Evolution, an irreplicable lightning strike , or an unavoidable lightning bolt in a thunderstorm

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by Bart V, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. Brian_the_bard

    Brian_the_bard Lost Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    552
    When evolution theory came out, everybody jumped on it because it allowed them to do away with God - hardly surprising given the church's history, but at the time there was no evidence, just an intelligent theory. Now, though, every time new evidence is examined, scientists can't help making Darwinian assertions whereas an impartial agnostic could find a variety of realistic explanations. It's only human to do so but it is hardly scientific!
     
  2. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    This is a well-worded summary of what I am claiming! This idea of living things designing themselves is winning in the explanation battle. There is nothing random about learning and no one argues that learning changes entropy naturally.

    My critical view addresses only the tacit metaphysics in the writer's voice. Learning can be measured. Why the writer puts the variable - learning - in quotes is to avoid reaching the conclusion that mind is involved!

    This is truly simple and plain to me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2017
  3. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    Darwin was not just a theorist but a disciplined gatherer of data and a keen observer of the natural environment. Darwin, without the benefit of modern biophysical and physiological understandings - in my opinion - presented a far more coherent version of bioevolution than the now declining neo-darwinism of the 20th century.

    The narrative developed of Darwin vs Lamarck was taught that Darwin rejected Lamarck's work - is just bunk. Further, Darwin was a proponent of Mental Evolution - something that was excluded from neodarwinian claims. Modern findings are still supportive of Darwin's actual ideas and are "in-the-face" of folks like Dawkins.

    https://academic.oup.com/gbe/articl...ronmental-Epigenetics-and-a-Unified-Theory-of

    Epigenetic events have a spot where they fill in in Darwin's theory. Darwin observed their effects in nature. Darwin also observed the mind's of living things having a role.

    Bart where are you?
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
    Brian_the_bard, malf and Trancestate like this.
  4. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,438
    Stephen Meyer thinks it's 'lights out' for neo-Darwinists in this video. ;;/?

     
    Brian_the_bard likes this.
  5. Brian_the_bard

    Brian_the_bard Lost Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    552
    Wow, we're not taught very well in school are we? I'll have to start looking a little deeper!
     
    Stephen Wright likes this.
  6. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    359
    I thought I'd drop this link here to see if folks found it relevant to the conversation. I found this thread interesting (sniping of posters at each other aside ;) ).

    Thanks.

    https://futurism.com/new-theory-for-life-suggests-it-was-not-an-accident-of-biology-it-was-physics/

    Edit: Oh, I should add: Kudos to Laird for developing the thread reference post. I used it to try and find the best thread for this article (which I may have failed in doing!). Laird, really appreciate the obvious level of effort/work you put into that reference post!
     
    Steve likes this.
  7. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    Interesting article. My radar goes up when reading science commentary and I read terms like "basic physical quality". There is a measure of "quality of life", but afaik there is no concept or category called basic physical qualities.

    Thermodynamics is about order and organization. And while developed for measurement of physical systems, it is an information science category and may be why the author calls its effects a "quality". Looking to thermodynamics and the mathematical theory of communication will lead us to a better understanding of life as an objective natural process. Materials science doesn't have a course of study in basic physical qualities.
     
    Silence likes this.

Share This Page