The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Undiscovered and undiscovered are two different paths to paths and on many of them the world just needs to get over itself, shouldn't we agree? Where we are ALL™ no different is truth!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs enorbet, ever since I was a little kid, both in school classes and when watching otherwise-great programs like Dr. Carl Sagan's (RIP) Cosmos, I only "had serious problems" with one small thing: Now, if they were talking about geologic time, I had absolutely no problems with it.

I don't understand to what you are referring since the Earth is roughly 4.7 Billion years old and the emergence of life keeps getting pushed back as we discover just how extreme of conditions in which life can exist and it is already at ~4 Billion years. So even in the case of Planet earth Life we are talking about Geologic Time.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs But, when they were talking about biology, I felt like they were just like ancient cartographers who had "holes to fill." The cartographers filled those holes with dragons. The biologists / evolutionists, I felt, were filling their holes with: "time, itself." (And considerable hand-waving.) I felt that they were glossing-over something, because their theory – good as it seemed to be – was nonetheless imperfect. I felt that there was something else. Something that, even to this day, remains undiscovered. And, I still do.

In light of the above, assuming you were unaware of just how far back and how solid much of the Fossil Record actually is, it would seem wise to examine that for yourself and then of course your feelings about it.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Even though today, of course, we (think that we) know much more about biology, genetics, "the genome" and so forth, than we ever could have hoped for back when I was a kid, I still speculate that there is a vacuum in our knowledge. Yes, even today, when these people seem willing to content themselves with their theory that "evolution as we know it today" explains everything, I remain suspicious that Nature has yet another surprise(!) in store for present or for future researchers.

I am no expert in the field of Biology yet even I have stated here what experts do say and nobody in the know says the Theory of Evolution "explains everything". All that is said is that we know enough about the fundamentals of how it operates "up here" at our level to lock in the process, much like how Chemistry has remained and will remain largely unchanged from discoveries in QM. There is a great deal that remains to be known which is why the field of Biology along with Astronomy and most other fields of Science are enjoying an explosion of productivity for the past several decades. We are enjoying a confluence of technologies as well as a relatively new paradigm where Fields of Science are no longer such Ivory Towers because a broad spectrum is brought to bear on any new evidence. Communication and collaboration have broken down the old barriers and borderlines.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And, hey, wouldn't it be fantastic(!) if that turned out to be the case?! Entire new worlds of biological possibilities to discover ... things that we had not yet dreamed of "dream of?!?!" Isn't that the sort of breakthrough that science (or "scientists," at least ...) lives for? C'mon. Let's never stop thinking, or dreaming, or speculating, "outside the box." And "may we never be content with a falling apple." May we never entirely believe that "evolution is sufficient." May we never stop turning over rocks, even though we are "certain" that there is nothing to be found underneath them.

From what I see that is exactly what is happening and will only increase as long as Carl Sagan's fears about the rise of Superstition and isolation don't continue to be proven accurate. So far the only Life Process we have for study is Planet Earth Life. On one hand it bodes well that in such an incredibly short time (Geologically speaking) Life appeared on our planet that was made up from atoms that are literally everywhere we look both in Space and Time and now we know that planet formation is absolutely de rigeur, but on the other hand we have yet to actually have any lifeforms other than our own to study.

Fortunately it has been estimated that by 2025 that will have all changed, that we will have evidence of extraterrestrial life and it appears we are right on schedule. This portends a huge explosion in new data which will very likely rock the foundations of some coveted conclusions, but the likelihood that Evolution itself will be so rocked is very low since we now know that in addition to what we, in our provincial perspective, view as "Life", evolves, so do planets, stars, solar systems and even galaxies evolve along similar lines. It is so utterly common that one of the leading Theoretical Physicists who works mainly in Quantum Gravity, Lee Smolin, has proposed an Evolutionary view of the Laws of Physics as we already know that there have been four distinct epochs based just on the Four Fundamental Forces.

Science has something of a Love/Hate relationship with dreamers but never forget that the importance of the Love Dreamers side is recognized even by the most ardent haters. They know that is the spark that can start a lifelong blaze that "warms and nurtures" all of us, and above all, sheds light in the darkness. It may dance and flicker but the initial flames have yet to be snuffed out, despite many centuries of efforts to do exactly that. In fact, one could say that Science nurtures an Evolution from Dreamer, through Philosopher, to Scientist, one capable of realizing dreams.

Originally Posted by enorbet I don't understand to what you are referring since the Earth is roughly 4.7 Billion years old and the emergence of life keeps getting pushed back as we discover just how extreme of conditions in which life can exist and it is already at ~4 Billion years. So even in the case of Planet earth Life we are talking about Geologic Time.

What I specifically meant was "the use of 'billions and billions™' (of years ...) as hand-waving to "explain" how the process of evolution led to the vast diversity of life that we actually see on the planet. "Just give 'natural selection' aeons in which to work," etc.

That is what I don't accept. I think that "evolution" is a very narrow process, and that it is constrained to remain narrow. I don't think that it is capable of "creeping" to "little-by-little" produce "bigger and more-amazing things." What it would be doing in a billion years? More-or-less what it is doing now.

I think that there is another(!) process, as-yet undiscovered. I think that there is an entirely different mechanism that permits genetic transformations to "escape the 'species' boundary." How it produces viable "creations" "revolutions," male-and-female, which thereafter "merely ("no-'R'") evolve 'after their own kind'," I have no idea.

I speculate that it is a different process because I think that "evolution" is tightly-constrained (so to speak) "on purpose." The genetic changes are "anything but random." The changes are slight, yet they seem purposeful. The resulting organism is viable, and backward-compatible with its parent. Per contra, the other process represents a total suspension of these controls. "And yet, not 'total,'" because the transformations that it produces, also, are not random.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs What I specifically meant was "the use of 'billions and billions™' (of years ...) as hand-waving to "explain" how the process of evolution led to the vast diversity of life that we actually see on the planet. "Just give 'natural selection' aeons in which to work," etc. <snip> I speculate that it is a different process because I think that "evolution" is tightly-constrained (so to speak) "on purpose." The genetic changes are "anything but random." The changes are slight, yet they seem purposeful. The resulting organism is viable, and backward-compatible with its parent. Per contra, the other process represents a total suspension of these controls. "And yet, not 'total,'" because the transformations that it produces, also, are not random.

Since well over 90% of all life that has ever existed on Planet Earth has gone extinct. I don't at all understand why you see the progression as "purposeful". It's a bloody crap shoot! Also, over time, the offspring are not "backward compatible" if I grasp what you mean. In the example of the finches they are now constrained to their own new species and cannot mate with those from whom the descended and departed. Others are most often but not always sterile such as Mules. See -- Donkeys, Horses, Mules and Variations --

On the human side, the evidence is extremely strong that not only could they but Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo Sapiens DID interbreed successfully since their genes are found in small amounts in a fairly large percentage of modern population. It appears that the evolution of Neanderthals was an adaptation that was effective to survive in northern latitudes to the Ice Age. As the Ice Age climate changes retreated the high maintenance He Man metabolism that worked for thousands of years became a hindrance rather than a benefit especially when in competition with slightly more cognitively advanced Homo Sapiens.

Incidentally, since it has been found that Neanderthals sometimes buried their dead not only with what appears to be affection and a kind of reverence but also with items that every other culture did for the purpose of an Afterlife should we wonder if they had a Creator, if it was the same as ...well, take your pick of surviving ones, and just how much did that Creator Love and Protect them? How valuable did their religion turn out to be. I know of no accounts of a Neanderthal Rapture.... just Evolutionary Business As Usual - Random.

PS We don't have to worry that BWuserX will contemplate this conundrum and go all "scanners" on us since he is so arrogantly convinced that the Real Slim Shady didn't stand up for many thousands of years and all those previous religions, and a few since,, have it all wrong and will suffer eternal torture for their bad luck, ill timing or poor choices.

enorbet, I'm going to choose not to even begin to discuss the possible "origins of man."

... even though I understand that, to many, this is "the ultimate 'Big Kahuna Question.'"

I'm happy to speculate as to exactly why how we have ... "canaries, pigeons, and blue whales." Obviously, I am not looking to find any sort of "geological or otherwise record" of any such thing.

If you will, I am looking at "the computer science(!) end of things."

Life appears to be based on a chemical process which somehow nearly-erroneously carries out, time and time again, a faithful replication. (For the moment, leaving things like "stem cells" out of the picture.) Of course we intuitively know that chemical processes cannot be "nearly-erroneous," therefore there must be a great many error-correction processes at work, and of course we now have now begun to perceive at-least some of them.

And yet ... we clearly perceive the somewhat-unexpected process of [species ...] evolution: a process which facilitates adaptive(!) changes – "changing the color of a moth's wings so that it's less likely to be seen by a bluebird" – and yet which does not destroy the (moth) species in the process. Somehow, the DNA is capable of interacting with nature to defend a moth against birds!

All without transforming "moths" into, say, "pigeons."

It should really come as no surprise, then, when I'm not willing to accept "species evolution" as a sufficient explanation of the present-day coexistence of moths, and bluebirds, and pigeons, and blue-whales on this planet. (No matter how many "aeons" are inserted into the equation.)

I think that it should come as no surprise to anyone(!) that generations of human beings, faced with this very-astonishing order of things, concluded that it must be the work of (g|G)od(s). (To me, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.)

And if it is, indeed, a natural process, then I continue to hold the opinion that "species evolution" probably isn't "it." (I continue to believe that this conclusion is contra-indicated.)

"This natural process," whatever it may be, must be a "rule- breaker re-maker!" It must be a spectacular departure from the one situation that "error-correction mechanisms" are designed to correct.

... but, there is more! ... in addition to "being a rebel," it must also somehow be successful(!!). It must produce, not only "pigeons," but male and female "pigeons."

... ... but, there is even more!! ... these "male and female pigeons," having first been produced by this most-astonishing process, must thereafter faithfully and forever do what we see all other forms of life do:

1. Pigeons mate only with pigeons. (Robins need not apply.)
2. The offspring will be "a pigeon."
3. If "pappa Robin" tries to get really kinky with "mamma Pigeon," nothing happens.

So, again, "from a purely computer science(!) perspective," I happen to find "irreconcilable differences" with the present theories of how this data-transfer actually works. I don't think that we have yet discovered everything that there is to be known about it. I don't think we know what has allowed the seemingly-endless diversity of viable, self-reproducing "only after its own kind" life on Earth. For it to be "evolution," I think, is contra-indicated. In our answer to this irresistible puzzle, I think that there's still a big piece missing.

@ sundialsvcs - I agree that Life seems to be something that the Universe just "does" as a consequence of Organic Chemistry. I don't at all understand how you can ignore that wolves, dogs, and coyotes have all successfully interbred or that offshoot speciations appear even during human lifetimes, let alone the evidence of major changes and branches in species in some 67,000+ generations of e coli, but of course that is your prerogative. Have a great day.

How can a "god" exist if humans can play it... ;-)

Auu, duuu!

Originally Posted by enorbet @ sundialsvcs - I agree that Life seems to be something that the Universe just "does" as a consequence of Organic Chemistry. I don't at all understand how you can ignore that wolves, dogs, and coyotes have all successfully interbred or that offshoot speciations appear even during human lifetimes, let alone the evidence of major changes and branches in species in some 67,000+ generations of e coli, but of course that is your prerogative. Have a great day.

Members of a genus, such as "canines," can sometimes interbreed to a certain extent, and it is indeed interesting that bacteria seem more biologically unstable. (But they are basically, "a cell.") "Offshoot species" are, as we know, quite common. But a male and a female pigeon have never yet hatched from two robin's eggs, and so on.

Some variations, it would seem, are possible. But others, it would also seem, are prevented. This does not surprise me. In order to be stable and therefore successful, the system would intuitively have to have limits and controls to go along with its diversity mechanisms. And, for long term survival and prosperity, both of these (opposing) things are needed.

I still do not believe that these observations are, by themselves, sufficient to support the conclusion that "evolution is the only mechanism that we need." I speculate that the truth is probably far more sophisticated than we now are able to know. And I find that prospect – that there are still wonderful things left to discover, the likes of which we can't really even imagine now – to be very exciting. Perhaps our ongoing study of the genome will be a Rosetta Stone.

Greetings cyber neighbors -
A few posts ago I provided a link for an actual view of atomic and molecular structure as well as information how one could build such a microscope for oneself for well under the price of most used cars made 10 years ago... certainly within the range of some. That is an extreme micro scale direct observation and today I'd like to provide you with the macro version. However in this case it would take the lifetime incomes of several families to reproduce, not to mention extreme skill and patience.

Seriously DO NOT MISS THIS! This is a time lapse photography made video of an actual observation of a solar system and yes it is billions and billions of miles away yet we can actually see it through modern technology. The orbits of four planets are clearly seen mainly because technology has caught up with, at least when planets are larger than Jupiter, the reflected light that makes them visible when the star is "blocked out". If there is any life on any moons that may exist there, we can only wonder if they consider the question if their Sun revolves around them or they are at the center of the Universe, and of course, how all this got here, became "here". If we don't screw it up, we may just find out one day likely long after our great grandchildren have died. I'd love to imagine something of me will be around to in some way witness this but I am convinced the odds of that are infinitessimally low. However I am grateful that my life occurred during a time when human understanding can reach out this far and have hopes for the wonders that will be revealed during the next decade. Whew! What a time to be alive!.... but then I imagine any time is better than no time. Immediately after that thought though is the realization that "no time" means I wouldn't even know what I was missing or "I" at all.

Without further ado, here it is

--- Extra Terrestrial Solar System in Time Lapse Motion ---

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I still do not believe that these observations are, by themselves, sufficient to support the conclusion that "evolution is the only mechanism that we need."

Whatever additional mechanisms are proposed, they will likely still be grouped under "evolution". Anyway, I think you might be describing Punctuated Equilibrium:

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]

Human, the cult of life evolution or stop texting on hardware‽

Originally Posted by ntubski Whatever additional mechanisms are proposed, they will likely still be grouped under "evolution". Anyway, I think you might be describing Punctuated Equilibrium:

"Clado-what?" Isn't that the name of a famous Book?

Giving a name to it doesn't establish its mechanism. (And that's the discovery that will win you the Nobel Prize.)

It's easy to see why many people believe that belief in "an Intelligent Creator" is far more plausible than what Science has so far come up with. Nothing readily shows us how, for instance, the first "blue whale" came to exist. What could have birthed the first copy the first male and(!) female blue whale? (Why wasn't the pregnancy aborted by its host?)

Taking, for the sake of discussion, that this is a biological mechanism and not the work of Deity, we have more questions than we can yet answer. By what means does this as-yet undiscovered biological mechanism produce viable offspring, and not just masses of stillborn, unliving, and un-liveable biological goop? Today, we simply don't have any idea, and, I think, "to blame it all on 'evolution'" is just too far of a stretch. We know about "evolution." We can observe that. But there's a great big thing that we haven't discovered yet. "Today," I aver, "we haven't a clue."

When we finally discover it, I don't think we'll call it, "evolution."

How exciting! It's out there! But, what is it? We've sequenced thousands of DNA strands of different living things. The data-sets are on our computers and publicly available. But, where is it? What is it? What sets it off? What makes it tick? What makes it successful? Why isn't it Is it still happening today?

How exciting! It's out there! There's a gold medal waiting in Stockholm, maybe waiting for the King to place it around your neck!

...if one "god" were to exist they all would (it's not rocket science! ) https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post5709837

Drugs r not evolution,,, evolution is drugs*\brainchemistryX &d Habitual and Rok\&\c[B][B][B]*[/B][/B][/B]... "hell" even the rest of y.

25 is the magic age and over to let join or (try) keep from or asking, if only we'd f-ing edu‽ (like we(-) r trying) or f u

Citation: "Fear the Walking Dead - The Good Man" even tho [no][/no] guys our favorite.