Does evolution have a purpose?

[YoursTrue]

How many times have we explained to you what a theory is?

lol...some think a theory is a law, don't they? And yet (let me put it this way) -- seems proof is not included for a theory, is it? OR -- science. (Is it?) Anyway, at this point, I'll say it again -- regardless of gorillas and chimpanzees maybe looking like humans -- cats looking like mini lions -- t h e r e .. i s .. n o .. proof of -- evolution. none. One might consider it proof. But -- it's not really. (Take it as you will. Because if it's not proof, what is it? And if evolution from the 'beginning' didn't 'just happen' by um -- "natural selection," then what's left? hmm?)

 

[rational experiences]

Who was an ape before you claim human science maths said ape became the human?

A scientist says a human was.

If you were theorising evolution you would tell us exactly what animal became the ape.

This is what a human does.

I invented using maths.

I pretend I created. Pretence. Egotism. A human.

Man is a human. Man is not a God.

Man science using maths looks not at the ape life. Lied.

An ape is a whole being first observed. The ape living life. Not science. Not maths.

I can by looking say I am not an ape. Truth absolute is first.

Then in maths I compare by numbers DNA. Advice... already you knew you were not an ape. Maths agrees.

Human DNA is not an apes DNA.

We own a higher amount of DNA expressed.

Just a man then claims maths says ape DNA added onto using maths equals a human DNA.

Outrightly human egotism at its worst.

As I don't exist as DNA. I am a whole complete natural life body. A human.

Is how evil a scientists mind is.

We always said you were our destroyers as you don't use natural advice. You infer false advice.

I own conceived sperm ovary created living bones.

You looked at no biology dead bones.

Pretty sick to claim science talked about returning from dead bones or substances like dead bones. Human as if they magically bodily relived reincarnated coming back from dead bones.

Is who the bible was discussing you mind theoried from nothing theisms.

Lots of evils you theoried as a living human.

Hence when you reacted dusts the nuclear effect stripped our bones of its living flesh. What dead bones substance pre forms theories did.

As gods natural earth theories are only thought about first in God eArth energy reactive thesis first. Including the reaction not yet reacted.

How you knew how to make a bomb contained nuclear and kill of one nation on earth.

You learnt how.

Why the bible was written by humans about humans who theories How to change God earth life by the theory nothing.

Science suggested instant any presence was the consensus answer owning no preceding theory.

Said it was one God by a teaching. Not how to change one God like theists claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times have we explained to you what a theory is?

oh boy you're helping me to say it again. Theories are -- conjectural assumptions. What did Newton say? anyway -- it's been interesting checking these things out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Theories are conjectural assumptions. Some make sense, some don't. I realize how people might think/believe all life came about by means of evolultion, starting by magic-type thing that set it going - conjectural assumption. Based on what is considered "evidence." But, of course, not proven to be -- true as in the proof of da theory.

Theories are explanations of the evidence. The are logically consistent. Keep clicking those heels together all you like. You won't end up in Kansas or make theories into conjecture.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

oh boy you're helping me to say it again. Theories are -- conjectural assumptions. What did Newton say? anyway -- it's been interesting checking these things out.

You can post it as often as you like, but that will not make it so.

A theory remains a rational explanation of observations.

Your conjecture and invalid assumptions don't change that.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, whales and humans were NOT always here. The evolved over time form previous species over billions of years like all life on earth by the 'objective verifiable evidence.'

lol, objective VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE??? What? objective verifiable evidence? lolol... verifiable?

 

[YoursTrue]

We can go back actually to around 14 billion years, as that's what the cosmologists have done. One billion is a "drop in the bucket".

What does that have to do with what we're talking about as I'm not into religious bigotry nor name-calling.

Again, what's this all about? Are you going to demean my mother next?

I don't know your mother. By the way, I didn't say the Pope is a heretic. I was reading a news report, a Greek Orthodox cleric said it. Religious bigotry, you say? I remember when I first learned about the "Great Schism." Quite interesting, while the teacher of history didn't go into great detail, I never forgot her statement. Fascinating, I thought. I guess the disparate entities just didn't quite believe each other. I will also not forget how she said the history of Europe changed from that time on. I was fascinated, but not that much caring much about it until later in life.
Look, if you believe in evolution as the prime mover of life, and you believe the Bible is filled with myths, as well as that perhaps Jesus never really existed as described, at this point it becomes interesting in terms of human opinion and population. Now IF someone claims to be agnostic or atheistic, that's one thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes the Baha;i Faith believes there is a Divine purpose, and God Created our physical existence naturally,

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 qirh a Divine purpose, 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.

So you have faith in the beliefs of that church EVEN THOUGH there is -- no proof that the Ball'u'lah was telling the truth and nothing but? You believe it though. You believe God created our physical existence because?? why??

 

[YoursTrue]

It still remains you have no knowledge nor scientific references to justify the above statements based on your ancient religious agenda NOT science.

And you believe that "God Created our physical existence naturally qirh a Divine purpose." How do you know that?

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Basically an ad hominem. I've been trying to get you to provide the slightest justification for your claim in #734, that science has "determined that the nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic". So far, I've got nowhere.

Now, I could point you at a paper that puts forward a conjecture (The Cellular Automaton Interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics [pdf]) about this being the case, and of course there is the many worlds interpretation that would recover determinism for the multiverse, but you have provided nothing of substance at all.

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

Are you incapable of providing a single credible reference? I did a search on Popper and determinism and quoted from what I found and you accused me of being selective, so go get your own reference (or admit you don't have any). Here's a quote from the very first link on a search on "Popper's view on determinism":-

"Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,” Popper said. “It is a marvelous history. It makes you proud to be a human being.” Framing his face in his outstretched hands, Popper intoned, “I believe in the human mind.”​

For similar reasons, Popper opposed determinism, which he saw as antithetical to human creativity and freedom. “Determinism means that if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry and physics, you can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow,” he said. “Now this is a ridiculous hypothesis.” Popper realized long before modern chaos theorists that not only quantum systems but even classical, Newtonian ones are unpredictable. Waving at the lawn outside the window he said, “There is chaos in every grass.”"

-- The Paradox of Karl Popper​

 

[muhammad_isa]

For similar reasons, Popper opposed determinism, which he saw as antithetical to human creativity and freedom. “Determinism means that if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry and physics, you can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow,” he said. “Now this is a ridiculous hypothesis.” Popper realized long before modern chaos theorists that not only quantum systems but even classical, Newtonian ones are unpredictable. Waving at the lawn outside the window he said, “There is chaos in every grass.”"

-- The Paradox of Karl Popper​

..but that is not the whole story.
It depends what one means by "determinism".

If I say that it is possible that an observer in a different frame of reference to our own is capable of knowing what we deem to be the future, it implies that the future is deterministic.
It doesn't mean that you or I can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow, as it has nothing to do with knowing what brain cells are firing or what have you. It is to do with relative perception.

I know it is hard to get one's head around, as we find it difficult to grasp that something that "has not happened yet" can possibly be known.
Not known to us is the correct interpretation, surely?

 

[ratiocinator]

..but that is not the whole story.
It depends what one means by "determinism".

In the context, I think this is appropriate:

"In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."​

-- Deterministic system - Wikipedia​

If I say that it is possible that an observer in a different frame of reference to our own is capable of knowing what we deem to be the future, it implies that the future is deterministic.

Not really, no. Determinism is about the causal structure of the universe. If it is (at least in principle) possible to predict the future state of a system, if you know enough about its present state, then it's deterministic. The B-theory of time, is somewhat different and would mean that the future is fixed but doesn't necessarily mean that there are no random events.

In terms of relativity (which would seem to imply the B-theory) if two events have a spacelike separation, then there will always be frames of reference that will see then in different orders but one can't directly affect the other, neither can any observer know about them, or assign such an order, until they are both in their past light cone.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Not really, no. Determinism is about the causal structure of the universe. If it is (at least in principle) possible to predict the future state of a system, if you know enough about its present state, then it's deterministic. The B-theory of time, is somewhat different and would mean that the future is fixed but doesn't necessarily mean that there are no random events..

I agree with you.
A lot of people can't see the difference, though.
They assume that if the future can be known, then it is a deterministic universe.

I think it is more about what is determining it. That might include random events, but G-d knows best.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, that's right. You got it.

"Conjectural assumptions?"

Your 'modus operendi.'

. . . and worse a lack of knowledge of science with a religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Basically an ad hominem. I've been trying to get you to provide the slightest justification for your claim in #734, that science has "determined that the nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic". So far, I've got nowhere.

Now, I could point you at a paper that puts forward a conjecture (The Cellular Automaton Interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics [pdf]) about this being the case, and of course there is the many worlds interpretation that would recover determinism for the multiverse, but you have provided nothing of substance at all.


Are you incapable of providing a single credible reference? I did a search on Popper and determinism and quoted from what I found and you accused me of being selective, so go get your own reference (or admit you don't have any). Here's a quote from the very first link on a search on "Popper's view on determinism":-

"Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,” Popper said. “It is a marvelous history. It makes you proud to be a human being.” Framing his face in his outstretched hands, Popper intoned, “I believe in the human mind.”​

For similar reasons, Popper opposed determinism, which he saw as antithetical to human creativity and freedom. “Determinism means that if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry and physics, you can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow,” he said. “Now this is a ridiculous hypothesis.” Popper realized long before modern chaos theorists that not only quantum systems but even classical, Newtonian ones are unpredictable. Waving at the lawn outside the window he said, “There is chaos in every grass.”"

-- The Paradox of Karl Popper​

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

 

[shunyadragon]

And you believe that "God Created our physical existence naturally qirh a Divine purpose." How do you know that?

Know??? Like all religious beliefs we do not know the subjective of religious beliefs, they are beliefs based on faith. Nonetheless. The Baha'i belief concerning the harmony of science and religion is in harmony with the 'objective verifiable evidence of science. God did not Create contradictions in conflict the physical nature of our existence totally in conflict with the knowledge of science as in the ancient Biblical view particularly Genesis. All ancient world views of religions and cultures lack the scientific confirmation of their beliefs

 

[shunyadragon]

So you have faith in the beliefs of that church EVEN THOUGH there is -- no proof that the Ball'u'lah was telling the truth and nothing but? You believe it though. You believe God created our physical existence because?? why??

There is absolutely 'no proof' concerning any subjective religious beliefs.

Where is the 'proof' of your subjective religious beliefs?

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Just repeating something does not make it so. I've now posted two different references that say that Popper (who you keep on referring to) did not accept determinism (even in the Newtonian case). You have provided absolutely nothing except assertion and a discussion on another forum. You have still provided nothing with any credibility to support your claim in #734, that science has "determined that the nature of our physical existence is fundamentally deterministic", despite the fact that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics tells us we can (in general) only predict the probabilities of the values of observables. If you can't, you can't. If you can, see no reason why you haven't.

By now I've actually provided more support for your assertion than you have, but it's just conjecture.

I also have no idea what you think my "agenda" is, I'm just making a technical point based on my own education and interests. Whether, for example, many worlds or Gerard ’t Hooft's cellular automaton interpretation turn out to be correct (or any other that would make QM deterministic) would be fascinating but would in no way disappoint me in terms of any "agenda". I have no personal interest in whether the universe is deterministic or not.

 

[metis]

Look, if you believe in evolution as the prime mover of life, and you believe the Bible is filled with myths, as well as that perhaps Jesus never really existed as described, at this point it becomes interesting in terms of human opinion and population. Now IF someone claims to be agnostic or atheistic, that's one thing.

You keep misrepresenting what I posted, and I'm getting sick & tired of constantly having to remind you of what I actually had written.

Simply put, I don't believe there are absolutes in this area as I do not believe in inerrancy, whether that deals with science or with theology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

lol, objective VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE??? What? objective verifiable evidence? lolol... verifiable?

All the evidence that has been provided on this and many other threads you have participated in and all that evidence you deny with your keen knowledge of science.

Denial and ridicule seem to be the only objection you have ever offered.