How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Is that no such thing exists - actually. It's greatness lies in mankind's will and innovation to fathom the hidden. Here, evolution is an intelligent means to jump the inexplicable and form a bridge to a new desired point, where the unfathomable hidden does not impact or inhibit. There are no options here than what is pursued - mankind is following what is blatantly dangling before it - and its rejecters are not satisfied with what is placed on the table, because it lacks the fathomless hidden source points.Evolution is an improvised 'process' - which starts post-source point; it is not an answer to the universe origins, and thus not a confrontation with Creationism. The source points are elusive to all equally.Belief in ToE is limited to belief in a process. The problem here is, when the process is measured by pointing it backwards - towards an origin point - a brick wall is confronted - or worse, namely the contrived non-science of Randomity is proposed. This escapism is also not a choice factor - because there is no leaping possible over the brick wall treshold. The issue is far more holistic than science or religion can deal with.IMHO, before venturing any explanations about evolution or creationism, which one is believable or more evidenced, one has to establish a preamble: this is the only way one can agree or disagree with certain provisions. And here, science, maths and religion are of no impact whatsoever. The preamble has to say, at least, whether the discussion relies on the universe being:1. INFINITE OR FINITE.The above is a far impacting issue, and either validates or invalidates many of sciences' fundamental premises in expounding anything about the universe structures. My choice is the universe is FINITE - meaning this includes any notion of pre-universe scenarios, and that all the universe components are likewise finite. I say it is finite because this is the only legitimate conclusion when it is correctly considered: the uni is expanding - which denotes a 'change', which in turn denotes the antithesis if infinity.2. RANDOM OR COMPLEX.One can either see the universe as emerging from a stray particle impacted by certain forces, and going BOOM! This is fine, but it is far less scientific than Creationism. I select the non-random preference because of the factor of INTERGRATION. If one holds that the universal works are intergrated - it assumes a transcendent control factor over the subservent works, making the random factor non plausable. Whether a random origin is conducive to infinity or finity is an enlightening debate, but hardly seen in most discussions!3. CAUSE AND EFFECT.The issue here is, whether this understanding ceases when referring to an ultimate source point - or that it remains a pivotal operative factor. It does not depend on the identification of a cause, which may be beyond humanity's ability to fathom; only the sound premise applies here.4. Judgement Criteria.I would not select science, math or history in determining the universe origins, but logic - namely a philosophical thought as the guiding factor here. Science and maths is limited to our current state of knowledge, and may be only applicable for post-origin components of the universe. A ruler needs an appropriate ruling entity to rule upon - and we have no idea what applies pre-universe or at an origin point. Here, based on time being finite subsequent to finite universe, it cannot be the instrument which can measure a scenario before the universe, where matter, maths, gravity, energy, forces, science, religions - or anything which is post universe, would not apply. This is based on (1) of the preamble: namely in a finite universe, all its components are finite.What's YOUR preamble?Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

No, I did'nt say that. But if one does not state the criteria they are alligning with and to (the preamble), they risk their conclusion being directed by their findings (which is back to front), and look for bytes that fit. The issue of a biologist alligning ToE with a finite universe - is at polar extremities of the determinations derived of a infinite one. Two different animals here.IOW, is your evolution the same when based on a finite universe? - do all the component pieces fit the big pic? Negative! That is my point. If the preamble says pigs don't fly - you can take me to task if I say I saw a pig flying.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

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.

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!

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.

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.

quote:

---

I'd appreciate a direct answer to the question posed in the OP

---

Its not about detail of the ToE process but its principle and conclusion. One can select a preferred, contrived path to prove that pigs can fly too - leaving the pivotal factors in the 'millions of years' bin for further proof. I have responded to PO's question. There is fear, as well as an ascending trend against religion - thanks to Europe and Arabia, and it reached a point, ANY DREAM WILL DO.You say all what you saw in the wild of nature alligns with Darwin: so would a 1000 other explanations. Darwin took some factors such as growth points in different places, and alligned them with his ToE's factors; claimed speciation an elevation instead of anihilation; incorrectly categorised species; has no answers for what lay behind the actions he describes; failed to explain the relationship between reproduction against evolution; and failed to show any transit imprints of his thesis over millions of years of evolution.I concur we have no answers, because referring the matter to religion or the Creator is escapism from science; but Darwin does not explain any gaps or unknowns here - they remain unknowns mixed with grotesque premises. Eg:Let's say you discover that a growth in one life form group resembles or alligns with a growth point in another life form group, and let's say you can draw a graph which says millions of years ago these two points were connected, and one emrged as the other. Let's say you find the same in other areas, and nominate that this is the mode of operation for life the last 500 million years. But also, lets say the growth points were not directed at speciation but only to adapt to the same kind of life form, eg within the feline category. How would you tell the difference, that your conclusion was wrong? Whatever you site, such as an immediate time factor or another continuation factor, can apply elsewhere as well. How would you explain that the last life form, humans, acquired speech but crocs did not adapt, despite being a far older life? Here we see, that skelatal and dna imprints do not explain the difs between prime species - because these items are common to all life. Darwin does not even acknowledge speech as the factor separating humans from all others - as if its not relevent! Shall we wait the next million years - maybe crocs will clue on - speech is a more powerful tool for survival than strong jaws?But why get lost in such details - anyone can justify anything - when hard proof is not the criteria. Its called slight of hand, casino science. More impacting is the principle, than the factors which seek to justify that premise. If you say speciation occured millions of years ago, and that it is a continueing process which never ceased - then show me evidence it occured yesterday - because the millions of years have no impact on this demand - anyone with reasonable maths would acknowledge this fact. Try it with tomatoes, which are subject to decay as an ongoing process: can you say that the effects are not measurable with tomatoes everywhere and at all times? Try to match ToE with other hard facts on the ground - eg population growths every 50K years.Fact is, all the impacting fulcrum questions are sidelined with bogus answers: all transit life forms in the process of change have either become extinct, the changes were too slow to capture, or it happened long, long ago: how convenient. But even accepting those excuses - a biologist must ask the impacting questions: show us a single life form in the midst of a change - and no, not academically in dna form - but one which can be put in a museum for a child to see.There is no such thing as evolution in reality. All life form transmissions occur via the interaction of the parent host and the offspring. ToE is proven only when the latter is absent.

quote:

---

Also, why are predictions based upon the Theory of Evolution ever successful, if it is so incredibly wrong?

---

Its a worldly view - but its not successful from the POV it has not progressed from theory to fact. But you seem to describe it as if it was. A bird becomes a bird, and a zebra becomes a zebra - not because of the external, environmental factors or the dna inherited millions of years ago - but by what it is formed by in its mother's womb. What is being said here is, the host parent is only a sub-plot, and all the right stuff comes from elsewhere. Does it mean, an egg becomes a chicken because of a retrovirus inherited millions of years ago: try that without the yoke inside.

quote:

---

How can so many Americans believe that Jewish mythology is literally true?

---

That there is no alternative to creationism and monotheism is not countered by science or any other factor - successfully. Randomity to Complexity can be the greatest myth of all, and belongs less in science than anything else one can imagine. In any case, a host of scientific assumptions, including ToE, fail in a finite universe, and the assumption of an infinite uni is less than sci-fi, and escapism.The debate about speech fell into desperation mode here, while being assumed as sciencespeak; this despite a host of evidences, backed by today's most prominent scientists - who agree speech is a mystery, inexplicable, not an extension of communication, that it has never existed outside humans - and emerged suddenly and in an already advanced state. Not a singular hard evedence was forthcoming - against counter existent hard evidences. At least, the latter is not myth, but a premise which has not been countered with any successful alternatives.Even it's assumed counters were reliant on the most obtuse forms of semantics possible, and then too were in the struggle only to form a reasonable, coherent alternative derived from unevidential semantics and word play. The bottom line is, no biologist can justify any premise for speech via ToE or any other factor. This then is a scientific myth which exceeds all others - because it fronts up as a science. One is left to consider the alternatives, 'IF' speech is not a result of evolution - but this appears to formidable to entertain, making its neo science premise akin to a very religious ilk and not up for negotiation.

ToE becomes more attractive as an escape from the multi contradicting religious beliefs; it avoids these awkward interactions.ToE has gained advances because, more than its own validity, is backed by a growing humanity steering away from the contradictions and lack of proofs in religions. The Lib phenomenon, which began in Europe, and subsequent to growing disenchantment with religions and its hisotry there, has taken on the cloak of a new political stance. It obsessively rejects any science which has an incline with religion, even by default. Today, no scientists can secure a career or grants, if any hint of anti-ToE is evident. Religions are wrong for Libs even if any one of them is right in any area, all being cast in one basket.Your other comment on Bush is an example here. As if anyone else is succeeding elsewhere, in any experimented evidence. There is no evidence Europe is safe and secure, nor do terrains across the far east where there is no Bush impacts. The Libs are thus a manifestation of their own contradictions.

quote:

---

In the real world, the reason for the success of the ToE is that no-one can find a single fact that contradicts it, as is demonstrated by your posts.

---

There is no doubt, that there are big problems with ToE, agreed even by those who support it: I posted here opinions of the most prominent scientists in the aspect of 'speech' - which does contradict everything held by ToE. The anti links on Google is hardly short or insignificant, but a reasonable and growing minority. But this is a lengthy and avoidable debate, and it will only end up like the speech debacle. It's become science religion vs those mythical religions.Aside from being an unproven theory, except for the most flimsy, obscure inferences seen from a perspective which contorts every plausable logic assumption held - it is also wrong when those compromises are held as fact. This does not mean that all of evolution is wrong, but fulcrum sectors are scientifically controvercial and contradictory, after every effort of consideration. Its not a B/W issue.And there is formidable motive to distort and negate the evidences concerning speech's history and background: the latter makes it encumbent to consider what if speech contradicts the fulcrum clauses of ToE - on multiple levels, making totally wrong it had any linkage with all other forms of communications? Where do we go from such a point - or is biology shakled in a prison and cannot go there?

quote:

---

Its science. How long have you been here and you still don't know why science avoids religious beliefs?

---

That's the problem. It is, instead of doing science, avoiding, other religious premises. Its also in the 'lumping game' - as if all religions have anything to say on the universe's origins or present a thesis which stands on its ground sceintifically, and when required, stand as an unshakable counter. the first 'book' on the subject of the universe never happened till some 3000 years inside recorded history: no one wrote on the subject of the universe origins, before or after Genesis, which comes with dates, places and premises which became the centre point of science: the first recording of life forms in their correct chronological listings. If science is not about religious beliefs, it is about Genesis.

quote:

---

Canada is doing ok, but I am biased.

---

As you please. I like to measure a country's merits by the opposing forces confronting it. You are biased for sure.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Someof the issues confronting honest biologists.1. That the universe is finite - a preamble and vindicated premise introduced in Genesis, which affirms a 'beginning'. Why does a finite universe effect a biologist, peering down a virus' dna cells? Because in an infinite universe, any theory is permissable: the time factor can be used to justify anything. Not so in a finite universe, where any premise of life from inanimate matter becomes far less plausable. Because the very existence of matter and complex atoms, before the advent of life, says there was already a control system in force, producing complex structures, and that life could not occur by itself at a later point, but is/must be part of a pre- and on-going development process. The latter renders all dates and factors of origins as wrong, and the design of life would have been closer to the universe source when complex products were being formed. Nor does a finite universe allow the same criteria as life for its emergence: eventually a biologist must consider that matter's emergence is not possible on just odds - which requires other matter to interact with.2. If speech is not an extension of other lifes' communication traits - a biologist must question all views which made life occur and graduate, that it may not be as per ToE: how can one life form break the rule?Those two factors are among the stumbling blocks for biology, subsequent to it being the same for ToE. These are not issues proven by science, and remain in the brink. There is no hard proof for speech from grunts and hisses - but there should be millions - if not billions - all over the planet. After all, modern humans are recent or last entries, unlike all other life forms. And the issue of life from matter, and matter of itself - are not scientifically evidentiable, but this is what ToE relies upon.

1. Israel.
2. USA.But be not jealous no one wants to blow up Canada - if they did, Canada will show 'em! Even she will help US if needed.