- Status
No. Cat perhaps a PM message where I give you my e-mail address. There would no problem with that and GRAPES does not apply
OK. No hard feelings but we seem to be getting nowhere.
Do YOU think that this would be a good place to "take a rest"?
Cat
Cat, I have no hard feelings about you or others on the forums. Okay, take a rest. In the USA, I am not a member of the 1st Amendment police force
The "absence" phrase serves only as a reminder for some who get stuck thinking all evidence is necessary before drawing conclusions. That will never happen.
Huh? The lack of evidence (ie parallax) was the main argument against Copernicus's model. In this case, for Copernicus, it was "absence of parallax was not evidence of absence" because it takes telescopes to find parallax, which came 60 years later. [To be fair to the Church, it was asking a lot to accept that those stars were so incredibly far away. Such distances were beyond their version of "astronomical".]
Evolution Theory doesn't exactly say amoebas (or something similar) are ancestral to humans as a statement of truth. The theory, as true for all theories, is that it connects the dots to fit the observed pattern discovered by tons of evidence. It is the best model we have that does an incredible job of explaining how new varieties can form, and from them new species. Rapid developmental changes can take place, thanks to more recent understanding of what I all "superintendent" genes that make wholesale changes rather than minute ones.
Theories, being scientific, also only address "how" questions, not "why" questions. In prior centuries, they addressed both since the theory included the sense of purpose (ie divine purpose). "Natural Theology" was a big hit, and beloved of Darwin, written by Rev. William Paley who was convinced many things like our eyes are just too intricate to have formed by any natural (vs. supernatural) way. His book, no doubt, helped inspire the formation of many colleges and universities throughout the world, IIRC. The term used was called "teleology" since purpose was important to help make sense of what we observe.
Modern science recognizes that it is most effective when they let philosophers and theologians tackle the "purpose (meaningful)" or "why" aspects of any argument.
Last edited:
It may be helpful, given the parallax case, to note that it wasn't the discovery of parallax that filled the big "hole" in the heliocentric model, it was the fact that the Ptolemy model had become falsified by Galileo with the firm evidence of those phases seen for Venus (and later Mercury).
I mention this because scientific models are better understood for their requirement to have exposure to objective testing so that they can be falsified. Filling gaps and holes helps, of course.
I mention this because scientific models are better understood for their requirement to have exposure to objective testing so that they can be falsified. Filling gaps and holes helps, of course.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Ok guys, I have read all through the posts. From #1 to #63.
Well, I actually understand what Rod means by breaking the GRAPES rule. And, I guess I know what Rod is trying to say.
As a side note: I like James Bond, my favourite one just died a few days ago.
If i take this literally, then it means that we are aliens. And this does not make any sense.
Well, I actually understand what Rod means by breaking the GRAPES rule. And, I guess I know what Rod is trying to say.
As a side note: I like James Bond, my favourite one just died a few days ago.
My point is to encourage others to understand what evolution theory, or any theory, is actually saying and not what we sometimes want a theory to say. There is no reason to draw any line in the sand and ask is such and such theory a Truth that we need to believe in. That, nevertheless, doesn't discount the value in theories.
Science is something that is highly respected if understood for what it really is -- a process with guidelines that grows our remarkable knowledge of nature, which greatly improves our living standards and grants us great adventures, etc.
Evolution theory (or ideas of it) were around in the days of Erasmus Darwin (grandfather to Charles) who wrote poetry including (1803?),,,
Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs’d in Ocean’s pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.
Other evolution models were presented in the 19th century. Lemarck's model was highly respected, but there were others. The one model that wasn't appreciated was the one Darwin (and Wallace) presented. But it was, eventually, Darwin who set science onto the correct path. Genetics soon came along to help Darwin gain the respect needed to make it acceptable over the other models.
This model, with modern understanding of genetics, that guide us into the understanding how something like an amoeba could, over several billion years, produce very high level life forms including the human form. It seems unlikely to me we could rewind this evolutionary history and take us to the amoeba itself since there may have been other microorganisms that are part of our genetic tree.
I just wanted to simplify matters.
My point is that "some" process intervened between the simplest organisms and so-called "higher" species. I don't care a flying dingbat what this process might be, or whether you want to spell it with a lower case or upper case e or E or x or Z or alpha or omega.
There is some 'maybe convoluted' process which provides continuity between "them and us". Any suggestion that somehow seemingly connected species arose totally independently (apes in africa and mules in Mesopotamia) is total insanity. Any idea that this might be organised by a Green Turtle in Transylvania is even worse.
My point is that "some" process intervened between the simplest organisms and so-called "higher" species. I don't care a flying dingbat what this process might be, or whether you want to spell it with a lower case or upper case e or E or x or Z or alpha or omega.
There is some 'maybe convoluted' process which provides continuity between "them and us". Any suggestion that somehow seemingly connected species arose totally independently (apes in africa and mules in Mesopotamia) is total insanity. Any idea that this might be organised by a Green Turtle in Transylvania is even worse.
Yes, that's actually how I thought you meant it but evolution stirs other meanings we assign to it, which varies from person to person.
In general, I agree with the science found in evolutionary models. But, I hold to the idea of a soul which came to mankind first with Adam and Eve, then to all. So this later religious question makes the water even murkier for some.
Well I certainly did not intend my "process" to involve a four letter word like soul. That is a bit tongue in cheek. Soul is not that bad a concept, but for the r letter connotation which you rightly (IMO) associate with murk. Since you have mentioned it, I would substitute insanity for murk, but there we go. Chacqu'un a son gout, which some might translate as "we all get gout sooner or later".
With regard to Adam and Eve, which was the monkey?
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
The theory of evolution was the monkey. Now, you will get your answer if you understand this correctly, Cat.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Current theory doesn't have us descending from monkeys. The genetic differences are greater than originally thought. Monkeys and apes broke away from our earlier ancestors, apparently, so we have to go back further in time to get to that earliest hominin.
It's interesting to me how elegant evolution theory is. Darwin's ideas and theory is remarkable and comprehensive.
Given that we have found a couple of independent lines of evidence to demonstrate that our observable universe has about 2 trillion galaxies, perhaps each with an average of roughly 100 billion stars, and we have learned in just the last decade or so that there seems to be about as many planets as stars, it would be bizarre to think we are the only sentient life forms in the universe, IMO.
But we also have learned that life will likely only be found, at best, on a very tiny percentage of planets. But even more rare will be those planets that evolution has advanced life forms to a level worthy of acquiring a soul, if you will allow my take on it. My point is to see both planetary development processes and evolution processes as a possible intended designed system to reach a rare state of worthiness. Just as these same planets can produce beautiful flowers worthy for us to pick and share with others, couldn't we consider sentient life forms as we were 20 or 30 thousand years ago, perhaps, worthy of being "picked" as well? I'm, of course, not going to advance this any further because it's not science but it's science that gives us this material to consider philosophically.
Last edited:
Also, the Sun loses about 4.5 million tons per second due to radiation if one converts the luminosity to mass in E=mc^2.
[Added... Oops, how did this post get here? It was for another thread.]
[Added... Oops, how did this post get here? It was for another thread.
]
Last edited:
FYI. In posts 1-74, I found at least 5 references to *Adam*. For some, perhaps the Bible should be translated now as Ardipithecus for references to Adam or Adampithecus, the Quran too. A simple observation here by me. The evolution paradigm is qualitative (much more interpretation), not quantitative as the heliocentric solar system paradigm, e.g. predictions of Io eclipses at Jupiter or phases of Venus or the upcoming 21-Dec close conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, about 6 arcminute angular separation in the sky. Does the evolution paradigm document quantitative calculations and predictions showing all the changes required for the body mass of an amoeba to a eventually evolve into a Brachiosaur or a mammoth? My answer is no. Another observation by me. How many living fossils from the Precambrian are documented today showing no evolutionary change, and how many examples are needed to falsify the paradigm claiming these *early Precambrian life* are common ancestors to all life found in the fossil record through the Cenozoic?
According to MS BING, I found this interesting in view of my post here.
[What is the meaning of qualitative and quantitative? Quantitative data is information that relates to numbers, and can be measured, while qualitative data deals with information descriptions and cannot be measured or observed. These two methods of collecting data are very different from each other.]
According to MS BING, I found this interesting in view of my post here.
[What is the meaning of qualitative and quantitative? Quantitative data is information that relates to numbers, and can be measured, while qualitative data deals with information descriptions and cannot be measured or observed. These two methods of collecting data are very different from each other.]
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Every upcoming 'Star Wars' movie officially announced
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram