Does evolution have a purpose?

[ratiocinator]

Selectively responding to the reference gets you nowhere. Your stuck an in old indeterminate 'Causal Determinism.' I am using Popper's concept.

Do you actually have a reference to what you mean by determinism? Doing a search turns up this:

"My central problem is to examine the validity of the arguments in favour of what I call 'scientific' determinism; that is to say, the doctrine that the structure of the world is such that any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past events, together with all the laws of nature.

The problem is relevant mainly because exponents of the quantum theory often present the situation in the following way. Classical physics, they say, entails what I call 'scientific' determinism; and only quantum theory forces us to reject classical physics, and 'scientific' determinism with it. In opposition to this view, I intend to show that even the validity of classical physics would not impose upon us any deterministic doctrine about the world."

-- Karl Popper, The Open Universe.​

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you actually have a reference to what you mean by determinism? Doing a search turns up this:
...
I intend to show that even the validity of classical physics would not impose upon us any deterministic doctrine about the world."

-- Karl Popper, The Open Universe.​

Hmm..
I think that Einstein thought that relativity implied a "deterministic world", as it could be shown that what we consider to be "the present" only applies to our frame of reference in the universe.

The universe consists of moving bodies, that are related to each other, and that "time is only a perception", an as it is possible that what we deem as the future can be some other observers past
[as speed of light is a constant].
This implies a deterministic universe.
The debate rattles on..

 

[ratiocinator]

I think that Einstein thought that relativity implied a "deterministic world", as it could be shown that what we consider to be "the present" only applies to our frame of reference in the universe.

Einstein did think that the universe was deterministic (the famous god doesn't play dice quote) and relativity does imply that the present is a relative concept that that the whole of space-time exists as a single manifold, but the two aren't exactly the same concept.

Determinism effectively means predictability (at least in principle), i.e. if we know enough about a system we will always be able to predict its future. Every event is the direct and unavoidable result of preceding events. Quantum mechanics implies that this is not the case. For example, we can have two radioactive nuclei, in absolutely identical states, and we still won't be able to predict when each one will decay, all we can do is say what the probabilities are.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Quantum mechanics implies that this is not the case..

Does it?
Are you saying that quantum mechanics does not predict that which relativity predicts?
i.e. they conflict with each other

I don't think that you are saying that, but perhaps you can explain this apparent contradiction further?

 

[ratiocinator]

Does it?
Are you saying that quantum mechanics does not predict that which relativity predicts?
i.e. they conflict with each other

I don't think that you are saying that, but perhaps you can explain this apparent contradiction further?

They are actually proving very difficult to combine, but you seem to have missed the point. Determinism is about the casual relationships within space-time, whether every event is a direct and inevitable result of all its antecedents. Relativity is a deterministic theory but it only covers space-time (and hence gravity). Quantum mechanics covers matter and the other three forces. They don't actually contradict each other but neither to they fit together easily.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you actually have a reference to what you mean by determinism? Doing a search turns up this:

"My central problem is to examine the validity of the arguments in favour of what I call 'scientific' determinism; that is to say, the doctrine that the structure of the world is such that any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past events, together with all the laws of nature.

The problem is relevant mainly because exponents of the quantum theory often present the situation in the following way. Classical physics, they say, entails what I call 'scientific' determinism; and only quantum theory forces us to reject classical physics, and 'scientific' determinism with it. In opposition to this view, I intend to show that even the validity of classical physics would not impose upon us any deterministic doctrine about the world."

-- Karl Popper, The Open Universe.​

Still remains you are stuck in the archaic Newtonian Causal Determinism, and dishonestly selectively citing references to justify your agenda.

I still go with Popper's view of determinism.

 

[ratiocinator]

I still go with Popper's view of determinism.

So what do you think that is? And (again) please provide a reference.

 

[YoursTrue]

It stands to even the most basic logic and science that this has to be incorrect.

For example, if we go back 1 billion years ago, there was nothing but single-celled organisms according to the overwhelming fossil evidence. However, when we get to 600 million years ago, we suddenly start seeing multicellular organisms. Logically, one had to lead to the other through changes.

Now, what evidence can you provide that humans and whales were always here?

Did I ever say that whales and humans were "always here"? Just to clarify, no, I did not.
You can't "go back 1 billion years ago," that's ridiculous as if you 'know.' The rest is baloney. Do you like rye bread, I do. But I don't think baloney or ham is too good for a person. Some people like it
Anyway -- a more reasonable but obviously unanswerable question is if the Pope is really a heretic as has been claimed by a few, what do you think? Evolution perhaps? Of the natural selection kind? The whole thing is a bunch of nonsense and frankly sickening.
The news has it that a Greek orthodox priest called Pope Francis a heretic. I know you don't care much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not fast enough.

No kidding. It's remained more or less static for about -- how many years? By static I mean miserably horrible for the most part.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what do you think that is? And (again) please provide a reference.

Still remains you are stuck in the archaic Newtonian Causal Determinism, and dishonestly selectively citing references to justify your agenda.

I still go with Popper's view of determinism. Look up Popper's view on determinism. Are you literate.

References provided. Do your own home work.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did I ever say that whales and humans were "always here"? Just to clarify, no, I did not.
You can't "go back 1 billion years ago," that's ridiculous as if you 'know.' The rest is baloney. Do you like rye bread, I do. But I don't think baloney or ham is too good for a person. Some people like it
Anyway -- a more reasonable but obviously unanswerable question is if the Pope is really a heretic as has been claimed by a few, what do you think? Evolution perhaps? Of the natural selection kind? The whole thing is a bunch of nonsense and frankly sickening.
The news has it that a Greek orthodox priest called Pope Francis a heretic. I know you don't care much.

How about some real scientific references to support your ancient religious agenda.

 

[YoursTrue]

How about some real scientific references to support your ancient religious agenda.

bahai faith?

 

[YoursTrue]

Still remains you are stuck in the archaic Newtonian Causal Determinism, and dishonestly selectively citing references to justify your agenda.

I still go with Popper's view of determinism.

such big terms yet the reality is that there is no real hardcore evidence that evolution is the way life is. no matter no conjecture of billions of years etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmm..
I think that Einstein thought that relativity implied a "deterministic world", as it could be shown that what we consider to be "the present" only applies to our frame of reference in the universe.

The universe consists of moving bodies, that are related to each other, and that "time is only a perception", an as it is possible that what we deem as the future can be some other observers past
[as speed of light is a constant].
This implies a deterministic universe.
The debate rattles on..

einstein was bright, but his opinion about God was on the shelf so to speak. Raised as a Jew, he was not inclined to believe either the Bible and had a possible idea that maybe? God existed...?

 

[YoursTrue]

It stands to even the most basic logic and science that this has to be incorrect.

For example, if we go back 1 billion years ago, there was nothing but single-celled organisms according to the overwhelming fossil evidence. However, when we get to 600 million years ago, we suddenly start seeing multicellular organisms. Logically, one had to lead to the other through changes.

Now, what evidence can you provide that humans and whales were always here?

Viruses are not simple things, are they? And as far as I know, they need hosts to continue. Nobody at this point can convince me that it all just "came about." Or happened by chance. Before I became a believer I was looking -- searching to an extent -- even though for years I considered so many teachings foolish bordering on ridiculous. And one preacher on the radio (I called him) told me what set me on the path to godliness. He told me that faith was one of the gifts of the spirit. I didn't understand that at the time, but now -- I do. You have faith in evolution as the reason we are here. (alive.) I have faith that God is the prime maker of life and that He exists. (He is...)

 

[YoursTrue]

But there is very strong scientific evidence that chimpanzees, snakes and birds evolved from something other than what they are now.

Very strong evidence, you say. I read that the DNA is very close, but(!) something is missing. What happened? The missing links disappeared?

 

[YoursTrue]

YT, we don't have proof that the Earth is round, or circles the sun; that germs cause disease, or that there's a giant Ferris wheel in London -- or that London exists, for that matter. All we have is varying degrees of evidence. So quit it with this proof kick. The best we can do is assess the evidence and draw the best conclusions.

As it stands, there's very strong evidence for these things. Maybe not a much as there is for evolution, but I'd be willing to bet that our planet isn't flat.

As for God, that's another story. No empirical evidence, just legend and hearsay, and a large population of believers. Yet you seem to give unquestioning credence to God and Christianity.

Well, that's interesting. It's good to go into the background of the Bible if possible. Because I have no reason to believe people made it up, as in legend or myth or fable. And my definition of Christianity is not everybody's definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

bahai faith?

The Baha'i Faith believes in the harmony od science and religion, and it is not ancient. It supports a Theistic Naturalism and Theistic Evolution. God Created our physical existence naturally, and science simply is the physical knowledge of the physical existence Created naturally.

Human knowledge of our physical existence and knowledge of God evolve over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Very strong evidence, you say. I read that the DNA is very close, but(!) something is missing. What happened? The missing links disappeared?

Please provide the peer reviewed scientific articles that support this ridiculous incoherent assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

such big terms yet the reality is that there is no real hardcore evidence that evolution is the way life is. no matter no conjecture of billions of years etc.

As before hot air with an ancient religious agenda. Again . . . any scientific peer reviewed article that support ridiculous assertions.