More and more of us are turning up here. Great to see you too. Hope all is well.
Thanks for the video. I'll check it out.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theory of Darwin is not local. What does it mean?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Thanks for the video. I'll check it out.
Double Fine
From parts unknown
I am all good, apart from the Raging Killer Bug of Ultimate Fury that has been unleashed on us. Otherwise I am sitting at home and just vegging out.
The band is a supergroup formed by some insanely talented individuals. Prepare to fall in love
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
How Darwin's Natural Selection drives the transition from life-less matter to the first life form?
Double Fine
From parts unknown
Hello. I'm new here. I don't know how to put the cool @thing there to make it respond to you, sadly.
We don't know. We've done all kinds of experiments and have been able to boost cells, we've been able to create life-like cells, but we are still quite a ways away from understanding the exact how, what and when.
We don't know. We've done all kinds of experiments and have been able to boost cells, we've been able to create life-like cells, but we are still quite a ways away from understanding the exact how, what and when.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Theory of Abiogenesis is not local. Why?
Fact: given the perfect conditions on some planet "Avalon" there never be the 100% probability to produce life forms, from start of Universe until today. Because of Miller's experiment, this probability is less than 10^{-200} %. Thus, the Abiogenesis never happens on a selected planet. However, if you consider 10^{200} planets with perfect conditions for life, then there could be several planets with happened Abiogenesis. Thus, the Abiogenesis is not local theory, e.g. it needs Multiverse.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
The ToE is associated with Darwin. Darwin demonstrated one of its major mechanisms. But biology has progressed far beyond Darwin's wildest imagination. Biology is not 'Darwinism' any more than astronomy is 'Copernicanism' or anatomy 'Galenism'.
"Darwinism" isn't a worldview, it's a mechanism.
Are we talking about evolution (change) or the origin of life?
I'm not following. "Non-creationism?" "Local theory?" "Luck?" You'll have to explain these. Natural selection, however, selects, it's not 'luck'.
Life appeared almost as soon as conditions on early Earth stabilized enough to support it, suggesting that it's pretty easily generated.
This is gobbledygook. I'm not following at all. You seem to be saying physics is unnatural and that magic is natural.
Please expand on this "non-creationism," "non-local theory" and "inertial physical systems."
How do you come to that conclusion? What biochemistry? We can't currently replicate the entire process, so the whole idea is absurd?
It wasn't that long ago that there were no flying machines. Did that make the idea of flight wrong?
And don't get me started on this ridiculous idea of invisible words and pictures flying through the air to far away receivers...
Why must life be "born" fully fledged? We've seen various components of life emerge naturally. True, we have not yet seen something clearly 'alive' created. So what? The laboratory of early earth ran biillions of expriments daily. We've only tried a few. Yet you conclude the whole enterprise is impossible?
Life exists, so it's clearly possible. Are you seriously proposing that magic poofing is more believable than well known. observable chemical processes?
What's any of this have to do with Darwin?
You don't understand biology. Complexity doesn't necessarily increase survival chances. Simplicity has worked for billions of years, while most large, complex organisms that have ever existed are now extinct. Moreover, evolution doesn't necessarily increase complexity. Sometimes it simplifies.
The file is an anti science screed. It's nonsense. Where did you find it?
The theory that slow and gradual over a very long time doesn't match the fossil record since virtually all the animal types appear in a tiny window in 'the Cambrian Explosion" and ironically Darwin said if animals appeared without transition in the fossil record that would be evidence against his own theory
I just saw Darwin's Dilemna which is available the next 40 days free!!! Huzzah! by illustrate media as many places are making media free during the cover crisis.
VIEW VIDEOS FREE | Intelligent Design Movies – Illustra Media
The visualizations of the animals are amazing
Richard Dawkins admits that evolution scaling a giant cliff is unlikely but claims there is a gradual sloping way up.... but that's not what the fossil record shows.... all major animals appear fully formed and the creation of those animals happened 'too fast to leave a record" but 'trust us it happened"??
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
First, nobody knows the probability of abiogenesis - these probabilities are just (rather stupid) assumptions. Secondly, even if they were true, that wouldn't make the conjecture non-local. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term. There would be no need for any causal link between your (daft figure of) 10^200 planets.
You need to learn what "non-local" means, and the different between "obviously biased guess" and "fact".
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
You like Darwin more than Truth.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Neither non-locality nor abiogenesis has anything to do with Darwin. You really do need to make some effort to understand the subjects you are trying to deal with.
All you've posted is misunderstanding and absurd assumptions - nothing to do with truth, let alone "Truth".
Double Fine
From parts unknown
You are talking about Miller-Urey, yes? That was done in 1952, and our understanding of the paleolandscape around 4 billion years ago have improved.
Also, since Miller's death, we found more than 20 different amino acids that his experiment produced. His calculations should therefore be regarded as outdated.
Currently, we cannot say for sure how life originates here. Maybe it developed by itself? Maybe it was brought here via comet or asteroid? Maybe it was kickstarted by Zeus when he created the world? Maybe it came about when the Zerg invaded us?
Since we don't know and cannot be sure, the best we can do is to assume that it started here, as this is the hypothesis that draws on the least amount of assumptions.
Natural selection is not the mechanism that drives this. That would be basic chemistry.
Natural selection describes a mechanism of adaptation; a mechanism that promotes the reproduction and proliferation of those members of a population that chance to be better adapted to their current environment, whilest 'weeding out' individividuals who are less well adapted. It can only work with existing populations.
Because the environment changes over time, a 'design' that works well in a wet, tropical environment will not work so well if the environment dries out or becomes colder. This is why we have sex -- to generate greater diversity than mutation alone would by mixing the genes of two individuals each generation, giving natural selection a broader palette to select the next generation from.
+/- 20 million years is hardly a "tiny window." Look at the changes in just the last 20M years. Even with an established and relatively stable environment slowing speciation, there was a of of change.
Why would you expect to find a clear, gapless fossil record? Fossilization is a rare event, and preservation -- even for one million years --is unlikely. Then, of course, we have to actually find the fossils.
"Evidence against his own theory?" Are you seriously quoting Darwin as an expert on evolution?!
What did Darwin know about evolution, save some very basic evidence of variation by natural selection and a very superficial concept of how it worked?
Darwin knew practically nothing of the other mechanisms of evolution. He knew nothing of the mechanics of variation. He knew nothing of genetics or embryology. His physical evidence was vanishingly sparse. It's a wonder he recognized the mechanism at all.
Da Vinci wrote about flying machines 500 years ago, but does anyone ever cite him as an expert on modern aeronautical engineering?
VIEW VIDEOS FREE | Intelligent Design Movies – Illustra Media[/quote]
There is no dilemma. What confused Darwin doesn't confuse modern biologists. The film is christian propaganda based on falsehoods, cherry-picking, ignorance of biology and bad reasoning.
He does not, They did not.
Evolution may proceed gradually or quickly, and the mechanisms affecting this are known. You're arguing from ignorance.
What alternative are you proposing, Ceationism? Creationism explains nothing, it says nothing of "how?" Its an assertion of agency, and that's all it is. It proposes no mechanism, and it's only support seems to be a false dilemma. Finding fault for one proposition is not evidence of another.
Creationism/Intelligent design is an unsupported "theory" of magic.
questfortruth said: ↑
How Darwin's Natural Selection drives the transition from life-less matter to the first life form?
You're being side-tracked, DF. Natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Straw man - Wikipedia
McBell
Unbound
Show your math.
You make a lot of baseless accusations, but you are seriously lacking in the "support your bold empty claims" department.
Please explain what you mean by "local." I have no idea what you're talking about, here.
What are "perfect conditions?" Even here on Earth there are extremophiles whose 'perfect conditions' would kill us instantly.
Who knows what perfect conditions are? Life develops and evolves to fit existing conditions. Perfect conditions are not created in advance to support the development of life.
Are you seriously citing the Urey-Miller experiment 68 years ago as evidence that life cannot develop naturally? That's ridiculous.
Multiverse has nothing to do with the planets in the universe. You're just throwing academic jargon around to befuddle people.
"Perfect conditions" again? We don't know the mechanism or mechanisms that generate life. Why are we talking about perfect conditions?
What does abiogenesis on another planet have to do with abiogenesis here? Are you saying they're linked; that they're part of a single event?
Why can't the same event happen independently in different places? Why can't each event be "local" to its own location?
Seriously, we note your protestations, but what are you proposing?
How does poking at current knowledge support whatever it is?
You like faith more than knowledge.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I'f you've got a point to make, please make it.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Natural selection is part of evolution. The transition from life-less matter to the first life form is not evolution, it is abiogenesis.
We don't have enough information to accurately determine the odds of occurrence or success of abiogenic events. For all we know, it might be common within a range of conditions. We do not even know if life based on other chemistry can exist or not.
I am not sure I am following your point.
The natural selection Darwin proposed was in the context of evolution and not abiogenesis.