or he can proceed in a different way, to make a cake.

Yes, the potential or ability might be there, to make a cake, but it is not made yet. The entity can follow a guide to produce a certain kind of cake, or he can make it up as he goes along, experimenting. If he makes a bundt cake, someone could write down the formula or recipe, or description of the process.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;109855 wrote:

sir, with all due respect, i have tried as far as possible to lay bare my point which i thought is inconsistent with your point of view.

You don't believe in God!..... thats strange. You talk about 'Determination', 'Conceivement', 'accidents do not occur it is destined'. What then determines? What conceives? Who writes the laws of destiny????

Possibly, i may be wrong..... But, hey. did i talk about 'creation' first....... or perhaps in your scheme of things 'creation' takes place without a so called 'God'....... What creates?

As far as the 'formula' goes...... you still insist on this monkey to be on my back. well. I had said it in quite a few words, but perhaps you read it too fast. The straight answer is NO...... (Before replying please consider what memester has said about 'formula's).....

As far as rhetorics goes, it is useful so long as it deals with the issue.

I dont give short answers, they can be construed as rhetorics.

Before you two reply you should consider what i imply by formula. If you have the correct material, chemicals, call them what you will and a certain condition then life will appear. It does not matter how you describe it , IT requires a formula , described, known or not known. I do believe your being purposely obtuse to save your reasoning on this subject.

As for the word create, its does not need for us to believe it is an intelligent creator, a creator that you appear so willing to see in my posts. I will ask if life came by accident , do you think this accident could happen again? Would the same circumstances be needed for life to pop into existance or would some other type of accident be required?

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;109859 wrote:

Before you two reply you should consider what i imply by formula. If you have the correct material, chemicals, call them what you will and a certain condition then life will appear. It does not matter how you describe it , IT requires a formula , described, known or not known. I do believe your being purposely obtuse to save your reasoning on this subject.

As for the word create, its does not need for us to believe it is an intelligent creator, a creator that you appear so willing to see in my posts. I will ask if life came by accident , do you think this accident could happen again? Would the same circumstances be needed for life to pop into existance or would some other type of accident be required?

Okay..... i relent. I would only go ahead, if you define what you mean by
1) Accidents
2) formula's
3) Create, Creator, creation

On formula..... i think i am in line with memester, so i will let him do the talk on formulas, until i defer with him, or perhaps add.

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;104616 wrote:

I'll get to the details of that in a minute. First I need to explain why randomness only destroys information.

But the process of evolution is not random.
Selecting for survival, procreation and adaptability is anything but random.
Darwin never claimed it was random.
The only proported random part was genetic mutation and even that assumption is probably wrong as
1. gene mutations are not entirely random.
2. phenotypic expressions and behaviors are not entirely determined at the genome level.
So the theory as you present it is wrong and it is not even the theory of evolution.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;109862 wrote:

Okay..... i relent. I would only go ahead, if you define what you mean by
1) Accidents
2) formula's
3) Create, Creator, creation

On formula..... i think i am in line with memester, so i will let him do the talk on formulas, until i defer with him, or perhaps add.

I think, though I'm only filling in the blanks ( because I'm not getting revealing answers) , is that xris is really trying to say that the process is possible with or without explanations.

We could look at "formula", "recipe", or anything like that, as "explanations".

And the process does not necessarily need an explanation aforehand.

Is my summation correct, xris ?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;109859 wrote:

Before you two reply you should consider what i imply by formula. If you have the correct material, chemicals, call them what you will and a certain condition then life will appear. It does not matter how you describe it , IT requires a formula , described, known or not known. I do believe your being purposely obtuse to save your reasoning on this subject.

As for the word create, its does not need for us to believe it is an intelligent creator, a creator that you appear so willing to see in my posts. I will ask if life came by accident , do you think this accident could happen again? Would the same circumstances be needed for life to pop into existance or would some other type of accident be required?

Okay..... let me add my bit on 'formula of life'

Two nouns... the terms 'formula' and 'life' has to be taken into consideration.

First the 'formula'. xris may understand the following; if he can relate to his understanding of 'accidents' - which is a concept; and which according to him does not occur, (he has is reasonings) than formulas also does not occur in 'Nature' (my proposition).
What he is suggesting, or what he is hinting at, as i gather it, is true to the extent that 'accident' as a word is a concept not occuring in real terms. The same reasoning applies to formula's and life' as a word-concept. He convenientely forgets that all concepts are mental constructs, including 'formulas'. You cant have duality in language. In understandings , yes.

So, i think there is an error in judgement of word-meaning and its application. It is not to say he is mistaken because we see this phrase used often in the media and in public discourse very loosely.

Memester has shown how recipe/formula can only be acheived after the 'idea' of combining things gets 'fructifies' in the end desirable or useful result (usually after experimenation). It is an act of a 'discerning' man, as is described by memester.

the idea of 'evolution' is fast changing into the 'fact' of evolution, by the increasing number of evidences in the form of discovery or empirical knowledge.

By implying that 'Nature' has 'discovered' a 'formula of life', and thereafter 'evolution' takes place (directed or undirected??) leading to a 'purpose' called 'natural perfection' is a great idea.

Apparently, the mind is playing the same game once again, except the words have changed.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;109862 wrote:

Okay..... i relent. I would only go ahead, if you define what you mean by
1) Accidents
2) formula's
3) Create, Creator, creation

On formula..... i think i am in line with memester, so i will let him do the talk on formulas, until i defer with him, or perhaps add.

As i dont believe in accidents my definition of accidents, would have to be others conceived idea....An unfortunate or even fortunate event that could not be conceived of.

Formula..A recipe for making something..now remember its not a human equation written down for a certain cook to brew but an inevitable result when certain elements,materials, are mixed together and the right circumstances are present. The formula for dynamite existed long before it was discovered by man, man became aware of it. The formula for life exists but we are not privy to its secrets.

Creation, the inevitable result of a formula. Nature holds those secrets, it does not invent them, nature is the creative force. If there is creator I'm not aware of him or her or it. I wont deny its possibility but I dont know, Im agnostic.

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 07:46 AM ----------

memester;110055 wrote:

I think, though I'm only filling in the blanks ( because I'm not getting revealing answers) , is that xris is really trying to say that the process is possible with or without explanations.

We could look at "formula", "recipe", or anything like that, as "explanations".

And the process does not necessarily need an explanation aforehand.

Is my summation correct, xris ?

Yes I think you do understand me. Imagine if the same circumstances that occurred to create life here on earth, were to be replicated on another planet, life would be inevitable. Those circumstances could be called a formula, a recipe. Now understanding that concept, we have to accept that the formula has always existed. It was written into the fabric of the universe, at its conception or even before. Written not in words but in reality. Nature holds those secrets and also the secrets of how it attempts to achieve natural perfection. Nothing in evolution is by accident it occurs by the unwritten formula of nature. Every occurrence has been considered, it acts in accordance to natures demands. This amazing truth can lead us to believe it was engineered because its so perfect and eternal. We can wonder or consider but we cant confirm or deny the possibility.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know