Six questions for Theists who endorse ET . . .

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Six questions for Theists who endorse ET:

1) why should I think it reasonable that Evolution occurred over billions of years when Evolution is dependent on mutations and the great majority of mutations are either maladaptive or neutral.

2) why should I think Evolution, especially macro-evolution, is reasonable when there appears to be irreducibly complex systems in many/most organisms.

3) why should I be confident in Evolution when there are huge gaps in the fossil record.

4) why should I have confidence in Evolution when evidence such as soft tissue in T. Rex bones is dismissed.

5) why should I have confidence in scientific constructs surrounding Evolution, archeology, geology, etc., when they are based on the fundamental assumption of "Uniformity."

6) why should I accept that life started spontaneously billions of years ago when scientist cannot demonstrate that the required organic molecules could be assembled in a primordial earth. "Life comes from life."

PS Absolutely NO flaming, rudeness or need for documentation. If it is presented, documentation, I may or may not look at it. Sparko will enforce the other conditions for posting with his bloody Pirate sword.

Please keep it simple. I have a wide background in science . . . but not deep.

1) It doesn't matter if most are bad, Some beneficial Mutations Exist, And therefore natural selection can act.

2) IC is an Argument from Ignorance: I don't know the answer to "How did IC Systems Evolve" Therefore I DO Know the answer to "How did IC Systems Evolve" and it is "Goddidit"

3) There aren't, this is a popular misconception, The fossil record isn't complete in that we've found every fossil species we ever will and We're done with paleontology, But it's Reasonably Complete. You're question is a little vague, What Fossils are you looking for? Whale Transitions like Dorudon? Apes like homo erectus? Birds Like Micro-raptor?

4) That sample was contaminated, And it's been demonstrated how that (At least could have) Happened

5) Everything you've ever done has been based off of this assumption, You assume light is behaving uniformly to read this Thread.

6) Actually the CAN AND HAVE. RNA has come together in a Lab, it wasn't put together in a lab, it came together.

My Own Question) What does Evolution have to do with Aliens.

[KingsGambit]

My Own Question) What does Evolution have to do with Aliens.

It just seems to be the popular confusion of evolution with abiogenesis. As far as I can tell, the presupposition is that evolution is a requirement for naturalism (which makes no sense to me, with or without evolution), and if you remove abiogenesis from the equation, you can't have naturalistic evolution. Problem is they're two separate issues, and even if science does figure out how life could have started, it doesn't disprove God anyway.

[shunyadragon]

It just seems to be the popular confusion of evolution with abiogenesis. As far as I can tell, the presupposition is that evolution is a requirement for naturalism (which makes no sense to me, with or without evolution), and if you remove abiogenesis from the equation, you can't have naturalistic evolution. Problem is they're two separate issues, and even if science does figure out how life could have started, it doesn't disprove God anyway.

There never has been any attempt of science to disprove God(s), nor will there ever be, besides being a logical and scientific paradox to even try. Actually in will be very likely that science will be able to demonstrate one or more processes of abiogenesis in the next fifty years or sooner considering the progress science has made so far.

[Xru]

There never has been any attempt of science to disprove God(s), nor will there ever be, besides being a logical and scientific paradox to even try. Actually in will be very likely that science will be able to demonstrate one or more processes of abiogenesis in the next fifty years or sooner considering the progress science has made so far.

Love your optimism. Can you give me some reasons for this optimism? Citations. Love to read them!

[Xru]

Okay . . . since reading Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory I'm delighted in Punctuated Equilibrium allowing for very rapid branching speciation.

"Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state 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]" Wiki by Xru the WikiMoney

The relieves me of the anxiety of rapidly appearing new species.

Intuitively, no please don't laugh, I feel that there is still something very bit missing from the current and impressive Synthesis. For example, I found this book on amazon.com, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century and purchases it even though my wonderful but wrathful (after all she is a Barbarian Highlander too) is to a tap dance on my head (I've already exceeded my book allowance for the month:(((().

In short this book asserts that genes are not read only information carriers but are read-write, a view that I find rarely expressed.

Will other please give me some references to exceptionally innovative takes on Evolution and what it's gonna take to mold this "old" note sarcasm theory into something to be excited about?

[shunyadragon]

Love your optimism. Can you give me some reasons for this optimism? Citations. Love to read them!

There are several things you need to some work on your own over time, and come to Tweb with more advanced questions and problems of fossils, abiogenesis and evolution.

The question of what is described as 'soft tissue fossils,' is new, intriguing, with unknowns and exciting, but not totally a mystery. The 'soft tissue' and other 'soft tissue like' fossils are still in reality fossils. They contain no DNA, and they are altered from the original by fossilization processes.The first key is they are sealed from any outside sources of oxygen, and various processes of mineral replacement are slow allowing for the preservation of original structures.

I will cite some sources on the advancement of abiogenesis research, but you should do some research on your own to update your knowledge to current advances in not only abiogenesis. Others have directed you to recent sources also. It is time for you to do your homework. You use expressions like 'I am relieved to know . . .' when things are referenced and explained. Most of this is not new knowledge, you need to read more so this information is not a surprise to you.

Jorge put up another 'Groundhog Day' thread on soft tissue fossils as if it was something new, controversial, and a problem for science. It is no longer new news. and getting super ridiculous.

[ZackMartin]

Six questions for Theists who endorse ET:

1) why should I think it reasonable that Evolution occurred over billions of years when Evolution is dependent on mutations and the great majority of mutations are either maladaptive or neutral.

2) why should I think Evolution, especially macro-evolution, is reasonable when there appears to be irreducibly complex systems in many/most organisms.

3) why should I be confident in Evolution when there are huge gaps in the fossil record.

4) why should I have confidence in Evolution when evidence such as soft tissue in T. Rex bones is dismissed.

5) why should I have confidence in scientific constructs surrounding Evolution, archeology, geology, etc., when they are based on the fundamental assumption of "Uniformity."

6) why should I accept that life started spontaneously billions of years ago when scientist cannot demonstrate that the required organic molecules could be assembled in a primordial earth. "Life comes from life."

PS Absolutely NO flaming, rudeness or need for documentation. If it is presented, documentation, I may or may not look at it. Sparko will enforce the other conditions for posting with his bloody Pirate sword.

Please keep it simple. I have a wide background in science . . . but not deep.

As a theist, but not an adherent of what you would call "orthodox Christianity", I don't see any major problems with evolutionary theory. I am inclined to see it as a useful myth rather than literally true, although I don't rule out completely the possibility it is literally true.

My doubts about the literal truth of evolution, are not based on any problems I see with the science itself, nor with any contradictions with any scriptures; rather, they are because of my philosophical belief in idealism. I believe things only exist when observed by minds; that implies that the universe did not exist until the first mind observed it, and so any theories about the universe (biological or cosmological) prior to the development of the first mind are questionable. I'm not sure when the first mind developed — do non-human animal minds count? I suspect some do, but not all of them; what about intelligent extraterrestrial life? I'd say yes if there is any, but we don't know if there is — but it does imply to me that the universe is probably several billion years younger than scientists think, potentially even much younger than that. But if pretending it is that old helps them in their scientific endeavours, I have no objection. I think it is possible that it had a certain sort of "virtual existence" prior to its actual existence, in which case scientists might profitably study that virtual existence; while the boundary between the virtual and the actual would be primarily a topic of philosophical rather than scientific study.

Bishop Berkeley's theory, that the mind of God observes the whole history of the universe, is possible, but I'm not sure I agree with it — certainly, the mind of God could observe anything he wanted to, but it is a bit presumptuous of us to presume to know for sure what he would choose to observe. Claiming that God doesn't observe all of the universe is not incompatible with omniscience, since as an idealist, I say the parts of the universe unobserved by God simply don't exist, and so God still knows everything that exists — omniscience does imply that God observes everything that any other mind observes. Since to exist is to be observed, choosing what to observe and what not is part of God's creative power of causing existence.

As to your scientific questions, I can't answer them because I am not an expert on the relevant scientific topics. But I don't feel any need to doubt the mainstream consensus on those issues — but I am careful to distinguish between what is actually science, and what are really philosophical interpretations of science. Scientists have undoubted special expertise in their respective fields of science, but they don't necessarily have any special expertise in philosophy, and the fact that certain philosophical opinions are popular among scientists is not very good evidence for their truth (whereas the fact that certain scientific opinions are popular among scientists in the relevant discipline is decent, but not certain, evidence for the truth of those opinions.)

To me, science is ultimately about results — pretend X is true, you get good results. It's not whether you actually believe X or not that counts, its whether you are willing to accept it as an assumption while you've got your science hat on.

Zack

[robertb]

So Zack, are you saying that if, for the sake of argument, the earth is the only planet in the universe that supports minds, a catastrophic asteroid impact that destroyed the earth would, in effect, render the universe immediately non-existent?

Is this what you mean by Idealism?

[ZackMartin]

So Zack, are you saying that if, for the sake of argument, the earth is the only planet in the universe that supports minds, a catastrophic asteroid impact that destroyed the earth would, in effect, render the universe immediately non-existent?

Is this what you mean by Idealism?

Yes. Give or take a few minor quibbles - your example hasn't ruled out the possibility of minds outside the universe observing it, and those minds would be sufficient to continue it in existence past the cessation of internal observation. But if you exclude that from your example, yes. If there were no minds left in the universe, and if no minds outside the universe were observing it either, then the universe would effectively be non-existent.

[robertb]

So, in effect, you are defining existence as a property of mind?

By the way and this is not meant as an insult, but isn't that the way lower animals conceive of existence, or better, out of sight =non existence?

[ZackMartin]

So, in effect, you are defining existence as a property of mind?

I'm not sure I'm defining existence. But let me put it this way: many versions of materialism accept that non-material things exist, but they believe that any non-material things that might exist, their existence is fully reducible to the existence of material things. My version of idealism, is the mirror image of that, but with the direction of the reductionist arrow reversed: I accept that non-mental things exist, but I believe that any non-mental things that might exist, their existence is fully reducible to the existence of mental things.

By the way and this is not meant as an insult, but isn't that the way lower animals conceive of existence, or better, out of sight =non existence?

I'm not sure if that is true. I'm not sure lower animals even distinguish the concepts of existence and observation. But I do: while I believe that observation by some mind is required for something to exist, it doesn't have to be my mind; many things exist, unobserved by me, because minds other than my own observe them. Whereas it's not clear if lower animals have this concept that other minds can observe things that their own doesn't.

[robertb]

A very odd view.

Though it still seems to me that you have defined existence to be a property of mind.

[ZackMartin]

A very odd view.

In its broad outlines, it's not original to me at all, although the particular version I espouse may be. The most famous adherent of this form of idealism is George Berkeley, but he is not alone. I think one of the reasons it seems odd, is that in Western culture, most people are unfamiliar with these ideas. In cultures influenced by Hinduism or Buddhism, these ideas seem less unusual.

Though it still seems to me that you have defined existence to be a property of mind.

To the extent that materialists have defined existence to be a property of matter, to the same extent one could say that I have defined existence to be a property of matter. (I'm not sure either statement is correct; but if the first statement is correct of them, the second analogous statement is correct of me.)

[robertb]

For me, to say that something exists simply means to say that something is.

Energy is.
Concepts are.

Etc.

[ZackMartin]

For me, to say that something exists simply means to say that something is.

Energy is.
Concepts are.

Etc.

A materialist would say, all these things exist, only because they are somehow reducible to or reflected in, matter.

As an idealist I say, all these things exist, only because they are somehow reducible to or reflected in, mind.

So - materialism (everything which exists is reducible to matter), idealism (everything which exists is reducible to mind), dualism (matter and mind are independent existents, and neither is reducible to the other). Which option best describes you? (Or, you can propose a fourth option if you wish - I think these are the three main options, but I can think of others - one example of a fourth option would be the radical Platonism of Max Tegmark - everything that exists is reducible to mathematics.)