Theory of Darwin is not local. What does it mean?

[Dan From Smithville]

You like Darwin more than Truth.

Are you claiming that Darwin was wrong or that the theory and the preponderance of evidence supporting it is somehow incorrect?

You do realize that a Christian can accept scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, and maintain his or her belief in God, don't you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, it is NOT the Theory of Evolution. It is the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

Well before Darwin, there were a number of theories offered to the extent that life has the tendency to change, but this guy comes along and everyone pretends his theory came out of nowhere.

Evolution Theories Before Darwin

This proposal to label things as diametric extremes is ignorant. There are Christians that believe in what is know as Theistic Evolution, you know. You have an idea that you think is new, but actually came from centuries before.

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia

That idea is that religion and science have always been in conflict. That's nonsense. Read some history.

No one in is pretending that Darwin came up with a theory of evolution out of nowhere. It is well-known in science that Darwin was not the first to offer a theory of evolution. He was the first to offer a mechanism for it though.

 

[Double Fine]

I'f you've got a point to make, please make it.

Gaming reference. Command & Conquer.

The "technology of peace" is the plan of the main antagonist, Kane to launch a Tiberium (basically the game's only resource) missile into the atmosphere to turn the planet into some Tiberium paradise and mutate all life on earth.

Your name and avatar avatar reminded me of that and I was wondering if that's where you got the name from.

If it isn't, I would highly recommend the series as it would beat the lockdown blues!

 

[Tiberius]

Gaming reference. Command & Conquer.

The "technology of peace" is the plan of the main antagonist, Kane to launch a Tiberium (basically the game's only resource) missile into the atmosphere to turn the planet into some Tiberium paradise and mutate all life on earth.

Your name and avatar avatar reminded me of that and I was wondering if that's where you got the name from.

If it isn't, I would highly recommend the series as it would beat the lockdown blues!

It's Captain Kirk's middle name.

Do you haev anything to add to the discussion regarding evolution?

 

[Double Fine]

It's Captain Kirk's middle name.

Ah. I gotcha.

Do you haev anything to add to the discussion regarding evolution?

Regarding evolution? Sure. Currently though, it looks like the discussion is about "but when EXACTLY did life emerge" and I find that rather boring. And when we say that we can't state the time, the place and the exact mechanisms involved, then that gets seen as some sort of concession. Nah, not for me.

If we get to the Devonian, the Carboniferous, the Permain and the Mesozoic, I'll be more in my element.

 

[RabbiO]

I think it's pretty obvious that English is not this person's native language. Even if it was, though, you really don't come off well here.

Refute bad arguments all you want, but personal insults are just childish.

If my post existed in a vacuum I might agree with you that I ought to be less acerbic. However......

Many others, as have I, have pointed out in the past, using kinder and gentler language, that the OP lacks the ability to write at more than a rudimentary level in English. Many have pointed out that the OP does himself a disservice because his lack of English skill works against his ability to present his ideas in a coherent and intelligible manner.

The OP's response has been consistent. He remains convinced his English writing skills are superb. He remains convinced that his English is flawless and that, therefore, any criticism of his writing must simply be an attack on him and/or his ideas.

Now, I will admit that if I had not had to deal with two very ill and scared congregants, neither of whom I could physically be present for, I might have been feeling more tolerant toward the OP. The operant phrase, however, is "might have been".

 

[izzy88]

If my post existed in a vacuum I might agree with you that I ought to be less acerbic. However......

Many others, as have I, have pointed out in the past, using kinder and gentler language, that the OP lacks the ability to write at more than a rudimentary level in English. Many have pointed out that the OP does himself a disservice because his lack of English skill works against his ability to present his ideas in a coherent and intelligible manner.

The OP's response has been consistent. He remains convinced his English writing skills are superb. He remains convinced that his English is flawless and that, therefore, any criticism of his writing must simply be an attack on him and/or his ideas.

Now, I will admit that if I had not had to deal with two very ill and scared congregants, neither of whom I could physically be present for, I might have been feeling more tolerant toward the OP. The operant phrase, however, is "might have been".

It's easy to forget that we're all people with other things going on in our lives that may affect our demeanor online - it's happened to me plenty of times, so I can certainly relate. That's not to say you were necessarily justified; only that, given the circumstances - both your history with this OP and with what you were dealing with personally - it's understandable.

 

[Shad]

Dmitri Martila... Hard pass. He can not even get basic ideas of evolution right such as expecting a 100 year experiment of bacteria to turn into complex organism like rabbits. He had little idea what he is talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

I'ld reply, but the problem is that you seem to be all over the place. Not sure what point you are actually trying to make.

I could start yapping about how abiogenesis is a work in progress, how it's out of scope of evolution theory, how your representation of evolution is a misleading strawman etc... But I think it would just be off-topic of the actual point you are trying to make.

The topic seems to be this "not local" thing you mention in the thread title and in your OP. The problem is that I have no idea what the heck you are talking about and thus I am going to friendly request you to reformulate and clarify....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Abiogenesis is random.

What makes you think that?

Abiogenesis is some series of chemical reactions.
Chemical reactions aren't exactly what I would call "random".

When 2 H atoms bind with an O atom to make H2O, that's not really "random" is it?
When we want to create specific chemical bonds, for example when creating a plastic, we follow a very strict and given series of steps, right?

It's not like we throw all ingredients together and then wait around "hoping" that we'll get "lucky" and that it will form some plastic and maybe it will and maybe it won't..... Right?

No, instead we KNOW a plastic will come out of it, IF we follow the series of steps accuratly that are involved in making plastic.

Preciesly BECAUSE chemistry is ANYTHING BUT random.

Sure, in the world, it has random components, as in: there environmental variables which operate independly of the chemical reactions. For H2O to form, environmental conditions need to be right to accomodate for that non-random chemical reaction to take place.

But that doesn't make chemistry random, now does it?

Given certain environmental conditions, the same reactions will take place and produce the same outcome. Every. Single. Time.

That's the opposite of random. That's rather ordered and organized.

 

[questfortruth]

If my post existed in a vacuum I might agree with you that I ought to be less acerbic. However......

Many others, as have I, have pointed out in the past, using kinder and gentler language, that the OP lacks the ability to write at more than a rudimentary level in English. Many have pointed out that the OP does himself a disservice because his lack of English skill works against his ability to present his ideas in a coherent and intelligible manner.

The OP's response has been consistent. He remains convinced his English writing skills are superb. He remains convinced that his English is flawless and that, therefore, any criticism of his writing must simply be an attack on him and/or his ideas.

Now, I will admit that if I had not had to deal with two very ill and scared congregants, neither of whom I could physically be present for, I might have been feeling more tolerant toward the OP. The operant phrase, however, is "might have been".

Just another personal enemy must be added to my record. Nothing original.

 

[RabbiO]

@izzy88 -

See OP's post #71.

Not in the sense of how it is used in a legal setting, but because I like the meaning of the Latin phrase - res ipsa loquitur.

 

[izzy88]

@izzy88 -

See OP's post #71.

Not in the sense of how it is used in a legal setting, but because I like the meaning of the Latin phrase - res ipsa loquitur.

As I said, while your insulting him may not have been justified, it was understandable. Someone treating you badly does not therefore give you the right to treat them badly. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." The right thing to do is to take the high road and not stoop to their level.

Again, just to be clear, I am not scolding you - it's understandable that you're fed up with this person - but that doesn't therefore give you the right to respond however you please. It seems that you're trying to justify insulting OP as if you had the right to. My point is that no one ever has the right to insult anyone; no one is ever justified in doing wrong just because somebody else did first.

So I'm not saying "you shouldn't have done that," I'm saying I can see why you did and we're all only human so I can't hold it against you, but that still doesn't make it right.