Absolutely; assuming there isn't a deeper physics that we don't understand, to explain the apparent randomness. It is one of a half dozen models or so; being that universes are constantly and infinitely bubbling up from the quantum foam of the multiverse. As for the laws of physics, they are only valid withing the domain of our universe. Lisa Randall has written about the possible physics and even considerations on the nature of life, in other universes. I default to her as that is above my pay grade. Yes, I had to reproduce that proof in college. At that time, we didn't yet know the cardinality of the infinity of infinities; ie, which infinity describes the set of all infinities? But I believe someone recently proved that it is aleph naught - א0 - countable infinity Does math intrinsically predict reality? There is an interesting example of this thought that a very good professor or mine made a point to discuss. It would take me a bit to dig up the exact calculation... but it involved all of the known subatomic particles. They could be graphed as one half of a hyperbola - positive values in X and both positive and negative values in Y. Physicists were quite proud of their discovery. It seemed quite profound that they mapped so beautifully as a hyperbola. But the mathematicians objected - that is only HALF of a hyperbola! Where is the other half? Dunno know, replied the physicists, That's all there are. Some number of years later, antimatter was discovered and graphed as the other half of the hyperbola. It is tempting to think that the math was telling us that there was more. It is tempting to think that mathematics ultimately represents much deeper truths inexplicably tied to the nature of existence itself. Is it just a logical model that works, or does math tell us something about the nature of reality itself? It is interesting that in order to describe reality, we use imaginary numbers!
What was your purpose in posting this thread? You've simply made a couple of definitive statements and pre-judged anyone who might question them so you’re clearly not interested in any kind of debate or discussion on the topic. What was the point?
- Descartes Triangles do not exist. But we still had to discover their properties. That has always stuck with me.
Then why haven't we found the transitional evidence? Where say a lizard turns into a bird... or an ox... Or a lump of slime without life, sprouts feet. Things reproduce after their own kind.
Evolution isn't really based on chance, though. Abiogenesis certainly is, but abiogenesis isn't actually a part of evolution. Once life exists, it makes sense that it would evolve.
Evolutionary change happens over a long period of time in most cases, via descent through modification: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real Still, we also know there is a high genetic similarity between many living things, but more genetic homology between related species: https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-genetic-evidence-for-human-evolution/ To answer your specific questions: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html What It Means to Evolve An Origin of Species "One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separated for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try." https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/speciation-183/
oic. That's just a misunderstanding of how evolution works. First, we do have transitional evidence. But, let's face it. We have only a TINY fraction of the remains of all life forms since life began. So, if you are saying we can't lay out the bodies of all the animals between, say, the first mammal and modern man, then of course we do not have that. Certain dinosaurs DID turn into birds, evidence shows - through a long progression of incremental change. Slime would lead to having feet through a long progression of incremental change. I would guess that a foot would be detriment to slime, and thus such development would be cut off as not being competitive. Things do reproduce after their own kind. However, small changes DO occur. DNA gets bombarded, selection processes change, etc. Populations may divide for numerous reasons - food preferences, presence of predators, etc. Once a population divides (say, by one group being on a different side of a mountain range) those two groups will diverge since no interbreeding will take place. After some period of time the two populations will find it impossible to interbreed and differences will continue to increase in number and significance. The same random mutations won't be available to all of both groups. And, the selection criteria the animals face won't be the same.
And that evidence is where? The transnational species. In all the time of archaeological digs, something must have been found. (No time to read the entire wordsalad .. maybe tomorrow, but as a Creation believer, I won't be swayed.)
Again, every species is transitional. We find a few individual fossils spread out over long period of time. That does not mean that they sprang up as individuals. It means that the period between the fossils included other animals that didn't get preserved or that we haven't yet found. The percent of life forms that have been preserved by nature and found by mankind is just too tiny for words. Thus, there is no way to suggest that one fossil is transitional and another fossil is NOT transitional. Why do you believe in "Creation"? Do you think God would be incapable of populating Earth using evolution as one of his tools? Do you think God would be incapable of creating a "big bang" such as what is in evidence today? Christianity sees God as all powerful and timeless. I don't see claims about the nature of God that indicate he couldn't create what we have by producing a "big bang" such that all this would come into existence. And, I think that Christianity is more about WHY he did it (and what that means he expects of us) and not HOW he did it.
So, all species you agree, were created as their species then? I'm confused, and again, I'll never change my creationist stand, and the biblical account of creation.
I mean that members of species divide into separate groups for various reasons and then those subpopulations gradually change in different directions, as changes in one group aren't added to the other group. Over long periods of time they end up looking different. Such divisions can happen at any time. We'll find almost none of the fossils, so having an complete trail from humans back to first life is not going to happen. On the other hand, this evolutionary process makes strong statements about what will be found when we find fossils. It says we will not find a brontosaurus bone in the same time period as a human bone, for example. In the end, EVERY fossil we find has to fit with the predictions made by evolution and in that way it is a test of whether evolution is valid. Of course, we also can watch evolution in a test tube, and animal and plant husbandry have used evolution for thousands of years in order to more effectively grow food. This is done by using human selection rather than natural selection. It's still evolution, but humans do more of the selecting.
The only absurdity is taking something in ISOLATION without any CONTEXT! Chance by itself is nothing more than statistical probabilities. The ENVIRONMENT is NEVER STATIC and because of that the element of chance leads to the probability that something will ADAPT to survive a change in the environment. Only creationists believe that both the universe and life require an imaginary "creator".
Snakes evolved from lizards. https://www.inverse.com/article/40596-snake-evolution-lizard-university-of-helsinki Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Their closest living relatives are alligators.
Something can't come from nothing, and chance is not a creative force. Absolutely everything you do everyday is based upon the above two axioms.
Per the Laws of Physics the universe has ALWAYS EXISTED and WILL always exist. No imaginary "creator" needed!
Which makes your participation in this thread pointless. You’ve admitted you won’t even look at the evidence.
