veracity of evolution

Heraclitus and the Daoists just observed the world just like everyone else does. They noticed that things change.

Now, because of modern day technology, e.g. telescopes and microscopes, humans can observe things change that are further away in space (whatever space may be), and smaller in size (up until a point, and then things get very cloudy).

The ancient observers were very much attuned to change and actually noticed changes that are no longer even perceived by modern observers - e.g. certain rhythms in the universe, or manifestations of internal change into the external.

So, sensitivity changes. Some knowledge is lost in some memory somewhere. But the general observations that All is in flux has pretty much been with us for thousands of years.

Rich

1) Everything is evolving (previously observed by Daoists and Heraclitus, and others).

2) That which survives, survives.

Basically that's right, though things can survive and thrive or survive but struggle too.

Well, I am not looking for a summary. I am looking for the definition of Darwin's Evolutionary Speculation.

Rich

OK. But if this is all that Darwin was saying, I think it was hardly revolutionary.

OK. But if this is all that Darwin was saying, I think it was hardly revolutionary. Such thoughts are found in all ancient scriptures. Most of the Greek myths, Bible stories, Daoist and Buddhists thoughts, revolve around the perception that for some reason people struggle to survive. The question that I ponder is why? This is a strictly metaphysical question.

Rich

Aye, but you said:

So what's the difference (or simularity in your mind) between "all is flux" and "everything is evolving"?

Then this is your problem. You're looking for a why in a system meant to answer how questions.

1) What does it mean to be the fittest?

2) How does one prove this without self-definition?

3) How the heck does anyone know what happened millions of years ago and whether it resembles at all the conditions as they exist today?

I remind you, that weather analysts can barely predict the weather a few hours from now, much less what was going on millions of years ago.

It may have been stuff happening that we can never know about. It is all speculation. A story. Like Bible stories.

Rich

It's in his books, though better ones on the theory as contempery science are in more recent publications.

1) What does it mean to be the fittest?

2) How does one prove this without self-definition?

3) How the heck does anyone know what happened millions of years ago and whether it resembles at all the conditions as they exist today?

Nope, I know metaphysical speculation when I see it, and I tuck it into the right compartment. Now, the moment Darwin starts speculating on what happened millions of years ago and why they evolved as they did (i,.e. survival of the fittest), I tuck him right alongside all other metaphysical notions. There is simply no way of observing those conditions and one good guess is as good as another.

Rich

Suppose you give me a link? I have already provided several links with completely different definitions. No one really knows what they are talking about when they talk about Evolutionary Theory. People just like to talk about it. Which is fine with me. I like talking about Heraclitus. It is fun to speculate and use one's imagination. I just don't pretend it is science.

Organisms that are best adapted to their environment will be more likely to survive than those who are not.

By looking at the fossil evidence. Geology tells us a lot more about what conditions were like several thousand/million/billion years ago than you seem to think.

The weather and fossils in the ground are not the same thing. Fluid dynamics and paleontology aren't related fields.

Once again you can't equate bronze age myth with empirical data. Stop conflating the two to make it seem like you're right.

Physists give no one clear definition of quantum, though you claim it's bound by a single clear idea (even though you were unable to articulate it when asked to do so)

Physists give no one clear definition of quantum, though you claim it's bound by a single clear idea (even though you were unable to articulate it when asked to do so).

I'm done trying to show you why evolution is the best explanation for the biodiversity on the planet.

Then scientists have to make a science out of it and create a little, unverifiable story, that things survive because they were the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survived of course! Look at us humans. We survived didn't we? We are the fittest! It is a great religious story. Kind of like the Book of Genesis. And God made Man in his own image. A great, feel good story

Schrodinger's mathematical wave function equations or equivalents are used to predict and verify observational results.

Heisenberg's Principle is used to define the limits of what is observable now and in the future.

Totally different concept from trying to guess at what may or may not have happened in the past to arrive at where we are at now.

Quantum Physics is science. Darwin's Speculation competes with Intelligent Creation because they both belong in the same category - metaphysics.

Evolution predicted discoveries such as genetics and DNA - creationism did not.

To Phederrik:

Science is limited in scope, and the view of the world it gives us is partial and incomplete. Science is the study of objects, particularly the spatial and temporal properties of matter. Science does not yield a comprehensive world view especially in the areas of subjective experience (values and aesthetics).

Having said that
In the effort to construct a comprehensive world view (philosophy), one should seek to integrate science (objective experience) with values and aesthetics (subjective truth) not to force a false choice between the truth of science (empiricism) and the truth of religion.(faith). Your religion should be compatible with the objective empirical evidence not in direct conflict with it. No religion which pits itself squarely against the popular conception of (how the world really is) can hope to long survive.

Supernatural theology must and is giving way to natural theologies (Conceptions of the divine working through nature and natural law process). This is much more of a problem in traditional Western (particularly Christian) theologies than in Eastern theology. It has to do with the traditional Christian dualism of (earthly versus divine) not too dissimilar from Cartesian dualism (both of which are rationally untenable). This splitting of the world has never been a feature of Eastern monistic theologies.

no you're the arrogant one who doesn't think the human race bears any improvement

Unfortunately, I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about Evolution.

Evolution has been around for thousands of years.

It seems to keep changing every time we observe something. Hmmm .. maybe that is why things change?

If you are talking about Darwin's speculation about why things change, i.e. to best survive in the ecological environment, that is the part that belongs with metaphysics and other religious beliefs.