Most atheists dont know about science (Page 295)

kittybobo34: Doesn't seem to matter to him that all of the other scientific fields, Geology, Physics, Biology, Genetics, all fit neatly into the evolutionary story line.

Blackshoes: Assumptions and accusations upon me do nothing to verify your faith in nothing.

MJ59: His nothing is bigger than yours! ner ner poopy pants

Blackshoes: I need to finish painting the ceiling I"II BE BACK

chronology: Blackie, I don't know how you do it. After decades of trying to reason with these people I just have no patience left for them. You really are an American hero the way you stand up for truth like you do.

MJ59: Awwww you 2 are sweet

Blackshoes: LOL Hardly chron I just enjoy the discussion they have caused me, to research the subject, learn, educate myself, read endless articles and books so /as not to be found wanting. Besides I have little else to do in my spare time

ghostgeek: That's the problem with spare time. It tends to go to waste.

ghostgeek: The Theory of Evolution may be absolute and total crap but it doesn't matter one iota. The proof of evolution lies in the rocks under our feet.

ghostgeek: It was once claimed that it was impossible for bumblebees to fly, but the evidence said the opposite. Time has proven the evidence correct and the theories of those old scientists wrong.

ghostgeek: Thus Blackshoes can be correct about the Theory of Evolution and yet wrong about Evolution.

kittybobo34: Well the ToE has been evolving as well, as new data comes in, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, the picture keeps getting clearer., and more accurate. As new sciences come online, they have also added their techniques and knowledge to that jigsaw puzzle called Evolution.

AchillesSinatra: Just wish you'd tell us what the ToE is one of these days.

AchillesSinatra: My own theory that "something will happen today" appears to fit all the facts, too.

Same as yours.

It just doesn't sound very scientific, that's all

But hey, fitting all the facts comes first, eh?

The salient difference being: I can state my theory, you can't.

AchillesSinatra: I mean ..

Fast evolution? Yes, that fits my theory.

Slow evolution? Yes, that fits my theory, too.

Anything that happens? Yes, that's perfectly consistent with my theory, too.



You'll make more money in astrology, though.

AchillesSinatra: So Kitty, since the world is about to end, are you ready to state "The Theory" yet?

How does it happen? Slowly? Quickly? Sometimes? Notimes?

It's not much of a theory so far

AchillesSinatra: Might as well ask the Oracle, chaps

AchillesSinatra: Let me summarize: Your "Theory" so far amounts to... "well, ya know, evolution happens, innit"

MJ59: This is quite a well written article:


A layman's view of problems with evolution theory
Leon Freris corresponding author



This article had its origins in a letter of mine that was published in The Guardian, a UK newspaper. The Communicative & Integrative Biology (CIB) Editor-in-Chief happened to read the letter and asked me whether I was prepared to write a short opinion article with the hope that it may stimulate wider discussion I somewhat reluctantly accepted. The reason for my hesitation is that I have no expertise whatsoever in Biology or evolution theory. I often read absurd comments by educated non-experts pontificating on my own topic of expertise and wonder why do they do it! Occasionally though, a complete non-expert such as a child asks questions which are so basic that they may confound even an expert. It is from this standpoint of “innocent ignorance” that my speculations may possibly be of some value to the readers of CIB.

The topic of Darwinian evolution has recently acquired a particularly high profile in public awareness through articles in the press and television programs. The rise of fundamentalist Islam and creationist Christianity has provided an apt and justified target for ardent evolutionists to eloquently attack religion. The principle of Darwinian evolution now is not just an explanatory theory, but also a debunker of theism. As such, it has been elevated to a status of unquestionable truth to the extent that biologists who may have doubts on its fireproof status would not admit so in public in case they become pariahs in their community. The other downside of holding such an absolutist position is that any proposal that may hint at other mechanisms that do not comfortably fit with the orthodox beliefs are dismissed outright as they may imply some universal intelligence or teleological plan that smack of a heavenly planner. Its most enthusiastic adherents assert that the theory of evolution has no room for other mechanisms hence no other possibilities are conceivable or indeed allowable. This in spite of the fact that an unresolved residue is always present in science even after the most successful application of reductionist principles with the corollary that all theories should be taken to be provisional and incomplete. In my view, this unscientific attitude burdens the Darwinian theory of evolution with a weight it just cannot carry.

There is no doubt that the theory of evolution is handsomely supported by the fossil records and has considerable explanatory powers. However there are two areas where I find the current version of evolution theory unconvincing. The first is the assertion that evolution is the sole mechanism that drives matter towards biological development. The second is its incapacity to explain the emergence of mentality. I will deal with these two aspects in greater detail.

Physicists tell us that following the big bang the only element in existence was hydrogen, the simplest in the periodic table. It was from these humble beginnings that the remaining ninety odd increasingly complex elements and their vastly more numerous and complex combinations were gradually synthesised as eons passed. This points to the existence of a natural law which is embedded in the nature of atomic physics and provides the potential of “evolution” of more complex elements from simpler ones. One could argue that it is this law of striving complexity that drove matter towards the emergence of increasingly complex molecules out of the basic elements followed by the emergence of the building blocks necessary for the appearance of a first selfreplicating entity.

The second difficulty I have is related to the spontaneous appearance of information carrying replicating systems and ultimately of what one may call mentality. At the pre-biotic stage of evolution, Darwinian competition cannot, by definition, assist the evolution process. Natural selection requires that primitive life is already there for the process to begin. The assumption is therefore made that “mindless and blind” unguided processes have spontaneously resulted in a self-replicating entity that encodes information, the precursor of the information carrying DNA. This process has been described by some as “evolution of the gaps” to rhyme with “God of the gaps.” Self replicating systems encode information and therefore exhibit a quality that transcends inert mater. It is at this stage that another explanation may help. Since ancient times there have been philosophers, scientist and particularly mystics who held that matter and mentality are inextricably mixed. I have the incontrovertible direct experience that my mind is capable of directing the motion of my limbs, i.e. to control god-like “the motion of the atoms,” as Erwin Schrodinger observed. And I know that a drug can affect the state of my mind. This complementary leverage of mind-over-matter and matter-over-mind is an extraordinary fact. The phenomenon of mentality, highly developed as consciousness in man, is also apparent in primates and in diminishing degree as one travels down the evolutionary tree of the animal kingdom. In high dilution it manifests itself in primitive organisms and the plant kingdom. A bacterium can be said to possess a faint glimmer of mentality expressed in its ability to react intelligently to the environment. As the gradation of mentality is continuous I can see no justification in stopping its diminution with a discontinuity when prions or ultimately “inorganic matter” is reached. One can postulate that information paths, such as those provided by nerve and synaptic systems, are capable of amplifying mentality and enhancing the richness of experience as they become more complex. The idea that mentality is just a step-wise epiphenomenon of complexity, usually illustrated by the hypothetical example of a computer which, if made large enough, will spontaneously show signs of mentality or consciousness is unproven and in my view absurd.

One may tentatively conclude that classical Darwinian evolution has not been the only game in town. That the origin of the first replicator could have been assisted in some unquantifiable way by the underlying natural tendency of matter towards complexity. That the necessary capability of information encoding at the most basic level leading eventually to its most sophisticated manifestation as consciousness was provided by the extremely dilute mentality of matter itself. If matter and mind are inextricably linked at the most basic level, increases in complexity of matter and mentality happen conjointly. Perhaps there is only one natural law that drives matter/mind towards increased complexity. If one were to be challenged on the scientific evidence of these assertion the response would be as follows: the tendency of matter towards complexity is a phenomenon embedded in its nature and is manifested in the enormous variety of chemical compounds. The existence of traces of “mentality” at the atomic level is hinted at by quantum mechanics, which teach that the act of observation affects the reality that is observed. Sir Arthur Eddington went much further by stating: “It is difficult for the matter-of-fact scientist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.”
Go to:
References

Leon Freris. “Letter to the editor,” The Guardian, 8 June 2010, Letters and Emails. :31. [Google Scholar]

AchillesSinatra: So you finally nailed it for us, Beaver? This is the much-vaunted, universally agreed upon "Theory of Evolution"?

I have a good idea: ask ten people about God and I bet you get ten different answers.

Try Googling "The Theory of Evolution" ten times again and see what happens.

Congruence? Well, do your own experiment.

It would be nice, though, to believe that all scientists agree on what "The Theory of Evolution" is.

A bit like believing in absurdities, like God, and Santa Claus?

But hey, you'd have to be pretty dense to believe in that shit, mate, eh?

MJ59: Well this Leon dude seems to have some very good arguments there

Fractured fairy tale: So much for Educated American Heroes
There Irrelevant
Ant the How shall I put it The Truth

Fractured fairy tale: I like This feel good Quote
Patriotism the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

"Some one Said "

MJ59: Always "someone" lol

Fractured fairy tale: It was Prolly John Wayne . Because John Whayne Is America