I think the real interesting question is how/why life began, once you get to the level of multicellular creatures it's not surprising that small random changes accumulated into new species, but how those creatures actually arose from 'chemical soup' is way beyond us right now.......
Naaa, nothing can't not come from nothing and it can't never've stopped coming. And what's more, everything comes out of nothing at the same time as coming out of everthing. It's crazy!
Norbu
Naaa, nothing can't not come from nothing
Is it possible that there's one too many negatives in that statement, Norbu?
I think there are 2 basic issues with evolution:
- people in general have difficulty in understanding large numbers, and the times involved are very large numbers.
- there is general confusion between Darwinism and evolution. Although Datwin was the father of what we call evolution, there has been a lot of research.
Do we need to worry about missing links? I don't think so, the fossels we have are just needles in a haystack. There's far more we don't know, than we do know, the key is sample size. The sample size of finds we have thus far is small and really only allows generalisations.
If you really want to know about evolution and understand its capabilites, look at the life cycle of the virus. They are the evolutionary masters.
Myarka.
Is it possible that there's one too many negatives in that statement, Norbu?
Nope!
What I mean is this: There are two principles out of which everything emerges.
The first is that some things come out of nothing and the second is that things come of of causes and conditions.
We can see see cause and effect operating all around us but some things just can't be explained by preceding causes and conditions. What is the first cause? What is the cause for consciousness?
It seems that almost infinite iterations of simple processes result in unimaginable complexity. There is just no way you could predict the emergence of the heart beat from it's building blocks yet alone predict consciousness looking at sequences of base pairs on a string of DNA. Reductionism just doesn't add up.
Existence is a mix of determinstic events and indeterministic events. The fact is there is no other way for things to be or to have come into existence. They have to come from nothing and they have to come from something both at the same time. Possibility is limitless yet cause and effect operate in a consistent manner most of the time. Uncertainty is built into the fabric of the universe. If it weren't there wouldn't be anything in the first place.
I hope I'm making a bit more sense now. Although I somehow doubt it!
Norbu
Simply repeating over and over, doesn't make it so. 🙂 It could be argued that some species have altered in a way that doesn't increase, but decreases, their chances of survival. So I think Victorian Darwinism is too primitive. After all, I've read that even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, believed in God, didn't know in the end of his life if all species had evolved, and, regarding humanity, was sometimes more of a Creationist.
Other doubts about the fossil record - the book does go into fossils too - are in the huge book, "Forbidden Archeology", which makes the point that literally hundreds of times completely anomalous archeological and fossil finds had been put under wraps and hushed up - because they don't go along with prevailing theories.
Theories in science are paradigms; people get brainwashed to over-believe in the current paradigms; data is hidden or ignored if it contradicts, and careers can be lost in academia if the prevailing wisdom is questioned: therefore it's "required" not to think outside the box.
V
I have never repeated anything over and over! I was emphasizing the fact that there no gaps in the fossil records.
So I think Victorian Darwinism is too primitive. After all, I've read that even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, believed in God, didn't know in the end of his life if all species had evolved, and, regarding humanity, was sometimes more of a Creationist.
Can you cite this?
Other doubts about the fossil record - the book does go into fossils too - are in the huge book, "Forbidden Archeology",
That wouldn't be Michael A. Cremo would it?
The guy who says modern humans have lived on the earth for thousands of millions of years? The consensus among learned academics is: he's a nutter.
If someone has a counter to Darwin's theory of evolution, then they should publish it a peer reviewed journal. Not a thousand page unreadable yarn. If there ever was a book fit for burning then this is a prime candidate.
which makes the point that literally hundreds of times completely anomalous archeological and fossil finds had been put under wraps and hushed up - because they don't go along with prevailing theories.
Can you cite that?
Theories in science are paradigms;
You keep using the word paradigms. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
"people get brainwashed to over-believe in the current paradigms; data is hidden or ignored if it contradicts, and careers can be lost in academia if the prevailing wisdom is questioned: therefore it's "required" not to think outside the box.
over-believe
What?
venetian :
The world is a smaller place now, facts can easily found via the internet. You are just a few keystrokes away. Look, listen and learn. The fact that we have evolved is not written in stone, nor is it written on water. It's printed on paper. The facts are available for all to see. In public libraries.