The theory of evolution.

Post Reply New Topic

I am showing you what high profile physicists think based on their scientific research.

They offer alternate explanations to reality.

People here seem to be thinking that the clearly labeled "Theory of evolution" is actually a fact.

Can't evolution co-exist with some esoteric, metaphysical notion?

The physicists might have had some sort of religious faith previously, and are seeking "proof" of it through science.

What's pertinent is how erudite (educated, knowledgeable, well read, well informed) a creationist is regarding the theory of evolution when discussing the theory of evolution. That's simply true regarding most any subject.

The premise was, "all creationists are ignorant" regarding the subject of the theory of evolution. And I find it it highly unlikely that absolutely no creationists were ever taught the theory of evolution in school or studied the theory of evolution on their own.

They may come to what are considered incorrect conclusions regarding the theory of evolution, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are all ignorant (uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled) regarding the subject.

Last edited by EzraS on 24 Jun 2017, 10:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

What do you think of physicists who say Newton's Laws of Motion, The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism are fine abstractions, but not how reality works?

These same physicists will likely say, sure , the Theory of Evolution is a fine abstraction, however, there is no proof that this is how reality works.

References:
1. "Maxwellian electrodynamics fails when quantum mechanical phenomena are involved, in the same way that Newtonian mechanics needs to be replaced in that regime by quantum mechanics".
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... red-to-qed
2. "How often do quantum systems violate the second law of thermodynamics?"
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-quantum-v ... amics.html

Fundamentally, the physics idea that "everything is connected" appears to be in opposition to the theory of evolution, because, it would be like saying the limbs on a tree "evolve".

"Quantum Mechanics Reveals How We Are All Truly Connected"
https://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-m ... connected/

Well...then if that is your point then you failed to prove your point.

Failed to prove your point because even if we live in a "simulation" then evolution is part of the simulation. And therefore evolution would still be just as "real" as anything else in the simulation including you, and I.

Or to put it another way: if we live in a simulation then we ourselves (you and I) would not be real. Evolution would also not be real, but it wouldn't be any less real than you or I. So simulation, or not, evolution would still be, for practical purposes a fact.

My point was never to prove out the workings of a hypothetical computer simulation.

My point was to show how high profile physics researchers think we could be based on "reusable computer code" which clashes with the Theory of Evolution that says we have physical ancestry.

Computer code does not have physical ancestry.

The Windows 10 DVD did not evolve from an earlier Windows DVD.

The point of this discussion is to realize that no one knows how reality works, so the Theory of Evolution "facts" are cheap.

You already said the above. And I have already shown that what you said above is irrelevant, and does not disprove evolution.

If it is a fact that we are "based on resusable computer code" then that does not in any way clash with any other theory of how we got here. It doesn't in anyway contradict evolution for the simple obvious reason that evolution would be part of the simulation. What you're saying is like saying "humans don't really have two arms because humans are actually based on reusable computer code, and therefor humans aren't real, therefore their two arms aren't real". For us creatures in the simulation our two arms are real, and so is the evidence of evolution.

You could say that If we live in a simulation evolution wouldn't be "real" in a sense. But if we're in a simulation you and I, and everything we see with our two eyes would also be NOT be real.

You operate under the assumption that you are "real". So what we see evidence for (like humans having two arms, and humans having evolved) are also real (for the practical purposes for us simulated creatures in this supposed simulation).

This simulation thing is NOT an alternative to evolution (nor to any form of creationism either). Its a separate dichotomy altogether.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 25 Jun 2017, 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

we have, within our own lifetimes, witnessed bacteria (and viruses) become resistant to once potent antibacterial drugs and substances, setting off an arms race of sorts between drug and germ and putting many lives at risk. the same antibacterial drugs we use today may not be effective even 40 years from now against their intended targets.


what are some alternative explanations for this? i'm all ears/eyes.

People made the same argument about ... Newton's Laws of Motion, The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism until we discovered a lower level of reality, and these were shot down.

People wrongly assumed that what they saw was how reality works.

There are many alternate explanations to evolution.

I spoke about "computer simulation" where the things you describe are code. Like, the movie the Matrix, where they may have simulated evolution, but it's not real evolution.

Another theory is that consciousness determines reality, so that things can be "willed" into existence.
[

Simulation or no simulation, evolution has been experienced right before our eyes.

I believe I am "real."

I don't know if there are "alternate realities." I haven't chosen to speculate on that question. I've chosen to focus on my mundane, individual life.

It might make me "shallow"-- but I like the "shallow" mode of existence better. I like tasting ice cream and seeing beautiful mountains--taste-pleasing and eye-pleasing aesthetics.

Maybe in a "subsequent" life, I will ponder the "higher" questions, and be bored by the Mundane.

Did you really see it?

Not literally....but I've read about things like the antibiotic
adaptations stated above, and evolution in general, and find it to be plausible evidence of the accuracy of the evolution theorem.

So I have "faith" in it.

If evolution were real it would have been written about in the bible, instead of a couple of hundred years later by Isaac Newton.

True.

And Elvis never sang about evolushun neither.

So it can't be so!