I don't need an alternative. My mind is open and yes it's someone else's hypothesis that there is a link, namely Darwin.

Can it be true? Of course it can. Do you think it's impossible for it to be false.

Where has it been replicated? I haven't seen any newscasts making that proclaimation.

As far as my questions go, they were lifted right from the website that had the family tree. So the question is asked by the scientists as well.

 

I don't need an alternative. My mind is open and yes it's someone else's hypothesis that there is a link, namely Darwin.

Can it be true? Of course it can. Do you think it's impossible for it to be false.

Where has it been replicated? I haven't seen any newscasts making that proclaimation.

As far as my questions go, they were lifted right from the website that had the family tree. So the question is asked by the scientists as well.

The fossil records tell us that the first lifeforms were single-celled organisms that appeared billions of years ago. Back then Earth's atmosphere was oxygen-poor, so most of these organisms were anaerobic. One of these organisms was cyanobacteria, which produces oxygen as a result of photosynthesis. As cyanobacteria thrived, they saturated the atmosphere with free oxygen -- toxic to most anaerobic life -- resulting in the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet. What was left had to adapt to the new conditions.

It turns out aerobic respiration is far more energy efficient than anaerobic, and so the new oxygen-breathing organisms gained a few more degrees of freedom in their molecular configuration space. This made multicellular life physically possible. Lifeforms with multiple cells have an exponentially greater molecular configuration space than single-celled organisms, so this was the seed of complex biodiversity. A few hundred million years later, here we are.

The theory of evolution provides the mechanisms for how all of this could have happened. The mechanisms themselves -- genetic heredity, genetic mutation, and natural selection -- are indisputable. The theory simply combines these mechanisms into a big-picture narrative, which serves as a guiding principle in the study of biology. It does not attempt to answer specific questions, such as who came before humans, or why the greater apes became genetically separated from the lesser apes. The theory only provides the framework by which such questions can be answered.

To say that the theory of evolution could be false is to say that something completely different has been guiding biodiversity. This is an extraordinary claim because we have direct evidence of each mechanism of evolution. Furthermore, we can literally see our DNA and compare it to other organisms. What we've found is that we share large amounts of genetic code with all lifeforms, which is a very strong indicator that we're all related. More importantly, the distribution of shared genetic code matches what we'd expect if evolution played out as we think it did. In other words, the theory of evolution was used to make a prediction that was confirmed by observation. That's as scientific as it gets.

 

You need to quit assuming things.

I never asked you for a lesson.

 

The word in your dissertation was "could". A nice word to use when you are unsure.

Things have to happen just right to create life. There is no "poof ... There it is". I'm talking about the single cell here.

Don't confuse intelligent design with a belief in God. They can be exclusive. If you believe in God, but disagree with the Bible, I'd ask for your God's time to 21st century time covverter.

You get to believe whatever you want. Don't couch your beliefs with passive language.

 

The word in your dissertation was "could". A nice word to use when you are unsure.

Things have to happen just right to create life. There is no "poof ... There it is". I'm talking about the single cell here.

Don't confuse intelligent design with a belief in God. They can be exclusive. If you believe in God, but disagree with the Bible, I'd ask for your God's time to 21st century time covverter.

You get to believe whatever you want. Don't couch your beliefs with passive language.

The theory of evolution says nothing about biogenesis. There's some interesting work being done on how life may be thermodynamically preferred, but evolution doesn't apply until life already exists.

As for the god stuff, I have no idea what you're trying to say. There's nothing certain in science; that's the whole point.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Read, he's the expert and you're not.

 

For someone who was certain in his beliefs on the Genesis of the species, is now displaying uncertainty.

I maintain the uncertainty because humans are involved and to err is human.

The GOD stuff ... some immediately equate intelligent design with a religious God. Intelligent design is just that, nothing more, nothing less. We have people who believe that when we read the historical records about God, that is just how the ancient humans saw them, and they were actually visiting aliens.

Open mind ... non-committal to the theory, that is me. I don't visit the church of the theory of evolution.

 

For someone who was certain in his beliefs on the Genesis of the species, is now displaying uncertainty.

I maintain the uncertainty because humans are involved and to err is human.

The GOD stuff ... some immediately equate intelligent design with a religious God. Intelligent design is just that, nothing more, nothing less. We have people who believe that when we read the historical records about God, that is just how the ancient humans saw them, and they were actually visiting aliens.

Open mind ... non-committal to the theory, that is me. I don't visit the church of the theory of evolution.

When we suggest Intelligent Design it's just that, in nature we have self replicating organisms, "Math" some suggested always existed that we didn't discover it, rather it has always existed within those self replicating organisms, in an environment suitable to sustain them. We observe then became able to describe it, suddenly it's known by all, no longer simply existing, but now we can put that puzzle piece in a box to fit with other pieces and so on and so forth.

My question is "God" math? or is Math "God" could be one in the same.

kv

 

For someone who was certain in his beliefs on the Genesis of the species, is now displaying uncertainty.

I maintain the uncertainty because humans are involved and to err is human.

The GOD stuff ... some immediately equate intelligent design with a religious God. Intelligent design is just that, nothing more, nothing less. We have people who believe that when we read the historical records about God, that is just how the ancient humans saw them, and they were actually visiting aliens.

Open mind ... non-committal to the theory, that is me. I don't visit the church of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about god or intelligent design (both are the same, as far I'm concerned). If a superintelligent alien seeded life on Earth 2.5 billion years ago, evolution would still provide the best explanation for how the rest of us got here. Is it 100% certain? No, because nothing is. But no alternative theory comes anywhere close to the predictive and explanatory power of evolution. We can literally see evolution in action for species that have fast lifecycles, like bacteria and fruit flies. If your alternative theory doesn't account for heredity, mutation, and selection, then it doesn't describe this world.

The only church I visit is the church of the larger Hilbert space.

 

My question is "God" math? or is Math "God" could be one in the same.

A lot of smart people believe something like this. I think most mathematicians believe that math exists "out there", independently of humans. MIT physicist Max Tegmark goes further and says that the universe -- and everything in it -- literally is a mathematical structure.

There certainly seems to be a deep connection between math and the universe as we experience it.

 

We could go with the "sailor hypothesis" ... You know a girl in any port. I shudder to think what the first female looked like or how intoxicated the sailor was. And they would be classified as ancient Mariners.

We are just one giant experiment for some alien. Lol

 

There certainly seems to be a deep connection between math and the universe as we experience it.

I think it is like "space/time". It only allows humans to be able to try and explain things. Math and space/time or even time isn't important to mother nature.

 

A lot of smart people believe something like this. I think most mathematicians believe that math exists "out there", independently of humans. MIT physicist Max Tegmark goes further and says that the universe -- and everything in it -- literally is a mathematical structure.

There certainly seems to be a deep connection between math and the universe as we experience it.

Math is nothing more than one of many languages we use to describe our existence as we see it. It's no wonder that the math we have developed to describe the universe, well, describes it.

It's axiomatic.

 

Math is nothing more than one of many languages we use to describe our existence as we see it. It's no wonder that the math we have developed to describe the universe, well, describes it.

It's axiomatic.

And sometimes people make the mistake of making it self-referencing... just like the anthropic principle, which I don't like one bit.

A very interesting subject related to this discussion is something called "mathematical reality".

 

...just like the anthropic principle, which I don't like one bit.

I love the anthropic principle. It's a great way to win an argument:

"Based upon the weak [or strong -- if that is the case] anthropic principle, it is indisputable that..."

Most have no idea what I am talking about, but don't want to appear stupid. So they nod in agreement and change the subject.

Works like a charm.

 

Sounds like an ego booster principle to me. We are just too important to ignore......even if we are the only ones here.

 

We are just too important to ignore......even if we are the only ones here.

Excellent example of the (weak) anthropic principle!

 

So they nod in agreement and change the subject.

Works like a charm.

And which is that you like, when they nod, or when they change the subject?

 

And which is that you like, when they nod, or when they change the subject?

Nodding in agreement. But, sometimes, they nod in exasperation.

 

But, sometimes, they nod in exasperation.

and right now ... I'm nodding along ...