Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Definition for the Theory of Evolution
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 121 of 216 (413272)
07-30-2007 7:42 AM


double post
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 122 of 216 (413273)
07-30-2007 7:43 AM


The two most pivotal factors impacting evolution as per darwin, would be:
Is Evolution effected by a finite universe; and what % of data transmissions is due to evolution after the 'seed' transmission is considered and factored in?
Outside of these two factors, the rest of darwin's research appears applicable to a process which does not necessarilly belong to evolution: at least 99% of all transmissions are manifestly from the host via the seed; a finite universe, namely one which emerged without any pre-existing products, appears better alligned with Genesis, including that the universe structures and products were not the result of a self-generating evolution but the extension of a designed program.
A finite universe, but which structures are intergrated, negates the premise of randomness. Eg: one can theorise a mobile phone and its battery is random - but not when we include a intergrated chip in the scenario.

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Wounded King, posted 07-30-2007 8:37 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 126 by AdminNosy, posted 07-30-2007 11:28 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 124 of 216 (413285)
07-30-2007 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Wounded King
07-30-2007 8:37 AM


Any definition of evolution, theory included, has to account if it is a universal constant or not; if it is rendered superfluous by the 'seed' factor. Else it is incomprehensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Wounded King, posted 07-30-2007 8:37 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2007 9:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 128 of 216 (413422)
07-30-2007 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
07-30-2007 9:29 AM


Re: OFF TOPIC
I dont think it is off topic to render a definition of evolution in a thread of this name. So I can't abide such a ridiculous ask! Your welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2007 9:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 2:14 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2007 9:45 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 130 of 216 (413481)
07-31-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2007 2:14 AM


Re: OFF TOPIC
quote:
A scorching-hot gas planet beyond our solar system is steaming up with water vapor, according to new observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.
The planet, called HD 189733b, swelters as it zips closely around its star every two days or so. Astronomers had predicted that planets of this class, termed "hot Jupiters," would contain water vapor in their atmospheres. Yet finding solid evidence for this has been slippery. These latest data are the most convincing yet that hot Jupiters are "wet."
"We're thrilled to have identified clear signs of water on a planet that is trillions of miles away," said Giovanna Tinetti, a European Space Agency fellow at the Institute d'Astrophysique de Paris in France. " Tinetti is lead author of a paper on HD 189733b appearing today in Nature.
Although water is an essential ingredient to life as we know it, wet, hot Jupiters are not likely to harbor any creatures. Previous measurements from Spitzer indicate that HD 189733b is a fiery 1,000 Kelvin (1,340 degrees Fahrenheit) on average. Ultimately, astronomers hope to use instruments like those on Spitzer to find water on rocky, habitable planets like Earth...
Assuming that water is discovered on another planet or space body, and that planet is older than the earth: would this negate the evolution theory if life is not also found on that planet? At least, it may be deemed not a universal constant?
Life, via evolutionary adaptation, would not depend on a critical mix of conditions exclusive to this planet, to effect life. Adaptation, if this has credibility [it is a theory only, not a fact], cannot be just the ability to prevail over 'this' planet's negative, harsh conditions and evolve into life; it has to adapt and prevail under 'different' harsh conditions also - else life is a result of a focused, specialised impact, obviously limited to this planet in the known universe, rather than it being a universal constant. There is already life on earth on the harshest conditions imaginable - such as volcanoes and where light never reaches. Why not elsewhere?
IMHO, there is no life out there. The math and logics say so. Defining evolution thus requires absolute clarification if it is a universal constant - or posited as an oddity limited to this planet only. Because this factor proposes epochial impacts on the validity of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 2:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by AdminPaul, posted 07-31-2007 3:04 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 3:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 133 of 216 (413491)
07-31-2007 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Modulous
07-31-2007 3:06 AM


Re: a constant is a number
quote:
it is universally applicable
Any examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 3:06 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 4:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 135 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 4:37 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 136 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 4:38 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 138 of 216 (413499)
07-31-2007 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Parasomnium
07-31-2007 4:50 AM


Re: Theory and phenomenon
quote:
That is a legitimate question to which the answer is not (yet) known.
However, evolution in the other sense, i.e. as the theory that explains the phenomenon, may be of some assistance in trying to get a glimpse of the answer to Joseph's question, in the following way.
Thanks, you did put it better than I did. So let's examine the phenomenon aspect of evolution in your response.
quote:
This means that wherever there are imperfect replicators of any form in an environment of limited resources, the process of evolution is an inevitable consequence.
Does this mean that life has to first subsist, and then too in an imperfected mode, to effect a form of evolutionary adaptation? I appreciate that answers are not known here, but an already subsisting life seems unreasonable, and may contradict all assumptions how life began on this planet - and evidently there`was such a position whereby life did not exist here at one time. Or perhaps the issue of life's origin and its emergence is not associated with evolution, which appears to impact only after life has already emerged (imperfectly)?
We have a situation here, where either life, or evolution, may be exclusive to this planet, but this cannot be resolved where it is made subject to life already existing elsewhere, compounded by the impossible requirements of determining that life does NOT exist in trillions of space bodies, before addressing this issue. If another means of determination is not available, at least both potential views should be examined, namely, what if the evolutionary process is exclusive to this planet, against it being not so. This would bring new questions for consideration, such as: is there an unidentified ingredient on this planet not seen elsewhere, and what would that be? I say this because I have discounted the critical mix of conditions as a pre-requisite from the equation.
quote:
it is not at all unlikely that conditions such as on Earth could be found elsewhere in the universe. With billions of galaxies to search, it is indeed almost a certainty.
But when I pondered this further, I concluded the reverse. The billions of galaxies actually foster a 'no life' probability. The known universe acts as a first hand, actual poll, containing every variety of conditions, and best represents the unknown universe. IOW, the unknown universe is more likely than not the same as the known universe: no life. The time factor also negates life outside earth: not all space bodies would be too far for a more advanced life form older than earthlings, and advancement being time related. The loss of evolutionary benefits outside earth would further negate life potentials.
Either way, if points to evolution being a focused impact on this planet only - save only for the *improbable* premise of life being common in the unknown universe. We know that there has not been life in the known universe for over 4.5 Billion years, with no such imprints detected from archeology, moon and mars missions, deep-space telescpic views, radiational residues, and from deep space signals sent from earth.
I am not aware of a devil's advocate was ever undertaken, based on the impacts on evolution as a specific and exclusive earthly phenomenon, and how much this would change present thinking. The situation is complicated, so a scientist must put his entire career on the line to suggest such a premise, notwithstanding it will be difficult getting a grant here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Parasomnium, posted 07-31-2007 4:50 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 6:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 140 of 216 (413501)
07-31-2007 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Modulous
07-31-2007 6:47 AM


Re: irrelevant
quote:
Whether life exists elsewhere in the universe is not relevant to defining the theory of evolution. If it does exist elsewhere, and it evolves, the theory of evolution can either explain it or it can't.
Which means its a local issue. Like cars and planes? At least, it impacts the probability of life elsewhere, even if it were possible for any life to exist outside earth: there will be no adaptation or speciation; all would be one simple basic life form forever.
The reason I pursue evolution being considered outside earth, is whther to define it for what it is. If it is limited to this planet, then it means a factor not seen elsewhere is responsible for its occurence here, and it is better defined as a premise unique to earth. And the 'why' question becomes relevent. Usually, the discussion is always focused on the workings of evolution, as opposed to the premise base itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2007 6:47 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AdminPaul, posted 07-31-2007 7:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 07-31-2007 9:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 144 of 216 (413526)
07-31-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Percy
07-31-2007 9:11 AM


Re: irrelevant
There have been additions and extensions to darwin's theories. Eg, random genetic drift is post-darwin, and which also allows random effectations.
I trust it is reasonable to ask, in this narrow knife edge portrayal about defining the evolution thery, how the seed of a host fits in with darwin's theories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 07-31-2007 9:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 07-31-2007 10:05 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 146 by AdminPaul, posted 07-31-2007 10:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 07-31-2007 1:15 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024