Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[PackJason]

Natural mutation is random.

 

[metis]

At the subatomic level, because of q.m., much is random. However, at the mega-matter level, this randomness tends to even out whereas cause-and-effect (order) works.

 

[metis]

Natural mutation is random.

As is genetic drift.

 

[Valjean]

You're saying the duration it takes to decay is random in the fact that you can't predict it. You say electron location cannot be pinpointed. To me this isn't random and science will likely one day develop a more precise method. By random I mean you will never drop a ball and it will defy gravity. You won't find a radioactive nucleus that doesn't decay. You won't find a cell without electrons. There is an order and law which governs these things. What you call random will soon be quantifiable. My point is that if randomness was a law by which the universe operated human observation would be irrelevant and the sciences wouldn't exist

Newtonian physics may be predictable, but the more we learn about quantum mechanics and cosmology, the more random reality appears.

 

[بِسْم الله]

As is genetic drift.

Is it possible that these RANDOM occurrences will one day be more accurately understood and perhaps new evidence will shed light on their function?

 

[metis]

Is it possible that these RANDOM occurrences will one day be more accurately understood and perhaps new evidence will shed light on their function?

Yes.

Gotta go-- dinner's on.

 

[بِسْم الله]

Newtonian physics may be predictable, but the more we learn about quantum mechanics and cosmology, the more random reality appears.

Even as some of the inner working may in fact be RANDOM (religious people would say Gods command). They way that the entire process functions together seems very structured.

 

[Valjean]

Even as some of the inner working may in fact be RANDOM (religious people would say Gods command). They way that the entire process functions together seems very structured.

It does, doesn't it? -- till you start looking closely. Then you get God playing dice with the universe -- "spooky action at a distance" and cats that are both dead and alive (or neither). Time speeds up or slows down, mass expands or contracts, things randomly pop into existence and just as randomly disappear.

It's utter madness, I tell you!

 

[Parsimony]

To me this isn't random and science will likely one day develop a more precise method.

Actually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle keeps up from ever knowing these things precisely. It is a law of physics in itself.

By random I mean you will never drop a ball and it will defy gravity. You won't find a radioactive nucleus that doesn't decay. You won't find a cell without electrons. There is an order and law which governs these things. What you call random will soon be quantifiable. My point is that if randomness was a law by which the universe operated human observation would be irrelevant and the sciences wouldn't exist

Granted. Some things are random and some are not.

 

[habiru]

Maybe start reading some serious science books, or maybe even a magazine like "Scientific American", and then you'll see how we use evidence and not "assumptions". I gave you a definition that we use, and I couldn't care less what a politician may believe one way or the other on this.

Nor is the ToE based on "assumptions" because we do use the "scientific method". Even though Wikipedia is not a science source, it has links in this article to such sources, so you might want to check them out instead of just jumping to false conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

i guess you did not watched the video about the scientist that is referring those that believes in Darwin's theory of evolution are followers of a faith because there is no evidence at all, but pieces of facts that they had created a whole entire new universe from these pieces. do you know why that it is still labeled as a theory? it is because these pieces can also tell another story as well. Like if I found a crushed can on the ground. I can say that this can has been crushed by a dragon that has fell from the sky and landed on the can when it hit the ground; but then someone else can dispute it by saying that it was a can that had came from an can crushing contest that someone had taken it from the event as an souvenir and then they had misplaced it somewhere. And so it is up to the one that we are trying to convince what actually had happened to the can.


Here's some explanation of theories.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[habiru]

I'll get around to those videos soon. They look funny. But I asked what politician is asking or requesting that scientific institutes place evolution as a fact instead of a theory?

It was a politician that I believe that he was paid by corporate america like monsanto to convince the public to start accepting scientific discoveries.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It was a politician that I believe that he was paid by corporate america like monsanto to convince the public to start accepting scientific discoveries.

What is his name? Can you find a link?

 

[metis]

i guess you did not watched the video about the scientist that is referring those that believes in Darwin's theory of evolution are followers of a faith because there is no evidence at all, but pieces of facts that they had created a whole entire new universe from these pieces. do you know why that it is still labeled as a theory? it is because these pieces can also tell another story as well...

I'm just gonna stop here because the above is nothing short of sheer nonsense. Believe what you want.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that talked against "evilution", did the studying, left that church, went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology, taught the subject for 30 years, and I never regretted leaving the church that taught such nonsense. If you choose to believe in such lies and distortions, that's clearly your choice.

 

[habiru]

I'm just gonna stop here because the above is nothing short of sheer nonsense. Believe what you want.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that talked against "evilution", did the studying, left that church, went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology, taught the subject for 30 years, and I never regretted leaving the church that taught such nonsense. If you choose to believe in such lies and distortions, that's clearly your choice.

Klaus Dona - Spiritual Archeologist

Vienna, Austria
October 2009

from ProjectCamelot Website

Klaus Dona comes from the art world. As Art Exhibition Curator for the Habsburg Haus of Austria, Klaus has organized exhibitions world wide.



With this background his approach to archeology is unconventional. He has traveled the world in search of unique and unexplained findings. Intrepid and unrelenting, he is on a mission to bring to the eye of the public such finds as giant bones, crystal skulls, carvings and sculptures in forms that do not fit into the contemporary view of our timeline.

We spent an afternoon with Klaus in Vienna talking at length about his process, his particularly stunning finds and why he is motivated to pursue this unusual vocation. Staunchly open minded, he refuses to retreat in the face of skepticism and doubt. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life48.htm



Low on funding, he presses on to discover the real mysteries, going down through the centuries and excavating artifacts that science does not allow for, revealing the existence of physical proof that humanity has barely grazed the surface of our heritage here on Earth.

 

[habiru]

What is his name? Can you find a link?

I believe that it were David Duke that had stated that.. I just remembered a small portion of an campaign that he was in.

Duke was reared a Methodist (his father was a Sunday school teacher), and later attended the Church of Christ.5 When race became an area of serious study for Duke, he no longer relied upon the Bible, but, instead, relied on science, specifically Darwinism. To learn ‘how racial differences originated’, he had to study evolutionary theory in detail.6 In his autobiography, Duke details his early religious upbringing, and why he rejected certain Christian teachings, specifically Genesis and creationism, and the ‘single origin of the races from Adam’ teaching. http://creation.com/darwinisms-infl...ite-supremacist-groups-the-case-of-david-duke

 

[Midnight Rain]

I believe that it were David Duke that had stated that.. I just remembered a small portion of an campaign that he was in.

Duke was reared a Methodist (his father was a Sunday school teacher), and later attended the Church of Christ.5 When race became an area of serious study for Duke, he no longer relied upon the Bible, but, instead, relied on science, specifically Darwinism. To learn ‘how racial differences originated’, he had to study evolutionary theory in detail.6 In his autobiography, Duke details his early religious upbringing, and why he rejected certain Christian teachings, specifically Genesis and creationism, and the ‘single origin of the races from Adam’ teaching. http://creation.com/darwinisms-infl...ite-supremacist-groups-the-case-of-david-duke

From Wikipedia
David Ernest Duke is an American white nationalist, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, politician, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux

He is a crazy guy that no one wants to touch with a 10 foot pole. So it is this bat **** crazy mo-fo that you think an international century old web of lies built upon by billions of dollars with the pure focus of removing god for whatever reason and push evolution...went to THIS GUY and paid him to spread the good word of Charles Darwin? Is this your position?

 

[metis]

Klaus Dona - Spiritual Archeologist

Vienna, Austria
October 2009

from ProjectCamelot Website

Klaus Dona comes from the art world. As Art Exhibition Curator for the Habsburg Haus of Austria, Klaus has organized exhibitions world wide.



With this background his approach to archeology is unconventional. He has traveled the world in search of unique and unexplained findings. Intrepid and unrelenting, he is on a mission to bring to the eye of the public such finds as giant bones, crystal skulls, carvings and sculptures in forms that do not fit into the contemporary view of our timeline.

We spent an afternoon with Klaus in Vienna talking at length about his process, his particularly stunning finds and why he is motivated to pursue this unusual vocation. Staunchly open minded, he refuses to retreat in the face of skepticism and doubt. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life48.htm



Low on funding, he presses on to discover the real mysteries, going down through the centuries and excavating artifacts that science does not allow for, revealing the existence of physical proof that humanity has barely grazed the surface of our heritage here on Earth.

OK, so if I find one theologian that claims Jesus never existed, then I guess Jesus never existed, right?

 

[metis]

I believe that it were David Duke that had stated that.. I just remembered a small portion of an campaign that he was in.

Duke was reared a Methodist (his father was a Sunday school teacher), and later attended the Church of Christ.5 When race became an area of serious study for Duke, he no longer relied upon the Bible, but, instead, relied on science, specifically Darwinism. To learn ‘how racial differences originated’, he had to study evolutionary theory in detail.6 In his autobiography, Duke details his early religious upbringing, and why he rejected certain Christian teachings, specifically Genesis and creationism, and the ‘single origin of the races from Adam’ teaching. http://creation.com/darwinisms-infl...ite-supremacist-groups-the-case-of-david-duke

The reality is that we actually do not know with any certainty "how the racial differences originated", so how does the above relate to what's been discussed? Also, exactly how does Duke's experience with and without Christianity have anything to do with what we're talking about?

 

[habiru]

OK, so if I find one theologian that claims Jesus never existed, then I guess Jesus never existed, right?

Okay, i see the scientific mind is at work in you. I am showing that there is no certainty at all, and that is why it is called a theory not facts. That is why none of the scientist wants to put their John Hancock on the claims of evolution is facts. Because there are many of scientist has other theories and has actual evidence that contradict the theory of evolution. And so right now, the followers of Darwin, are trying to collect all of these evidence that contradicts Darwin's theory and hide them in the storage rooms at the Smithsonian, Like the Video of oscar the chimp was never unveiled to the world because they were trying to promote the evolution theory and that living walking upright ape proves that there were a different specie of walking upright apes that had roamed in the jungles before that had died out. And if you would of had watched the other video about a scientist had said that they proof of evidence of evolution that these fossils were found in the same layer of sediment in a certain period, that proves that they did not evolved. But if they would of had found them in different layers of sediment, did it will show that they evolved. And so now I personally debunk the theory of evolution, because of the existing evidence that shows that animals did not evolved into different species.

 

[habiru]

The reality is that we actually do not know with any certainty "how the racial differences originated", so how does the above relate to what's been discussed? Also, exactly how does Duke's experience with and without Christianity have anything to do with what we're talking about?

John Philippe Rushton is a Canadian psychology professor widely known for his highly controversial work on racial group differences. In an Internet Essay in 2001:Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct? he argues that racial differences make sense in terms of human evolution. Talking of migration out of Africa he says that the further north people went out of Africa, the harder it was to get food, shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. The time and energy needed to build a bigger brain was a trade off with slower rates of growth, less aggression and less sexual activity.

He claims that this racial pattern is evident all around the world: “…on average, African-descended children are born with smaller brains than European- or East Asian-descended children…”, and concludes that “Black underachievement is not simply due to ‘White prejudice’” because they are born with smaller brains than White or East Asian children. http://www.dailystormer.com/dna-proof-of-racial-differences-more-facts-come-to-light/