Evolution is Fact

[HydrogenBond]

Humans created the theory of evolution. The theory did not evolve as a natural expression of evolution. If it did, evolution theory would not be about ongoing progress, from an earlier state of thought, to a more progressed sate. Evolution is about random change, drift and selective advantage. Things that evolve, simply find a niche, which gives an advantage, with progress not part of the equation.

 

Creation has a different standard, based more on absolutes and progress. This is why creationism is often equated with god. It doubtful evolution would like to treat its own beginning in the context of its own theory. Darwin would simply be a random state of human, with progress not really an issue. The theory simply gave him an advantage. Since evolved is a relative term, this was just as evolved as Marvel comic books, which also had their own niche. But if it was created by Darwin, it shows a logical movement toward progress in an absolute sense. Evolutionary theory was created.

 

It is an interesting exercise to explain evolutionary theory, both its formation to the present and future, in the context of evolution. It makes it look bumbling without an sense of direction or progress. It is more about just getting an advantage. But to be honest, it doesn't even come under its own theory, being more a part of creation.

[coldcreation]

Humans created the theory of evolution. ...

Evolutionary theory was created.

...

 

Nonsense.

 

This type of play on words is of no use.

 

Evolution theory was the outcome of observation. Conclusions were drawn as to how nature functions, they were documented, written down, and the evidence shows the theory to be correct.

 

Science works.

 

 

CC

[Racoon]

Evolution did have to start at a singular event if you backtrack it far enough. right?

 

I Guess you could call that point "Creation", for lack of a better term

 

I could call it a lot of things, but I think that its beyond My human reasoning... or at least beyond my human capability to grasp the enormity of the Event. ; with the knowledge we have available currently

 

 

Live and learn :D

Rac

 

 

Just becuz' We haven't encountered Aliens, doesn't mean they don't exist :D

[coldcreation]

Evolution did have to start at a singular event if you backtrack it far enough. right?

 

I Guess you could call that point "Creation", for lack of a better term

 

Actually not.

 

Evolution theory deals with life, not the cosmos. I assume your creation event above is the big bang.

 

As far as the evolution of life is concerned, there is no guarantee the origin was a singular creation event.

 

That is why the term 'evolution' is perfect for the purpose of describing what happens in nature relative to life. There is always something that precedes a given life-form.

 

So "Creation" for "lack of a better term" is not the one to use. Especially not with a capital "C."

 

There is a better term. It stars with a small 'e' (unless it's at the beginning of a sentence of course). :D

 

CC

[HydrogenBond]

Evolutionary theory is a mental construct that does a good job explaining observation. I can concede that. But this construct did not evolve in the same sense as life evolved according to this theory. The conception of the theory was not based on genetics randomly mutating or drifting, like the long neck of a giraffe. It was created within the mind, based on observation, logic and common sense. It appeared in an orderly fashion and is not a product of random genetics, with selective advantage more important than a sense of logical progression. I

 

Since this construct is the basis of how we think of the time based changes of life, evolution was created, when the construct was created. Without the construct of this theory, we would not see things the same way. The theory is not a natural product of genetic based evolution, since that would make it random, and based only on selective advantage, which would dilute its value. It is based on creation which implies more of a logical purpose leading to progress. It was right for the times as science was progressing in an orderly fashion from simpler beginnings. That is not how evolution works, according to the construct.

 

As easier example to see, democrat and republican are both based on constructs. Both will create a way of looking at social things. If one is diehard, this leads to one seeing what they want to see, because the construct creates an expectation. This can make it hard to see the other side. Evolution is based on nature interacting with reality and not on a construct generating expectation as to how it will interact with reality. That would make the animal irrational so that selective advantage would be a coin toss, depending on social fad, instead of genetic cause and effect. The long neck of the giraffe could have been a disadvantage if the giraffe had this construct filtering, its evolution, saying he should be ashamed. Evolution is not about constructs of the human mind since the mind can detach from the very process, causing changes that have a orderly progression.

[REASON]

:(

 

What's your point, HB?

 

It sounds like you're saying that the evolution of life forms is dissimilar to the evolution of a mental construct.

 

If this is the case, I ask again - What's your point?

[HydrogenBond]

A mental construct acts like a filter, with respect to the way we view reality. In earlier posts, there was a chicken or the egg debate; which came first, creation or evolution. I was showing that the creation of the evolutionary theory came first. With this filter in place, we learned to filter reality via evolution. A creation preceded evolution. With the filter in place, we see what the filter tells us.

 

I tried to use the example of democrat and republican to show once a construct is set up, it influences the way we see reality. The most ardent supporters of either side, can only see what their construct allows them to see. The other side can see that they are out of touch with reality, but not them. If they were wearing red filters, nobody can convince them that yellow is not orange. Their filter will cause them to see this as a fact of their reality. Man created evolution in his own image.

[Moontanman]

A mental construct acts like a filter, with respect to the way we view reality. In earlier posts, there was a chicken or the egg debate; which came first, creation or evolution. I was showing that the creation of the evolutionary theory came first. With this filter in place, we learned to filter reality via evolution. A creation preceded evolution. With the filter in place, we see what the filter tells us.

 

HB, reality is not affected by filtering of any kind, reality remains the same whether you are a PHD monitoring the SCSC or a Lunatic trying to fly off a building. You can disbelieve anything you want but disbelief, much like belief, never changes reality.

 

 

I tried to use the example of democrat and republican to show once a construct is set up, it influences the way we see reality. The most ardent supporters of either side, can only see what their construct allows them to see. The other side can see that they are out of touch with reality, but not them. If they were wearing red filters, nobody can convince them that yellow is not orange. Their filter will cause them to see this as a fact of their reality. Man created evolution in his own image.

 

HB, there is no other side to reality, there is no reality for you and one for me, there is just one reality. Neither party may be aware of it but it doesn't change due to what you or I see or want to be true. Man did not create evolution in any image it is just the best approximation of reality we have at this time. However man did create God in his own image, god exists due to human thought no other reason....

[stereologist]

The existence of a beginning for evolution is difficult to determine due to the billions of years that have passed. It is more likely a gray zone in which there is no moment at which there was life. Rather there was a slow change from no life to life. I think that if we could observe those early times there would be a huge debate about what is life and what is not with some people pointing to things saying alive and other saying not.

 

I would rephrase, "it influences the way we see reality" to "it influences the way we interpret reality". The reality is the same for all.

[REASON]

A mental construct acts like a filter, with respect to the way we view reality. In earlier posts, there was a chicken or the egg debate; which came first, creation or evolution. I was showing that the creation of the evolutionary theory came first. With this filter in place, we learned to filter reality via evolution. A creation preceded evolution. With the filter in place, we see what the filter tells us.

 

I tried to use the example of democrat and republican to show once a construct is set up, it influences the way we see reality. The most ardent supporters of either side, can only see what their construct allows them to see. The other side can see that they are out of touch with reality, but not them. If they were wearing red filters, nobody can convince them that yellow is not orange. Their filter will cause them to see this as a fact of their reality. Man created evolution in his own image.

 

What you are confusing here is the difference between reality and perception. Reality is what is; perception is our individual interpretation of what is. I agree that we each have different interpretations of reality based on our knowledge, experiences, and biases which create the filters through which we perceive the world around us. But we have to be willing to understand that our individual perceptions may not bear any resemblance to reality. Our understanding of this problem led human beings to develop the scientific method to help us gain a better understanding of reality.

 

The scientific method has been thoroughly employed to help us gain a better understanding of the processes of evolution, not only with regard to life forms, but also with many facets of the physical universe. Of course there is still much to learn, but those who reject the scientific conclusions of evolution out of hand do so not because the evidence isn't there. They do so because they are either ignorant of the evidence, or because they have chosen an alternative explanation that they simply find more palatable.

 

Despite someone's chosen perception of the world, the scientific evidence will continue to support the reality that evolution is fact.

[HydrogenBond]

Individual perception will effect how we view reality. But there is also collective perception due to a collective construct. This is where a group of people will all see the same thing because they all use the same construct.

 

In physics, there are several constructs for the evolution of the universe. The BB is the most popular. But there are others. Each will act as a filter for the mind. When people use any of these constructs, to look at the same data, reality appears to form around that filter. When a group uses that same filter, the entire group will collectively see the same thing and will reinforce each other. Some will see strings everywhere, while others will see quanta. All exist because they all have the math and data to support itself. How can reality be two different things? This shows it can occur in science, with constructs sort of relative reality.

 

I like the mental construct that evolution follows the laws of cause and effect. My mind then forms patterns with reality observation, using this construct. I realize this is not the dominant collective construct. But wouldn't the mind see cause and effect within evolution if the collective used this construct? What would be needed is a slightly different construct structure to make this connection in the mind, since the current construct uses statistics and needs to be staggered to make the stats work.

 

Another consideration for constructs is practical utility. In ancient times, even with the astrology constructs of the heavens (sky), the perception of reality created by the construct could be used to navigate ships. What better test of reality than practical use in the market place. If we had tried to alter the earth center construct, industry would need to retrain all its captains, which is not easy in a competitive market place, unless there were extra gains in the long term. There is a saying in industry, don't fix it unless it is broken. Evolution is not broken because it works well. But this is not the final construct for evolution. Some should be thinking, how can we make the construct better?

[stereologist]

I said "interpret reality" while Reason used the term "perception" which is better.

 

HB, I do not believe in your claims of construct and filtering. A collective construct is nothing more than agreement amongst a group of individuals. It seems to me that you are implying that many people agreeing alters reality.

 

You go on to claim existence because two competing theories may be vying to explain some data. That does not mean existence. The proposal of a theory or competing theories does not mean multiple realities. It means multiple perceptions of reality. The goal is to reduce the complexity of the situation by eliminating the perceptions less likely to be correct.

 

But wouldn't the mind see cause and effect within evolution if the collective used this construct?

Again, you are implying that similar ideas held by many individuals affects the mind of others.

 

What troubles me a little is that I hear cause and effect applied to evolution. That sounds LaMarckian to me.

[Qfwfq]

When creatures copulate in the wilderness they don't choose each other according to how they would like their offspring to be, they could even less choose the variety among siblings. Natural selection is the filter, adaption to the environment in which they've been dumped, along with a heck of a lot of luck.

 

Breeders OTOH choose maings according to what suites their interest or fancy, repeating this on the offspring &c. This already is quite unlike natural selection, although breeding experience gave Darwin some mighty cues about the mechanism; what he figured is mainly that it's breeder's decision in one case and environmental conditions in the other. Clearly the two things differ in that there is intention in breeding and none in natural history.

 

Evolution of ideas in philosophy is more like the case of breeding, there is intention and even much more. Therefore the comparison must be taken with very much appropriate caution. In this sense HB is straying quite off topic.

 

[Guadalupe]

Howdy!

Um, "we" who?

 

Which creation? The creation-commonly-referred-to-as-Big-Bang could have evolved, and is quite likely to have done so according to many cosmological theories.

 

Of course that evolution probably had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and that creation had an evolution, and that evolution had a creation, and ....

 

So,

 

And Evolution is proof that creation exists, and creation is proof that evolution exists, and Evolution is proof that creation exists, and creation is proof that evolution exists, and Evolution is proof that creation exists, and creation is proof that evolution exists, and Evolution is proof that creation exists, and creation is proof that evolution exists, and Evolution is proof that creation exists, and creation is proof that evolution exists, and....

 

And Evolution is the origin of creation!

 

It's *amazing* how useful circular reasoning can be sometimes! :eek_big:

 

If you care to leave your ship, we'll provide the necessary life support systems, :evil:

Buffy

 

 

Hi! Buffy & Reason

 

Nothing evolves from nothing. Something must exist first. Hence - creation.

 

Things do not just poof into existence or is that is what you believe?

 

To begin the cycle with evolution, as you have done, will most definitely result in circular reasoning. Or should I say repetitive reasoning.

 

 

 

[Guadalupe]

Hey, Guadalupe, do you have any evidence to back that assertion? How does evolution sprint from creation? Creation or at least the biblical texts describing it predisposes all life, plant and animal being created all at once in the space of six days. Evolution on the other hand starts with abiogenesis and slowly evolves over billions of years to complex life.

 

 

 

Hi! Moontanman :eek_big:

 

How can you determine exactly how long a day is according to the biblical text?

 

 

 

:evil:

[Guadalupe]

Where I grew up, "Creation" or "God's Creation" was the coinage for the universe. People used it un-self-consciously to describe everything taken as a whole.

 

If we use that connotation for "Creation," Guadalupe's post makes perfect sense.

 

Guadalupe, is that what you meant?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

 

 

Hi! lemit :eek_big:

 

Thank you for your affirmation of creation but, regardless of how one believes, something must exist in order for it to evolve into anything. As I stated in my post to Buffy & Reason, things do not just poof into existence.

 

 

 

:evil:

[Moontanman]

Hi! lemit :eek_big:

 

Thank you for your affirmation of creation but, regardless of how one believes, something must exist in order for it to evolve into anything. As I stated in my post to Buffy & Reason, things do not just poof into existence.

 

 

 

:evil:

 

Oh but things do indeed just pop into existence, particle-antiparticle pairs can and do just pop into existence.

 

Hi! Moontanman

 

How can you determine exactly how long a day is according to the biblical text?

 

How can you determine what was meant by day in the bible? The Bible is not a credible course of information. It has no basis in fact or evidence to back up any of it's claims.