Is evolution a fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_Sully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ROSSUM

What units are you using to measure REASON? What scientific papers can you reference to show that REASON permeates some or all of the universe? How does REASON interact with Gravity, the Electromagnetic force, the Weak force and the Strong force? On the other hand if you are asking a philosophical or theological question then there are probably as many models as there are philosophers or theologians.

I do not know how to use the quote maker, sorry.

I used the word reason on my own.

I thought science explicitly or implicitly taught that.

I guess I am mistaken, sorry.

I made the jump from reading about the Enlightenment.

Again, sorry!
 
Seamus_Sully said:
From the origins of the universe(s) through evolution: How many models does the scienific community use?
Click to expand...
Seamus,

I would say the “scientific community” uses at least hundreds of models, possibly hundreds of thousands of models. “F = m a” is a model. Newtonian gravity is a model; special relativity is a model; general relativity is a model. The perfect gas equation of state is a model; the ideal gas law is a model; the van der Waals law is a model; and so on. Pretty much everything that science deals with is an approximation to reality; some approximations are better than others.
  • Liberian
 
Seamus_Sully said:
I do not know how to use the quote maker, sorry.
Click to expand...
To quote some text type: [noparse]
source name:
This is quoted text
Click to expand...
[/noparse]. That will give you:
source name:
This is quoted text
Click to expand...
Alternatively just click the “Quote” button at the bottom right of the post you are replying to. As long as you keep the [noparse]
…
Click to expand...
[/noparse] sets balanced you can chop out any text that you do not want to respond to.

rossum
 
rossum said:
DNA is a chemical made of atoms. Atoms formed before DNA. There are many hypotheses for abiogenesis, but no single theory yet. The immediate precursor of DNA was probably RNA as in the RNA World hypothesis.

rossum
Click to expand...
 
ROSSUM
I still have not understood the quote maker, but I will get there.

DNA is a chemical made of atoms. Atoms formed before DNA. There are many hypotheses for abiogenesis, but no single theory yet. The immediate precursor of DNA was probably RNA as in the RNA World hypothesis.

Humans have not observed the huge step from inanimate to animate.

Humans have not come up with a possible way that it happened.

At least as of now science does not know how that movement from inanimate to animate being happened.

WOW!!!

Why do scientists think it is possible to move from inanimate being to animate being?

I know that might seem crazy, but that is a huge move.

I was under the opinion that science had it nailed down.

Thanks for your patience.

It is hard to believe, for me!
 
Seamus_Sully said:
Humans have not observed the huge step from inanimate to animate.

Humans have not come up with a possible way that it happened.

At least as of now science does not know how that movement from inanimate to animate being happened.

WOW!!!

Why do scientists think it is possible to move from inanimate being to animate being?

I know that might seem crazy, but that is a huge move.

I was under the opinion that science had it nailed down.
Click to expand...
You may be confusing evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution is the scientific explanation for why there are so many different species of life on earth. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species” - it is the explanation of how life differentiates itself into it many different forms.

Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, which Darwin explicitly left out of his book. Scientists know that this happened because there was a time when there was no life on earth. Five billion years ago there was not even a planet earth. At some point between then and now life must have originated on earth. Science is in the business of finding material answers to material questions. In material terms life is a very complex chemical reaction. Very early life would still have been a complex chemical reaction, but less complex than modern forms of life.

Scientists work on the basis that until it is definitely shown otherwise there will be a scientific answer to all scientific questions. So far the question of the origin of life has not been answered, but much progress has been made and is still being made. As long as there is continuing progress it is reasonable for scientists to hope to find at least part, if not all, of the answer.

There is a good survey of current work in abiogenesis in The Origin of Life.

rossum
 
Seamus_Sully said:
ROSSUM
Why do scientists think it is possible to move from inanimate being to animate being?
Click to expand...
At the beginning of the nineteenth century it was believed that micro-organisms would spontaneously generate in rotting meat. That theory was abandoned, and it was then thought that living cells could only come from living cells.

That led to theories about a “vital essence”. However with the synthesis of urea by Wohler in 1828 it was shown that organic substances are composed of exactly the same material as inorganic matter.

It is presumably possible to build a living organism from entirely inert substnaces. So far this has not actually been achieved, but we know how to synthesise DNA and lipids and the other essential components of cells. Of course we cannot design the genes - the genome will have to be pirated from an existing species.
 
It is most difficult to believe that inanimate material did the following: “evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures.”

I do not know what they mean by self-organization, but it sure has a strange ring in my ears.

I am only speaking for myself. I know that, and I am most certainly aware of that.

I think that the Stonehenge in England is a better candidate for self-organization than inanimate matter moving to animate matter without outside help. It sure would be much, much simpler.

I also think that the pyramids in Egypt are better candidates for self-organization than all of the being in the universe moving itself into existence without outside help.

We do not know who built Stonehenge.

We do not know how it was built.

Therefore it evolved, that is, self-organized.

To me that just sounds invalid.

Truthfully, I thought science already knew what parts of DNA came first.

What parts of protein came first? What parts of amino acids came first?

I have always wondered how beings replicated before DNA and before RNA.

I would still think that science knows. Does science know how being replicated before DNA?

I would think that there are beings now that replicate or reproduce without DNA.

I wanted to ask a biologist today, but she was just too busy.

I assumed I was taught that, but I assumed that I forgot it.

When this thread started, I thought there was only one idea or model or theory for the beginning of the universe(s), that is, the Big Bang. I think I read on this thread that there are about four, but each of these has many different opinions. I am most perplexed by such data.

I do not know if the information is correct or not.

I have always wondered from where did that first mass of matter come for the Big Bangs.

Honestly, perhaps there was always living matter!

For me that might be easier than inanimate matter moving to animated matter.

I still think that being cannot account for itself.

I still hold that being cannot direct itself.

I still hold that being cannot move up to the higher levels of being on its own.

I still hold that being cannot cause itself.

I still hold that being cannot account for its self-governing.

I am still hoping to learn a great deal more in these areas.
 
I live in Stone County, Arkansas – which is not false advertising.😉

I have found lots of fossils – I have an almost perfect cylinder of stone on my mantle, about 5" in diameter, and 6" long, with a pattern of indentations arranged in parallel lines running parallel to the long axis. What is it? A section of the trunk of a tree that once grew within 50 yards of my house.

There are no living trees like this anywhere in the county – in fact, there are none like it anywhere in the world. Yet a specimen once grew right here!

If I look at the fossil record, I see lots of plants and animals that once lived here – but cannot be found anywhere on earth today. If I look for fossils of the current plants and animals, I can’f find any.

If I go into different layers of rock, I find different sets of fossils. Clearly, the life forms that once thrived here have “turned over” again and again.

That’s evolution – and it’s hard to imagine how someone could say it’s not a fact. The **theory of evolution **is science’s explanation of how this all happend, and like all science, it is subject to adjustment and revision as new data is developed
 
From what I can see on this thread: Strict science denies the use of religion. Religion uses science and math. Since the Russian and American race to the moon, our Catholic universities have made math and science the rulers of the universities, more or less.

Science also denies the use and philosophy. Furthermore it denies the validity of psychology, unless the psychology and psychiatry use math and science. This is good. Science is science. Science is good, beautiful and a most powerful tool.

Human reason created math and the physical sciences. This, too, is good.

Human reason has also created philosophy and psychology. In ancient Greece psychology was created by human reason.

Human reason created math, physical science, philosophy, and psychology. These are just a few of the powerful tools created by the human intellect to investigate the earth and the universe.

Math and science were invented to measure, weigh and count the physical beings.

Philosophy was invented to investigate the nature of being.

Philosophical psychology was invented to investigate the human immaterial being of our intellect and will.

I would like to use as many of the tools as possible to study the origin of being, the contingency or necessity of being, the levels or gradation of being, the cause of being, and the governing of being. Math and physical sciences were not invented nor developed to do this.

Math and science have not been able to explain the origins of being. Math and science have not been able to explain if nor how inanimate matter moved to animated matter.

What came first: nucleotides, codons, amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA? How did the parts that make up DNA replicate?

Humans have not observed nor can they explain the origin of being. Humans have not observed nor can they explain the movement of inanimate matter moving to animate matter.

I do not believe it is possible for being to exist on its own.

Science believes it is possible. Science hopes it is possible.

I do not believe inanimate matter can move to animated matter on its own.

Science believes it is possible. Science hopes it is possible.

I do not believe it is possible.

I am writing this for myself, and that is all. I am writing this for I am perplexed by the origin of being and the gap between inanimate being and animate being.
 
Seamus_Sully said:
From what I can see on this thread: Strict science denies the use of religion. Religion uses science and math. Since the Russian and American race to the moon, our Catholic universities have made math and science the rulers of the universities, more or less.

Science also denies the use and philosophy. Furthermore it denies the validity of psychology, unless the psychology and psychiatry use math and science. This is good. Science is science. Science is good, beautiful and a most powerful tool.

Human reason created math and the physical sciences. This, too, is good.

Human reason has also created philosophy and psychology. In ancient Greece psychology was created by human reason.

Human reason created math, physical science, philosophy, and psychology. These are just a few of the powerful tools created by the human intellect to investigate the earth and the universe.

Math and science were invented to measure, weigh and count the physical beings.

Philosophy was invented to investigate the nature of being.

Philosophical psychology was invented to investigate the human immaterial being of our intellect and will.

I would like to use as many of the tools as possible to study the origin of being, the contingency or necessity of being, the levels or gradation of being, the cause of being, and the governing of being. Math and physical sciences were not invented nor developed to do this.

Math and science have not been able to explain the origins of being. Math and science have not been able to explain if nor how inanimate matter moved to animated matter.

What came first: nucleotides, codons, amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA? How did the parts that make up DNA replicate?

Humans have not observed nor can they explain the origin of being. Humans have not observed nor can they explain the movement of inanimate matter moving to animate matter.

I do not believe it is possible for being to exist on its own.

Science believes it is possible. Science hopes it is possible.

I do not believe inanimate matter can move to animated matter on its own.

Science believes it is possible. Science hopes it is possible.

I do not believe it is possible.

I am writing this for myself, and that is all. I am writing this for I am perplexed by the origin of being and the gap between inanimate being and animate being.
Click to expand...
Your understanding of science is incorrect. Science does not reject either religion or philosophy – science accepts that it is not competent to judge religion and unable to deal with the questions much of philosophy addresses.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Your understanding of science is incorrect. Science does not reject either religion or philosophy – science accepts that it is not competent to judge religion and unable to deal with the questions much of philosophy addresses.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head there. The two are not competitors. They deal with totally different concepts. Science does the ‘how’ pretty well now. But it can never do the ‘why’. If it does, it is no longer science. Similarly, religion should never do the how- we have seen that with Creationism.
 
Sorry about my mistakes!!

Math and science have not been able to explain the origins of being. Math and science have not been able to explain if nor how inanimate matter moved to animated matter.

What came first: nucleotides, codons, amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA? How did the parts that make up DNA replicate?

Humans have not observed nor can they explain the origin of being. Humans have not observed nor can they explain the movement of inanimate matter moving to animate matter.

I do not believe it is possible for being to exist on its own.

Science believes it is possible. Science hopes it is possible.

I do not believe inanimate matter can move to animated matter on its own.

Science believes it is possible. Science hopes it is possible.

I do not believe it is possible.
 
Titus said:
You hit the nail on the head there. The two are not competitors. They deal with totally different concepts. Science does the ‘how’ pretty well now. But it can never do the ‘why’. If it does, it is no longer science. Similarly, religion should never do the how- we have seen that with Creationism.
Click to expand...
It seems to me the height of arrogance for those who claim to be believers to dictate to God how He should do His business.

I have found many fossils on my farm – all of them of plants and animals that no longer exist on this earth. Clearly, God took His time in creating man, and did it in miraculous and mysterious ways which we can see only dimly.
 
The two are not competitors.

I agree. Theology and philosophy makes great use of math and science. I said that.
 
vern_humphrey said:
It seems to me the height of arrogance for those who claim to be believers to dictate to God how He should do His business.

I have found many fossils on my farm – all of them of plants and animals that no longer exist on this earth. Clearly, God took His time in creating man, and did it in miraculous and mysterious ways which we can see only dimly.
Click to expand...
Your position is unclear to me from this post?
 
Similarly, religion should never do the how- we have seen that with Creationism.

I have not used Creationism.

There are other ideas than Creationism.
 
What came first: nucleotides, codons, amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA? How did the parts that make up DNA replicate?

I cannot recall all of the parts of DNA or RNA. If my question is incorrect, please correct it. But also, please answer it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top