Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Complexity can arise from both design and blind physics.

I may be defining complexity differently because I can think of no natural systems that i can think of as "complex".

 

[Димитар]

Not following. Organisms thrive in stable environments.

Microorganisms can grow in 100% hydrogen.

Microbial hydrogen consumption leads to a significant pH increase under high-saline-conditions: implications for hydrogen storage in salt caverns - Scientific Reports

Salt caverns have been successfully used for natural gas storage globally since the 1940s and are now under consideration for hydrogen (H2) storage, which is needed in large quantities to decarbonize the economy to finally reach a net zero by 2050. Salt caverns are not sterile and H2 is a...

www.nature.com

Microorganisms can thrive in a 100% hydrogen atmosphere

The extraordinary findings have important implications for alien life.

www.zmescience.com

Environmental change is a key driver of natural selection and speciation, however.

Yes , correct.

Natural selection is a basic mechanism of Evolution.

Evolution means life on Earth.

 

[Pogo]

You're kidding, right?


Someone noticed the hours rolling by so he just made note of them!

Yeah, pretty much what happened. shadow long time to go home before dark, certainly not an invention.

You weren't aware that momentum applies to all things!

by what definition of momentum and thing? in some cases trivial, in others philosophical./

And you've never seen the shadow of the earth on the moon!!!!

A rather modern interpretation that the ancients were unaware of.

That's what you believe. Ancient astronomers certainly watched the planets and all celestial objects.

Yeah, and they noticed regularities and ascribed them to all manner of imaginary deities.

Sure, concepts like the moon only being overhead at high tide and the round shadow on the earth on the moon are too complex for modern people to understand. A shadow between the rainbows is a subject for science fiction.

I've told you how ancient science worked so you just choose to ignore it.

no, you have asserted much gibberish without evidence.

It was kindda like a waggle dance where the bee just "knows" the steps. It's achieved through observation and a kind of logic only available to other species which all use metaphysical language.
.

Another unevidenced piece of your internal stories.

I'm sorry there don't exist words for things homo omnisciencis doesn't ken. I'm sorrier still people simply refuse to properly parse the existing words I use. There is no such thing as linear progress which lies at the heart of the TofE. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest that Darwin dreamed up to explain how species mustta evolved. We are not God's gift to reality nor are we even "intelligent" in terms people mean when they use the term.

Homo omnisciencis is a product of beliefs which are in turn a product of assumptions made by those who climb up onto the shoulders of those with the same assumptions et no al. Mebbe you should take some of the blame for any failure in communication. It takes two to tango but it also takes two for communication to fail.

Well maybe I can't communicate with you so you could provide evidence for the failure being on my part by showing evidence of someone else who can.

 

[Valjean]

Microorganisms can grow in 100% hydrogen.

OK -- but what does that have to do with survival and environmental adaptation?

Yes , correct.

Natural selection is a basic mechanism of Evolution.

Evolution means life on Earth.

Please clarify your last sentence.

 

[Valjean]

I may be defining complexity differently because I can think of no natural systems that i can think of as "complex".

Galaxies, solar systems, matter, spacetime..... how complex must something be to be called complex?
The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex. It derives from natural, physical constants, and has nothing to do with life.

 

[gnostic]

I understand and grant that it is a rational position... I have the same position with say gohst or aliens


But for future references, you don't scape the burden proof , once someone presents an argument you have to explain why the argument fails (which entails a burden proof,)

Not quite. The burden is on the person making the claim, so it depends on whether to argument being supplied carries and meets a burden of proof, and whether or not the explanation as to why the argument fails carries or meets its burden. You don't need to meet a burden of proof in order to not accept a claim if the claim fails to meet its burden of proof.

Which is irrelevant given that the alternatives to naturalism (theism for example) don't deny that chemistry works

Evidence for naturalism would be something something like

1 naturalism predicts X

2 alternatives to naturalism like theism predict "not X"

3 We see

Therefore X is evidence for naturalism


That chemistry works fails at point 2

That X & not X example, doesn’t make any sense, @leroy , nor is that burden of proof works.

If a chemist predicts X, then the burden of proof falls upon the chemist, to test whether his prediction of X are valid…meaning the chemist must show evidence or experiments (or both), and data obtained from evidence/experiments that would verify or refute the chemist’s prediction.

Here, above, the chemist, as a claimant to X, would have satisfied the burden of proof.

But if another person predict something different from X (“not X”), the person being a “theist” (as you have given in your example as “theism”), and “not X” prediction being a new “claim”, then the theist being a new claimant, then the burden of proof would fall upon the theist, not the chemist, to test and validate theist’s prediction.

Your so-called “conclusion” to your example is wrong, logically & experimentally. You are trying to shift the burden of proof from the theist to the chemist, when the theist is making a different claim.

It is not up to chemist to test or to prove theist’s prediction wrong. As the theist is “claimant” to a different prediction, then the burden of proof falls on the theist, not upon the chemist. It would be the theist’s own responsibility to validate his/her own prediction with evidence.

Like every other creationists, you try to shift burden of proof upon everyone else but yourselves. That‘s the reason why no one can trust the words or claims made by creationists, because they are all disingenuous, not trustworthy.

Which is rather ironic, as creationists being “theist”, faith (for theists) is all about “trust”, but no ones can trust creationists.

 

[cladking]

A rather modern interpretation that the ancients were unaware of.

!!!

by what definition of momentum and thing? in some cases trivial, in others philosophical./

!!!

no, you have asserted much gibberish without evidence.

!!!

Another unevidenced piece of your internal stories.

So which knee did daddy set the baby bee on to teach her how to dance?

Well maybe I can't communicate with you so you could provide evidence for the failure being on my part by showing evidence of someone else who can.

You still can't see the shadow of the earth on the moon. You can't imagine how anyone might notice that when the shadow of the earth was on the moon in the middle of the night there was a high tide? How is anyone supposed to communicate with you unless they aren't agreeing with all of your beliefs?

 

[gnostic]

This doesn't apply to Peers or their adherents. It doesn't apply when One says pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps and it doesn't apply when darwinists say species change gradually by means of survival of the fittest.

What your statement really means is the burden of proof is on whoever doesn't accept Holy Doctrine.

What the heck are "peers?"
Look, a six-year-old could understand this. The task of defending a claim falls exclusively on the claimant.
You're free to invent any 'holy doctrine' you want. Many have done so. But than entails no requirement on my part to accept it if I can't refute it.

Those who are experts in a field are "peers". Those whom have every answer are "Peers" or the High Priests of Science. Most of them know better but their slavish followers do not. They are quoted again and again as spouting Holy Writ and causing to exist what is and causing not to exist what is not. Their word creates reality and it is through consensus that this is achieved because "individuals" do not even exist in science unless they are Peers at the very top of the pecking order.

I am quite certain that the "experts," and/or scientists that do research and publish treatises on the subject of evolution would not accept ANY of those here as their "peers." So thank you for that. I understood your usage of the term right away.

Seriously, @YoursTrue???

@cladking have spun some wild conspiracy theories about Peer Review and that you believe in his twisted definition of “peers” to be the “High Priests of Science” of some nefarious cult or organisation, to be “I understood your usage of the term right away”?

The word ”peer” merely means the reviewer or reviewers who are independent scientists that will either have experiences in the same or related field as the hypothesis author.

So you were a surgeon who found a new procedure to removing tumours, then reviewers should be in someone experienced in specific fields in medical procedure, preferably experiences with treating tumours, so the reviewers will not be dentists, physiotherapists, astrophysicists, civil engineers, computer programmers, etc.

Peer Review are independent scientists who will go through the hypothesis & report (analysis & data from evidence or experiments), to check if there are any errors or anomalies or doctored data. More often than not, there may be more than one reviewers examining the papers.

Scientific journal publishers don't want to print any hypothesis that don't have reports (no data & analysis), or reports (data) that don't support the hypotheses, etc.

Do publishers should accept the recommendations of the reviewers? They should, if they don't want to publish failed/refuted hypotheses, or worse fraudulent concepts or pseudoscience puff pieces.

Peer Reviews are not cults or conspiracy organisations that cladking have portray them to be.

 

[shunyadragon]

Never prove things in science, sure. Like never proved plate tectonics, or electricity or anything else. We live in a fiction. Why would I even take you seriously?

You obviously do not understand how Methodological Naturalism works in science Proof is for math and questionable conclusions in logical arguments. The knowledge of science evolves and changes with new knowledge, discoveries and research. The process involved falsification of theories and hypothesis.

AI Overview
Learn more


There is no such thing as scientific proof because proof is a technical term that only applies to mathematics. Instead, science relies on collecting evidence to support or refute theories.


Here are some key points about proof in science:

• Evidence is the primary criterion: Scientists prefer theories that have more and better evidence.
  
  
  
• Theories are tentative: Scientific theories are neither absolutely true nor absolutely false, but are always somewhere in between.
  
  
  
• Theories are subject to revision: Nothing in science is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
  
  
  
• Theories are evaluated based on evidence: If an experiment agrees with a theory, it means the theory is "maybe" correct, and if it doesn't agree, it means "no".
  
  
  
• Theories are built upon: Published papers can be built upon, and new information leads to new characterizations.
  
  
  
• Background beliefs are important: Two independent observers of the same event may arrive at different conclusions based on their previous observations.
  
  

 

[shunyadragon]

I may be defining complexity differently because I can think of no natural systems that i can think of as "complex".

I can to, but complex systems in nature are subject to the same predictable cause and effect outcomes and circumstances as simple systems. Complexity does not lead to unpredictability and randomness in nature,

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously, @YoursTrue???

@cladking have spun some wild conspiracy theories about Peer Review and that you believe in his twisted definition of “peers” to be the “High Priests of Science” of some nefarious cult or organisation, to be “I understood your usage of the term right away”?

The word ”peer” merely means the reviewer or reviewers who are independent scientists that will either have experiences in the same or related field as the hypothesis author.

So you were a surgeon who found a new procedure to removing tumours, then reviewers should be in someone experienced in specific fields in medical procedure, preferably experiences with treating tumours, so the reviewers will not be dentists, physiotherapists, astrophysicists, civil engineers, computer programmers, etc.

Peer Review are independent scientists who will go through the hypothesis & report (analysis & data from evidence or experiments), to check if there are any errors or anomalies or doctored data. More often than not, there may be more than one reviewers examining the papers.

Scientific journal publishers don't want to print any hypothesis that don't have reports (no data & analysis), or reports (data) that don't support the hypotheses, etc.

Do publishers should accept the recommendations of the reviewers? They should, if they don't want to publish failed/refuted hypotheses, or worse fraudulent concepts or pseudoscience puff pieces.

Peer Reviews are not cults or conspiracy organisations that cladking have portray them to be.

Yes, "seriously," Valjean. So much of what is written here is misinformation and taken from AI without recognizing the accurate information or explanation about it. Yet few if any contest it that are on a certain side of the issue. As I have seen based on a discussion about Spencer-Darwin. No respectable interpretation and discussion of the issue, except for some to insult those they don't agree with. And no, people here in general express themselves without reference to credible sources and explanations.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, "seriously," Valjean. So much of what is written here is misinformation and taken from AI without recognizing the accurate information or explanation about it.

I am not an AI, and my experiences with @cladking over the years, much of what he has written - his claims - are just that - misinformation - if they aren’t downright ignorance of science or of history.

Much of what he say about Peer Review are make-believe, a conspiracy theory, and his hostility towards Peer Review are very apparent.

And btw, Peer Review are not operated by any AI, YoursTrue. It would seems that have bit of cladking’s wild fantasy.

 

[gnostic]

Never prove things in science, sure. Like never proved plate tectonics, or electricity or anything else. We live in a fiction. Why would I even take you seriously?

When mathematicians and scientists are talking about “proofs”, they are referring to logical statements (eg chemical formulas) or to mathematical equations or formulas.

And when they talking about proving or disproving, in mathematics, it referred to finding solutions in the forms of variables, constants, numbers, solving equations like simplifying larger complex equation into more manageable & smaller equations, or drawing graphs, or do partial differential equations, etc.

Do you want to see what I means by proofs?

Here are some proofs:

Ohm’s Law: V = I R (That equation is your proof for the electric current running through a conductor.)​

​

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation: F = G (m1 m2) / r^2 (That’s your proof for gravitational force between 2 bodies or objects.)​

​

Mass-Energy Equivalence equation: E = m c^2 (Einstein’s famous equation for Special Relativity, another proofs.)​

Do I need to list some more examples of what proofs are in physics? Are you getting the picture?

What you need to understand is that proofs, like these famous equations in physics, are only representations of the real world, hence these are only models, not the real thing.

Don’t get me wrong, ChieftheCef, mathematics are great tools, but they are only models of the real world, hence they are abstract logical reasoning.

But for any scientific theory to be science, they needs the real physical things that can be observed, measured, quantified, etc, in another word science needs evidence or experiments that can test any theory, hypothesis or model.

Evidence and experiments are real world tests for any theory or any hypothesis, and they are required to determine whether a theory is scientifically valid & sound, or whether they can be replaced by stronger alternative theory.

For science, maths (eg equations) are important to any theory, but evidence and experiments are essential to determine models “are science“ and which models “are not science”.

The problem with people who are not good at science (eg creationists), think evidence & proof are the same thing…they are not.

And if you seriously want to take part in this debate, and to be taken seriously, then learn the differences between evidence & proof, use the right terminology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And who do you think such here might be?

I don't know who here is a publishing scientist in what field.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, "seriously," Valjean. So much of what is written here is misinformation and taken from AI without recognizing the accurate information or explanation about it. Yet few if any contest it that are on a certain side of the issue. As I have seen based on a discussion about Spencer-Darwin. No respectable interpretation and discussion of the issue, except for some to insult those they don't agree with. And no, people here in general express themselves without reference to credible sources and explanations.

I and others have given specific responses concerning your posts concerning Spenser amd Darinand you have refused to respond.

You have not responded how the general noncontroversial AI responses are wrong. When there were specific problem with your confused incoherent worldview are responded to with academic references.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I am saying is that I understand that scientists believe evolution could not have occurred without a start. And that obviously necessary start as scientists have it may be termed as abiogenesis. The concept of evolution could not occur without a start. Thank you.

So what you are saying is a mere state-the-obvious so-what "argument".

Yes, yes.... life has to exist before life can evolve. *slow clap*


Do you also have a point to make, or...?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe life in the form of the process of evolution began from non-life?

What a stupid question.

First life necessarily comes from non-life. If it came from previous life, it wouldn't be first life.

Even if your god of choice created life, then that life comes from non-life.

You think you are making an argument, but in actuality you are only showing us all how you seem completely unable to have even the slightest of deeper thoughts.

 

[ChieftheCef]

You obviously

asnd you obviously just ignored my argument which actually holds water. Newton proved gravity.

do not understand how Methodological Naturalism works in science Proof is for math and questionable conclusions in logical arguments. The knowledge of science evolves and changes with new knowledge, discoveries and research. The process involved falsification of theories and hypothesis.

AI Overview
Learn more


There is no such thing as scientific proof because proof is a technical term that only applies to mathematics. Instead, science relies on collecting evidence to support or refute theories.


Here are some key points about proof in science:

• Evidence is the primary criterion: Scientists prefer theories that have more and better evidence.
  
  
  
• Theories are tentative: Scientific theories are neither absolutely true nor absolutely false, but are always somewhere in between.
  
  
  
• Theories are subject to revision: Nothing in science is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
  
  
  
• Theories are evaluated based on evidence: If an experiment agrees with a theory, it means the theory is "maybe" correct, and if it doesn't agree, it means "no".
  
  
  
• Theories are built upon: Published papers can be built upon, and new information leads to new characterizations.
  
  
  
• Background beliefs are important: Two independent observers of the same event may arrive at different conclusions based on their previous observations.
  

 

[wellwisher]

Education doesn't make any one person having "common sense".

Common sense comes from experiences in making decision that it is "somewhat" rational. Common sense is "somewhat" universal, where most people would have it, whether they are educated or not.

Somewhat isn't really good enough. It is boring.

However, common sense would exclude those who can think creatively, or those who can think outside the box. So the biggest problems with common sense, they would be stuck inside the box, as they lack imagination.

Geniuses are people who have gone beyond common sense.

Common sense is about seeing rational reality. For example, the sun will rise each morning with 100% certainty, at least within the time scale beyond humanity; billions of years. This is not a statistical observation, based on chance, fear of potential risk, or uncertainty; whims of the gods. Common sense can see the rational cause and effect of a world based on certainty, unburdened by fuzzy dice thinking.

Evolution and the life science are led by statistical math, to massage data, thereby adding uncertainty to common sense; reason. This whims of the gods approach allows replicators to suddenly appear, for no reason other than to serve the needs of a theory, that is based on odds. There is no sense of direction with the current evolutionary model, because the math that is used to lead, is designed that way; both use that same premise.

Math is a tool, and this situation of the tool leading, is like a hammer leaving a dent in the wood, because the hammer is leading the hand, so the hand, by not going first; math before science, cannot always stop the hammer to avoid the dent; margin of error. We get side effects; dents, as predicted by and approved by the theory of uncertainty that leads. This approach defies common sense.

I believe in the gist of evolution, but not the current version based on the hammer leading and making dents. I am more of a rational common sense type of guy and I look for on-off connections, like the sun will rise tomorrow and nearly forever. The one variable in life that can do that is water. Water was there at the very beginning, billions of years before life. Water has not changed since it first appeared in the universe, and it will continue to be the same way into the future. Life does not work without water at any scale. There is no fuzzy dice or dented wood.

Water appeals to my common sense. Water is also the most studied substance in all of science. We know more about that one common sense variable of life, than anything else in science or life. Water is also the most anomalous substance in nature, where it behaves differently than the patterns of most other materials. This is all based on the logic within hydrogen bonding. Water has the right stuff to animate all the contents of cells and achieve that on-off state called life. Things are alive or not. Virus are given fuzzy dice status; almost alive, by the tool; hammer, leading the brain; hand.

Virus are more like indigestible contents that can take advantage of equilibrium water effects to multiply.