Disillusioned JW.
Regarding issues brought up in your last post:
How well do you understand Evolutionary theory?
Do you think that it is a testable, falsifiable theory?
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Disillusioned JW
I think I understand it good, for someone who is not a scientist. I have read much about it in the various evolution science books which I own. I started studying evolution heavily after I became an atheist and a scientific naturalist. But I sadly don't remember much of what I read. If I remembered just half of every thing I read I would be accomplishing many great things. I have literally hundreds of nonfiction books at home.
Evolution is testable and falsifiable. Various aspects of it have passed many tests.
See my posts about evolution in the following topic threads of mine.
-
hooberus
I think I understand it good, for someone who is not scientist.
Could you please define “Evolution” (in the context of the Creation/Evolution debate?)
-
Disillusioned JW
In my prior post I was referring to biological evolution, but there is also cosmological evolution and chemical evolution (including life arising from non-life). There is also cultural evolution. Which one do you wish me to define and would you accept me simply copying and pasting a definition of such that is in a book or online?
I will very soon be going to bed. Because I work long days and have long commutes, I won't likely be making a further comment on this topic till Friday of this week (I work Monday-Thursday), but possibly I will do so on Monday (tomorrow for my time zone) evening.
I notice you created a number to topics which promote creationism and intelligent design. I thus have no expectations of convincing you of evolution.
-
hooberus
Which one do you wish me to define and would you accept me simply copying and pasting a definition of such that is in a book or online?
“Evolution” is defined in many different ways. Even some biological definitions are compatible with Biblical Creationism. Others are not, but are still too narrow, and don’t reflect the diversity of “Evolutionary theory” even within biology. So it’s necessary to define terms on this issue.
I notice you created a number to topics which promote creationism and intelligent design. I thus have no expectations of convincing you of evolution.
That’s fine, however your last post on the previous page made numerous claims against creation science being science. Should not evolutionary theory pass these tests in order to be considered science?
i understand if it may be a while before you are able to respond due to work.
-
TonusOH
I believe that in science, the working definition is "descent with modification." In other words, as organisms reproduce, the new organisms are not exactly the same as the 'parent' organisms. Each successive generation is changed in very small ways, and the accumulation of those changes leads to gradual change in the population of those organisms. Enough time and enough changes, and you have a different species of organism. Or a different genus. And so on.
The definition covers what some refer to as 'micro-evolution,' which describes minor changes within a species or sufficient changes to produce a new species which is still close enough to the original, though by definition they cannot interbreed. It also covers macro-evolution, though a significant amount of work needs to be done to demonstrate it, which is where the gulf between science and religion exists on the issue.
I think Aron Ra's YouTube channel does a good job of explaining evolutionary concepts and responding to many of the attempts to discredit the theory. For me, the question is moot from an existential point of view, but I do like science and find the work done so far to be fascinating, if a bit science-fictiony to someone lacking in the higher levels of biological education. The scientific method isn't perfect, but over the long haul I think it does the best job of finding answers. If evolution doesn't work as explained, we'll learn in time.
-
Disillusioned JW
hooberus, you still haven't told me which type of evolution you want me to define. A definition for cosmological evolution is not the same as for biological evolution. A definition for evolution which incorporates cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution will be different than one which defines only one of the three. So which type of evolution do you wish me to provide a definition for?
I agree that evolutionary theory should pass the same tests mentioned in the Wikipedia article regarding creationism in order to be considered science. I am convinced that cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution each passes all of those those (but chemical to life evolution hasn't yet been demonstrated as taking place in the lab). I also believe that evolution of the type which incorporates cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution also passes all of the tests needed to demonstrate it is science. That type of evolution I sometimes call evolutionism.
-
hooberus
So which type of evolution do you wish me to provide a definition for?
An overall definition, and a biological definition if you see that as distinct.
-
Disillusioned JW
Finding (or coming up) with short overall definition of evolution ranging from the primeval universe (including its origin if it started as a singularity) through the formation of subatomic particles, the formation of hydrogen and helium atoms, the formation of stars, the formations (by thermonuclear fusion processes of stars) of many of atoms of higher atomic number than helium, the formation of planets, chemical reactions which produce new chemicals (even organic chemicals), the origin of life, and the evolution of life to a great diversity of life, is not an easy task for me. But It involves matter-energy being transformed (evolving) into the various things mentioned above, and into other things also. Since I am a naturalist, I perceive the processes as having no supernatural component, and no intelligent designer originating the entire processes. For the time being I refer you to https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html in which the author uses the term "cosmic evolution" and he includes cultural evolution and technological evolution as parts of cosmic evolution. An excellent book of his on the subject is called Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos. It is on the topic of what some call "Big History".
-
Disillusioned JW
Eric Chaisson (the author of the web page mentioned in my prior post) at https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part.html says the following.
"A Symmetry Argument Physicists are mainly charged with the application of the laws of Nature to the present state of something in order to predict its future. Although, in recent years, a renewed respect for the role of chance has somewhat diminished our ability to predict outcomes in the old, mechanistic, Newtonian sense, we still like to try our hand at predicting general trends, if not the details. In the case of the whole Universe, that “something” is literally all things—nothing in particular, just everything in general. Hence, if we find it hard to mentally reverse time to appreciate the earliest epoch of the Universe, we can instead take advantage of the natural symmetry of a model Universe that will eventually contract, and thereby predict the physical events destined to occur as a closed Universe nears its final phase of total collapse (see Figure 1.16). This procedure is valid only because the mathematics describing contraction are a mirror image of those for expansion. In other words, the events that will occur just prior to the end of a contracting Universe mimic those that already happened just after the start of an expanding Universe. Not that time ever does reverse, as best we know. Rather, we can use some of the symmetry built into the laws of physics to estimate the final events of such a hypothetically closed Universe, thus gaining some inkling of the initial events ~14 billion years ago. FIGURE
Even if the real Universe is not closed in this way and will never collapse to a singularity, astrophysicists employ closed models in order to understand theoretically some of the highlights of the earliest epoch of either a closed or an open evolutionary Universe. It’s an example of how we can use symmetry and scaling arguments—to scale models up, or scale them down, in this case to scale them back in time—in order to recreate mentally places and times we could never actually visit physically."