How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

This of course explains the biologists that believe in an infinite universe and have no problems with evolution or the theory or how it occurs. Actually it does. Evolution does not depend on start or end, but on the process from generation to generation and the continuity of life as we know it from whatever beginning of life there was to the life we know today.We know life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years out of the 13.7 billion years of the universe's existence -- ~10 billion years before life on this planet is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.There may or may not be life on other planets, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.There may or may not be multiple universes, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.This universe may be finite or not, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.The universe we know may or may not have been created by a god, and that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.Biology and evolution are concerned with the life we know and how it developed and changed over time, and those are the major concerns of biology and evolution. In this regard it is a small piece of the entire puzzle, and there is no need for it to be any more than that. But that part fits and is a consistent part of the overall big picture. So your contention is that all the thousands of biologists that actually study biology and evolution come to wrong conclusions because they don't understand something that you - knowing nothing of biology or evolution by comparison - happen to know?They are deluded? Incompetent? Myopic? All of them?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

No, the problem is when people try to say that evolution is about 'origins' when it is nothing of the sort.

---

It is only about origins, which give any relevence here. One of its prime luring is an atheist's clinging, and as a means of refuting religion - but not vested in scientific vindication. Evolution is about origins by irrefutable inference, and when it's premise is held up to examine its derivitive source: it points to only an infinite universe (read, we have no foundation), and that everything is random at its source but becomes non-random when applicable. This is fine - but one has to clearly state this in the preamble, to maintain a direction of proceedure and protocol for further examination.If evolution condones infinity, then one has to define what infinity is. One cannot speak of infinity when one cannot define it or state its oppositte. The obvious answer to the premise without/before infinity there is nothing, is there is no NOTHING: else you have to invent a something to dislodge the nothing to justify this universe - and when you provide a something - it was never nothing. Where did the something come from?This is why I hold that science and maths don't apply here, being post-universe concepts, applied on a pre-universe scenario. Namely, science becomes in the B to Z category, and it works fine in a post-universe scenario - but with evident limitations. The premise of finity or infinity also posess a dead knell to evolution's foundation and the premise of cause and effect. There is no science or maths which can justify 'something' impacting 'nothing' - and that is the issue at hand: its certainly not 'clear cut' from a science or maths POV, but in fact a polar contradiction of it when properly considered. IOW, we are pointing to an ubsurdity as the foundation - which casts a shadow on what we conclude by evolution. A more humble attitude is in order. Escapism does not fix it: one cannot be dismissive of relevent logic selectively. Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

quote:

---

This of course explains the biologists that believe in an infinite universe and have no problems with evolution or the theory or how it occurs.

​

Evolution does not depend on start or end, but on the process from generation to generation and the continuity of life as we know it from whatever beginning of life there was to the life we know today.

---

Sure - evolution starts in a mid-point, namely it is an 'effect', after whatever 'cause' it sprung from. The notion of CREATION VS EVOLUTION is a great misnomer; CREATION/UNIVERSE ORIGIN; EVOLUTION is the correct description. (; instead of VS).

quote:

---

We know life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years out of the 13.7 billion years of the universe's existence -- ~10 billion years before life on this planet is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.

---

But this does not justify evolution: a linear progression which accounts for all life graduations, based on the evolutionary process as defined in ToE: the mechanics are not alligned with the first start-up factor, which impacts the mechanics applied to the grads. One can say the nuts and bolts of a car can be illustrated with a wrench - but this does not vindicate the process the wrench came the same way, so did the metal, so did the particles which make up the metal: the process fails when back tracked.

quote:

---

There may or may not be life on other planets, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.

​

There may or may not be multiple universes, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.

​

This universe may be finite or not, that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.

​

The universe we know may or may not have been created by a god, and that too is not a major consequence to biology or evolution.

​

Biology and evolution are concerned with the life we know and how it developed and changed over time, and those are the major concerns of biology and evolution. In this regard it is a small piece of the entire puzzle, and there is no need for it to be any more than that. But that part fits and is a consistent part of the overall big picture.

---

Fine. But those premises are not condusive to a finite universe, and an infinte universe cannot justify what evolution is saying. There is no such thing as 'selective' randomness and 'selective' infinity.

quote:

---

So your contention is that all the thousands of biologists that actually study biology and evolution come to wrong conclusions because they don't understand something that you - knowing nothing of biology or evolution by comparison - happen to know?

​

They are deluded? Incompetent? Myopic? All of them?

​

Enjoy.

---

None of the above. But there are fulcrum glitches in the conclusions, as well as the intermediary process points of evolution: it does not work when the process is back-tracked and applied in its primal foundation: which is a test of it. It cannot be based on any random at the beginning, nor can it be based on infinity. The science and maths become contradictive and illogical here.

I think I'll stick to getting my information about science and maths from scientists and mathematicians, thanks.For one thing, when they talk about science and maths, they back it up by producing some actual science and maths, rather then making vague grandiose statements backed up by nothing.Which brings us nicely back on topic. What makes you think that your vacuous tosh about "science and maths" is superior to the actual knowledge of people who have studied those subjects and know what they're talking about --- and can, moreover, write in English instead of in some semi-literate patois of their own invention. Really, would it kill you to use the same language as the rest of us?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Can you explain what science applies in speciation, based on a finite universe: at what point was this triggered?Obviously, it would have reached fruition on this planet, as opposed the period between BB and this solar system - else life would be pervasive and commonplace. If on this planet, it would include the inanimate and inorganic emerging as animate and organic: is this action part of the evolution process - or a causative factor? Here, the issue of infinity becomes implausable, by virtue of the time factor between BB and this solar system, and the absence of the same action process elsewhere. If it is thus based on a finite universe, then the ToE factors cannot apply: it ceases becoming a generic process but a process germaine to one intergrated area of the solar system.A scientifically described process is defined by its repeatable, ongoing and observable actions any and every place; eg gravity. We find instead, that ToE is based on its own inherent workings as per Darwin - while this becomes a contradiction if it is reliant solely on one particular area's environment. So correct me - ToE appears not just a process exclusive to life forms only - after they have already emerged and established [as opposed a cause], it is also a non-universal phenomenon. IOW - ToE is a scientific anomoly in the universe, which is not a constant, and which cannot prevail in a finite described universe? Here, I also put to you, that the aspect of an infinite universe - which clearly is not the case - is derived back to front - to suit a preferred end factor, culminating from a scientific contradiction!Is it still science? Still think a preamble is not vital here?! Have you considered the faith of any scientist going against the grain of ToE: he is black listed with no future in that career, and barred from any R&D grants: fact!

When Nator asks in her O.P. title:

quote:

---

How can Biologists believe in the ToE

---

she's referring to the biological ToE, not to any other ToEs that you might be preoccupied with.She's assuming that we understand that, and that it's not necessary to use the word "biological" in her title.So, you ask to be corrected, and I am correcting you. The biological ToE is a theory exclusively concerning life forms. It is not a "process", but a theory that explains a process.Look up the word "biology" if you don't agree, and ask Nator if she didn't assume that everyone would understand that the ToE in her title meant biological ToE.Everyone except you does seem to understand that.

quote:

---

she's referring to the biological ToE, not to any other ToEs that you might be preoccupied with.

---

That statement does not interfear with the thread's subject, when the quote is completed. It related to ToE as 'it is also a non-universal phenomenon'/theory. My point is the exploration of this theory's impacts as per its constancy, consistancy, and if it is sustained in a finite universe view. This factor applies to many other scientific theories, which are rationalised for their vindication, eg: gravity, MC2, light and sound velosities, etc - these become vindicated for their constancy in the universe, while ToE appears an anomoly.If the foundation is not rationalised - it impacts the theory as a whole, even notwithstanding this is only a theory: ToE has developed a force of its own to assume fact assumptions, which is clearly an inconsistancy. It is a fucrum issue, and thus every biologist has to consider its veracity.

When Newton propounded his gravitational theory to explain the observed motion of the planets and their satellites, he did not (have to) start out with some 'preamble' explaining the origins of the universe, the solar system, or even the planets and moons. His theory was an 'B to Z', or more correctly, an 'L to P' type of explanation, and still has proved very powerful and accurate in explaining exactly what it set out to explain. Newton did not have to posit whether time or space were finite or infinite in extent. That didn't enter into the description. That his theories of gravity and mechanics happen to contradict a literal interpretation of the bible is the bible literalists' problem, not Newton's.And so it is with all theories that we have to date. Quantum field theory assumes the standard model with the existence of certain particles and their properties. It does not (yet) have an explanation for why those particular particles and properties are the ones observed. And yet, it is able to predict and accurately describe a cornucopia of observed phenomena and support many massive technological industries, including the one that produced the computer on which you write your nonsensical posts.Darwin's ToE accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do, explaining the mechanism for the origin of species starting out with the earliest and simplest life forms. It's validity is in no way predicated on its explaining the processes that led up to the conditions that produced that (or those) earliest life forms. Questions concerning the spacial or temporal extent of the universe, other than the need for an energy source and sufficient time for his evolutionary mechanism to occur, do not enter in any way into his theory or its fabulous success in explaining so much that is observed in the biological sciences. And, yes, Darwin's theory, as do all theories of biological evolution, contradicts the genesis account of the origin of species: that all species were created independently and within a single week.

quote:

---

None of the above. But there are fulcrum glitches in the conclusions, as well as the intermediary process points of evolution: it does not work when the process is back-tracked and applied in its primal foundation: which is a test of it. It cannot be based on any random at the beginning, nor can it be based on infinity. The science and maths become contradictive and illogical here.

---

So what is your explanation for how hundreds of thousands of scientists could be so wrong about the very foundational underpinnings of their work?The post undergraduate training of any scientist consists almost entirely of learning how to test hypotheses. How is it that thousands and thousands of scientists in the Life sciences are so poor at testing hypotheses (i.e. being scientists) that they haven't discovered this fatal error?How is it that when scientists today make predictions based on scientists' work form the past, they are often successful, if that past work is so deeply flawed?

I think you accidentally replied to the wrong post, AiG, unless RAZD has recently converted to Biblical creationism of some kind, which I somehow doubt.No problem, and an easy mistake to make, but I'm just pointing it out as others reading the thread might be confused.As for your post, very well put is all I can say.

And it deals with life as it is. It deals with the evidence of life as we know it. We are talking about biology and about biological evolution. Time and space don't need to justify evolution. All that is needed to justify evolution is matching the theory to the facts of life as we know it. The Theory of (Biological) Evolution does that. The theory of (stellar) evolution is a different theory and it doesn't have anything to do with biological life, just as biological life has nothing to do with stellar developments. This is absolute fantasy that is totally irrelevant to biological life and evolution. This also is absolute fantasy that is totally irrelevant to biological life and evolution. And this also is absolute fantasy that is totally irrelevant to biological life and evolution.Evolution is not a cosmology or a philosophy of life, and it certainly is not a religion about origins of everything. It is (a) a process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, (b) a general theory that is a synthesis of validated theories on how hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation, and (c) the science that applies the theory(ies) to understanding life as we know it, based on the evidence we have for early life 3.5 billion years ago to the diversity of life we know today.Creationists keep trying to inflate evolution into something it is not, mostly because they do not (or don't want to) understand it or because they do not understand the scientific way of thinking. What they don't understand is that when they talk about something that is not in the science of evolution then they are not talking about evolution, but some irrelevant fantasy they have created.This is what your several recent verbose posts have been about -- your fantasy, not evolution.Now can we deal with the issue of all the biologists being right or wrong about the theory of evolution having spent their lives studying it and not finding any other valid explanation for life as we know it? I guess they have it right then. Thanks.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm not sure why so many scientists condone ToE. The backlash against religions emerged first in Europe around Darwin's time - assuring a favoured backing without adequate investigation, and this is a continueing trend. Rejecting one belief, should not be the vindication of another automatically - but this appears a common factor. I'm also aware there are prominent scentists which refute ToE on numerous levels, and there have been new controversial theories such as ID and MV which have been fiercely rejected - again affording it no investigation or adequate protocol, regardless if one believes these new theories are not adequate.My position is that ToE does not pass the scientific or logic test when its positions are examined objectively and without fear of ridicule - a big problem for a fair go to scientists, and which will, IMHO, become more pronounced and louder. I don't believe a biologist has the freedom to voice an anti view of ToE today - its today's equivalence of the old heresy charge.I have given some reasons why ToE has big problems, in a forum which appears to treat ToE in a religious, Talibanic mode, and these are not the only problems with ToE. The notion of external, environmental impacts as the triggering factor for growth and speciation, for example, totally disregards the role of the 'seed' (or offspring) and the parent host - this accounts for at least 99% of all growth and offspring transmissions, including dna imprints, rendering ToE superflous - yet not factored in by Darwin. Does an egg develop and evolve by external impacts - or from the inherent wirings inside it? And if the latter is the case - why is it seen as different when it comes to ToE?The other error is in darwin's specie categorising, whereby he fails to acknowledge that humans are different from all other life forms, not by skeletal and biological dna imprints which are common to all life - but via 'SPEECH'. Speech is not a result of evolutionary processes, and we cannot expect dogs and zebras to talk in the next million years - they have not attained this attribute after many millions of years of apparent evolution, and this fact stands as a powerful opposer of ToE. Not factored by Darwin. In the big picture, the correct differentials must first be made on the hovering, transcendent variations between life forms, namely as GROUND ROOT BASED [VEGETATION], WATER BASED [FISH], AIR BORNE [FOWL], LAND BASED [ANIMALS/MAMMALS] - AND SPEECH ENDOWED LIFE FORMS. The criteria used by darwin represents sub-set variations, which is an ongoing process, and which can extend in levels even within each sub-set. The correct division between life forms is the source which introduced Evolution: Genesis 1/1, which recording predates darwin by 1000s of years. But this is a taboo factor today - regardless of its blatant scientific veracity and vindication today.Of coz, the fear of redicule is very real in any arguement against ToE, and one can imagine the plight of disagreeing scientists here. But this syndrome is not condusive to good debate and further advancements. We will never know, if we are not allowed to know.

Although all of the words in this post are English, yet somehow the post itself is not.Still, as I notice that it contains no actual maths or science, I should like to direct you again to the subject of the OP. Since you have no idea what you're talking about, why do you trust your judgement over people who do?

Because they know something that you don't. It's called "science". Now, you see, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean.The bits of that which were in English were also painfully silly, absurdly wrong, and founded on misconceptions so deep that you can see the Mohorovii discontinuity at the bottom of them.So, to return you once more to the subject of the OP ---Given that you have never troubled yourself to find out about the subjects you're talking about, don't you think it's likely that the people who have taken the trouble, over the course of years or decades, to study these subjects, might know more about them than you do?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As per the OP, I don't think scientists DO "condone" the ToE. It is accepted because it is the best model to date that is fully consistent with the evidence obtained from observation and experimentation. I personally find it a compelling collection of inter-twined theories and hypotheses because in all my years of wandering the forests of the neotropics, I have never encountered a single phenomenon, organism or observation that isn't wholly consistent with the theory. IOW, reality appears to be rather well explained by the theory - the hallmark of a good scientific model. On the other hand, if someone came up with a better explanation that was also fully consistent with the evidence, I would drop the ToE like a hot rock. The fact that no one - in spite of testing it to death over the last 150 years or so - has been able to come up with a better model indicates that it is pretty robust. I'm afraid your position here isn't supported by the facts. One of my favorite examples is Lynn Margulis. She has developed a completely novel model - serial endosymbiosis - to explain the diversity of life we see. This hypothesis in its most extreme form relegates NS - a foundational explanation for changes in populations over time - to the role of bit player, essentially over-turning a goodly chunk of the current ToE. Her work has generated quite a bit of controversy - not because she is overturning the ToE, but rather because at the unicellular level, SET has been shown to be entirely correct. It's only at the macro scale where there is sometimes quite vociferous disagreement. Yet she continues to publish freely (and prolifically). Must be something wrong with your contention, n'est-ce pas? Not at all. Fear of ridicule is only the concern of those who make spurious, unsupported allegations or who attempt ad hoc explanations without considering all the evidence. Anyone is free to attempt an overthrow of any part of the ToE. Just make sure that the attempt is legitimate.I'd appreciate a direct answer to the question posed in the OP: After all, if all the observations we have made and all the evidence we have uncovered to date are consistent with the ToE, why would you think we have so completely missed the boat? (abe: better said, the ToE is consistent with all the observations and evidence).Edited by Quetzal, : poor word choiceEdited by Quetzal, : bloody hell, it's phenomenon singular, not phenomena