The theory of evolution.

Post Reply New Topic

Direct observation does not make something a "fact".

In the macro-world, we can't see reality (the truth of how matter functions).

I posted earlier that some high-profile physicists think it's possible that we live in simulation, and evolution does not occur, rather, humans "pop" into existence.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/

So, I disagree.

The theory of evolution first requires one to believe that evolution actually occurs.

All right. You don't believe in it. I accept that. I'm not trying to change your belief.

As long as you don't smite me, I won't smite you

I believe in evolution on "faith," and on the preponderance of the evidence.

I never said that.

Science gives us our present best guess at truth.


So, the theory of evolution is our present best guess.

Nonsense wrapped in nonsense.

Its possible that there is a little green man who follows you around every where you go, and that he disappears every time you turn to look at him (and that every other person in your life is in on the conspiracy to conceal this LGM from you, so they all act as if they all don't see him either). So (in a manner of speaking) you could claim that "it is NOT a fact that there is no little green man who follows you around everywhere you go". And that there are no facts about anything.

But for practical purposes the fact that there is no little green man following you around every moment of your life can be accepted by you as that...as a fact.

And this new notion that we all live in a simulation doesn't contradict evolution because even if we do live in a simulation then evolution itself was part of the simulation. So that simulation notion is a nonsequitar.

In the article, a simulation means reality is a computer program, and we are computer code.

So, we are not evolutionary -- of moving from a lower thing to a higher thing -- rather we "pop" into existence as a stored piece of code.

Like, Windows 7 is not evolutionary from Windows XP


Rather, someone wrote out the new code.

That's why the article points out that we can be reused -- because we are stored in memory.

Still, I consider absurdism my best response function. If evolution appears to occur in the simulation, then it seems likely to have occurred in reality, and I would have to find a better explanation in order to have another working belief. Jehovah is nowhere in the null hypothesis.

This theory is a recent notion of some people. Its not the mainstream view of science.
And even if it were the mainstream pov it has no bearing on what we are talking about.
Even if we live in a simulation, the simulation has a simulated backstory (a simulated history) of millions and billionos of years of evolution built into it (like characters in a movie -or in a computer game- have to have a background, and a backstory that is also simulated). We also live with a simulated future. The fact that walking off cliffs is not really deadly, but is only a simulation of being lethal, does not mean that its now okay for us all to start walking off cliffs.

And actually Windows ten did evolve from windows eight, which did evolved from Windows seven, etc. Lol!

Last edited by naturalplastic on 23 Jun 2017, 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well duhhhh....

That goes with out saying.

But when the present "best guess" stands the test of time it can be thought of as a "fact" for practical purposes.

The belief that the earth goes around the sun, and the belief that humans have two feet, have both stood up to centuries of observation so both the two foot theory, and the heliocentric planetary system theory can be thought of as "facts".

You're using the word "evolution" in a broad way to mean "has ancestry".

However, evolution means "has physical ancestry".

As you say, the simulation ancestry is fictional, so there is no physical ancestry, no evolution.

Likewise, Windows 7 shares no physical ancestry with any other version of Windows, so there is no physical ancestry, no evolution.

Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.

But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?

In this simulation we are forced to live in we have simulated ancestors who do appear to have evolved over time from other organisms to become us (that's what the simulated evidence shows overwhelmingly).

So within the internal logic of this supposed simulation we live in there was indeed evolution. So for practical purposes (for us simulated characters in this simulated universe) evolution is a fact.

So though (if you're splitting hairs about what science calls "fact")yes "nothing is fact" (the Biblical story in Genisis wouldn't be "fact" either). But to the extent that anything can be called a "fact" evolution is a fact (like the heliocentric idea about the planet system is called a "fact").

Some do, but most don't. As for including abiogenesis, well, it should. After all, how comprehensive is a scientific theory if it cannot account for why a certain situation arose in the first place? It's incomplete as far as I'm concerned, and that is one of the reasons why I also reject it (I'm not - NOT - a Biblical creationist, but I can see a bad idea when one presents itself, and Darwinism fits that description perfectly).

You're the one making the claim here, so why should we? Where is your evidence that ALL (without exception) 'creationists' (only Biblical ones? What about Muslims?) are ignorant? Ignorant about what, specifically? Biology? Geology? Genetics? All three?

(It's a long way from amphioxus....)

Umm...

No.
The person he responded to was the one making the claim. The claim being that there are erudite creationists. So its up to that person to substantiate the claim.

...but don't hold your breath.

I'm sure there are erudite creationists. Religion is a matter of faith, rather than provable facts.

You can be erudite, yet have faith.

But.....no matter how erudite a creationist is, I can never believe in that hypothesis, unless I hear it from the God-entity.