Blowing Up Darwin

[Foxfyre]

This has nothing to do with Creationists.

This has to do with being able to put food on the table.


That and the Leftist ideology so prevalent in this society.

Now, if a noted paleontologist can question the Darwin doctrine, why can’t the rest of us? Here’s why: you will be ridiculed as a nut, a ‘Bible-thumper,’ and as ignorant.

But you’d be correct.



But for some, the Darwinist establishment is sacred – and questioning it is virtually a crime.

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Communities — Voices and Insights - Washington Times

So very true.

Darwin was right about one thing. Creatures over time do evolve. Human beings have become more intelligent, much changed in appearance, and have a much modified diet from our ancient caveman ancesters, My Aunt Polly as a PhD historian married to a PhD anthropologist/archealogist and did some major research on the horse that were once all dog size creatures 50 million years ago but evolved into the magnificent creatures we now have.

It is interesting that since the dinosaurs were erased from the Earth than no similar enormous land creatures have developed. The closest thing we have are the largest whales in the sea.

So yes, Darwin can answer some questions of how things got to be the way they are, but there are so many holes left in the paleontological record that to pretend Darwin is the only science a person needs to know about development of life on Earth is simply ludicrous.

 

[Leo123]

LOL Gordon Lightbrain.
ID needs an intelligent DesignER.. IOW god.
You can "Call" it 'Shoe' instead but it's god, and back to supernatural nonsense.

`

The explain it 'Nobrain.' Explain how something came from nothing. I said you don't have to call it God but you totally ignored that in order to insult me. You've been hanging out here cowardly giving my posts a thumbs down, now you finally post something and it's nothing but bullshit. You can't seem to have an honest discussion and are here to be a troll.

I don't agree with Scruffy but at least he is willing to divulge his knowledge on the subject. You apparently are devoid of any knowledge whatsoever.

 

[dudmuck]

Your explanation depends on already made molecules. So, how did those molecules form? Better yet, WHY did they form? What animates this process and why? Beyond all that, why would there be billions of 'tries?' What is that force and where did it come from?

molecules form because some elements are attracted to each other because some are electron donors and others are electron receptors. Consider how you never see some elements in nature in their elemental form. Because they have such an affinity for each other.

Life started in a simple form, as bacteria. Then eventually to the much bigger and more complex cell. Why? its the hunt for energy.

 

[Foxfyre]

molecules form because some elements are attracted to each other because some are electron donors and others are electron receptors. Consider how you never see some elements in nature in their elemental form. Because they have such an affinity for each other.

Life started in a simple form, as bacteria. Then eventually to the much bigger and more complex cell. Why? its the hunt for energy.

Life likely began in much simpler form than bacteria which are relatively complex. But atoms, molecules, bacteria. . .EVERYTHING. . .logically had to come from something. As Maria sang in "Sound of Music": "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. . . ."

And what that something is no scientific theory even begins to try to address it.

 

[Leo123]

molecules form because some elements are attracted to each other because some are electron donors and others are electron receptors. Consider how you never see some elements in nature in their elemental form. Because they have such an affinity for each other.

Life started in a simple form, as bacteria. Then eventually to the much bigger and more complex cell. Why? its the hunt for energy.

Why are some elements attracted to each other? Why should they be? Why do electrons act the way they do? How did bacteria start? What animates them? Is it just attraction? Why would they develop to be more complicated? Try some critical thinking.

Here is a prokaryotic cell. Tell us why it has a tail and why its cilia, tails, etc. move and how it knows where to go.

 

[Leo123]

Life likely began in much simpler form than bacteria which are relatively complex. But atoms, molecules, bacteria. . .EVERYTHING. . .logically had to come from something. As Maria sang in "Sound of Music": "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. . . ."

And what that something is no scientific theory even begins to try to address it.

Yes but here on the Forum we have self described experts that claim to know.

 

[scruffy]

Your explanation depends on already made molecules. So, how did those molecules form? Where did they come from? Better yet, WHY did they form? What animates this process and why? Beyond all that, why would there be billions of 'tries?' What is that force and where did it come from?

A polymerase is an an enzyme.that synthesizes chains of polymers. You need to first explain why this enzyme does what it does and where it came from.

I accept your knowledge of evolution of existing life forms however, so far, you have not put forth a good explanation of the origin of all these molecules that have directed actions that help create a living cell. Who or what created the template or program? No one yet knows. There seems to be some force orchestrating elements to form these basic components. You can say it took billions and billions of years of trial and error but, why would those elements even try? There MUST be an animating factor.

Sigh.

I'm being very patient with you, and you're being thick.

I already explained all that. Gave you chapter and verse. (And examples).

The thing you''re looking for is called an ATTRACTOR.

It's mathematical. It comes from the system dynamics. The system will go wherever the attractor says it should.

Do you seriously not understand dynamics? I said "study catastrophe theory", but if you don't understand college level dynamics then maybe you need to go all the way back to vector calculus. A prerequisite for example, would be the LaPlace equation, div(grad(f)) = 0. It describes conservative systems - like heat flow, masses on springs, and electric charge fields. You need to understand what the phase plane is, and how to draw one given an equation. Then you will understand what a trajectory is, and what an attractor is, and you'll be ready to study catastrophe theory.

In chemistry specifically, the basic dynamic is called a "reaction-diffusion equation". You need to understand that, for sure. This is what an attractor looks like, for a reaction-diffusion equation:

You'll notice the axes, labeled x, y, and z. Those are chemical concentrations. In the biological case they would be the sizes of populations.

In this system there are three coupled equations, you can think of them like foxes, chickens, and corn. The coupled equations look like this:

foxes = f(chickens, foxes)
chickens = f(chickens, foxes, corn)
corn = f(chickens, corn)

where f means "function of". These are the dynamics of the "game of life" example in an earlier post. If you're in biology, x = number of foxes, y = number of chickens, and z = number of corn plants. If you're in chemistry, x = concentration of amino acids, y = concentration of nucleic acids, and z = concentration of metal ions. Or whatever the relevant concentrations are for the reaction you want to study.

I can't give you an education in math, that's something you have to do yourself. You can do it on YouTube if you wish. For college level dynamics I recommend a series by Steven Brunton from the University of Washington. Google "Steven Brunton vector calculus", then click on "from the series". He'll take you through basic dynamics and control systems theory. He'll show you what a phase plane is, and what an attractor is. He talks more about physics than chemistry, but the principles are the same. He shows you a beautiful and very simple attractor for heat flow, which is a linear system. Biological systems are nonlinear, they're more complicated and the attractors are more intricate. That's where catastrophe theory comes in, it will help you understand nonlinear attractors. There's only 7 of them in three dimensions. The cusp and the saddle are the most important ones.

 

[dudmuck]

Why are some elements attracted to each other? Why should they be? Why do electrons act the way they do? How did bacteria start? What animates them? Is it just attraction? Why would they develop to be more complicated? Try some critical thinking.

Here is a prokaryotic cell. Tell us why it has a tail and why its cilia, tails, etc. move and how it knows where to go.

View attachment 1052255

too many questions.

Elements attract and react because their atoms are trying to achieve a more stable state by rearranging their outermost electrons (valence electrons)

that prokaryotic cell has a tail to swim in order to get to the things it needs to live.

 

[Picaro]

Adaptation and evolution are not the same process. Adaptation is using what is already present in the organism itself as a response to changing environments, while 'evolution' requires mutations, a lot of beneficial ones in sequence; beneficial mutations are extremely rare in nature, much less a series of them.

 

[scruffy]

Life likely began in much simpler form than bacteria which are relatively complex. But atoms, molecules, bacteria. . .EVERYTHING. . .logically had to come from something. As Maria sang in "Sound of Music": "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. . . ."

And what that something is no scientific theory even begins to try to address it.

Sigh.

There is no such thing as "nothing".

Nothing is a pipe dream, a figment of your imagination.

In the vacuum of empty space, there is NOT "nothing".

The stuff that's in there, is what life is all about.

Empty space is teeming with energy. You can see some of it, in the form of "quantum fluctuations". How much of it you see depends on how fast you're moving and whether you're accelerating. It has a temperature, it's measurable.

Life is a direct consequence of that universal energy.

No, we don't understand it. But it's there, and we can measure it.

The people who said life came from "nothing" are WRONG. The people who said the universe came from "nothing" are WRONG. "Nothing" doesn't exist. There's no such thing as "nothing".

In "empty" space, there is energy. Particles are constantly being created. And destroyed. Sometimes when they're created, we get stable configurations. Those configurations go by names like "matter", "photons", "quarks", "electrons", and so on. These are STABLE configurations of the universal energy. Most configurations are "not" stable, they pop into existence and they pop back out again.

Life is exactly the same way. It depends on the stable configurations of energy. It is "meta" complexity, it builds complex systems from simpler ones. Life is CONSTANTLY being created. It is a basic property of the universe. It is being created NOW, as we speak. Constantly. Every minute, every microsecond.

 

[scruffy]

Yes but here on the Forum we have self described experts that claim to know.

No one is an expert. There are only people who are willing to learn, and people who aren't. People who are willing to discover, and people who refuse to.

Your goal is to learn "more" than I know. I've been studying this stuff for 50 years, but it won't take you that long. I had to start from scratch, you don't have to.

All you have to do is jettison your preconceptions. Much of what you think you know, is simply wrong. And you can prove that, to yourself and to others.

One of the things I've learned, is that life isn't a "thing". It's a continuum, a dynamic. If you want to understand it, you have to understand dynamics. Dynamics isn't a "thing" either, it's a process.

Dynamics is great stuff. For instance - when you study dynamics you learn about Euler's equation. e ^ iπ is one of the strangest formulas ever. e is compound interest, π is a circle, and i is the square root of -1. They're related. Not only are they related, they're the very essence of physics. Nothing would work without this relationship. "Why" is it? No one knows. It's just a universal relationship. Don't ask why, just use it. Use it to create life. Let someone else worry about "why". "Why" is the domain of mathematics, it has something to do with number theory and the structure of numbers. I don't worry about that stuff, I let the brainiac mathematicians worry about it. As a biologist I just have to know "that" it works, not how or why. And since I study and learn, I'm completely confident "that" it works. In 50 years I've never once seen it "not work". But I've seen it work in lots of different ways. It's in Schrodinger's equation. It's in dynamics. It's in the mapping of the retina to the brain. It's in electronics, in biology, in chemistry, it's everywhere. This is what science is about -confidence. You build confidence by studying and learning, by repeating experiments yourself and by letting other people repeat them. In 50 years no one's been able to show me a counterexample where Euler's formula doesn't work. I'll keep an open mind, maybe someday someone can show me one. But I'll be very surprised if it ever happens. At this moment I have a lot of confidence that the relationship works and it's somehow a part of the natural universe.

Life is the same way. Like you, I was once a skeptic - I didn't have much confidence and it showed in my communications. After 50 years in the field though, I gained confidence, and now I can communicate that confidence to others. It doesn't make me an expert. It just makes me a working scientist. I'll be very grateful if someone proves me wrong, because it'll mean they know more than I do, which'll motivate me to learn more.

At this moment, what I want to communicate to you is "go learn dynamics". You can't understand life without it - and once you learn it you'll have a much better understanding of what life really is. It's not a "thing", it's a process. It's a process built on another process. Maybe there's a "thing" underlying it all, who knows. But a PROCESS doesn't require a beginning, and it doesn't require an end. Because it's a relationship, not a "thing". The people who think life requires a beginning are confused - because they think life is a "thing". But it's not, it's a process. It's a dynamic, which is a relationship. It's like Euler's formula, it doesn't require a beginning or an end, it just "is".

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are?

Like what?

Several recognized scientists claim that life began from 'space garbage.'

You probably never heard of Watson and Crick, discovered the structure of DNA....heard of DNA????
Well, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book Life Itself. This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. 52 [emphasis mine] Crick, p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," 53 Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144

The main difference would be that microorganisms should appear here suddenly, without any evidence for prebiotic systems or very primitive organisms... Now, it is perhaps remarkable that these are all features of the early fossil record... 54p. 144

He concludes, "Thus, at the very least one can say that this evidence does not contradict Directed Panspermia but supports it to some extent." 55p.145

The latest update

Since the introduction of Dr. Crick's version of Directed Panspermia, the theory has been modified slightly by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.

At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself." 56 Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene. Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109

Hoyle offers that this conjecture, unlike all previous theories, finally explains the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Continuing the analogy to computer programming, Hoyle states:

We saw there that intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms. When a computer is upgraded there are no intermediate forms. The new units are wheeled in beside the old computer, the electrical connections are made, the electric power is switched on, and the thing is done. 57[emphasis mine]p.111

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do tell.

The old saying is we judge others by ourselves….for that reason I am always surprised to find worms like you who have no compunction about lying.

Case in point, this lie you authored about me:

Did you write this?
"So you don't like doctors or Blacks."

Of course you did .....and I proved you could find no such quote.

Much To Our Chagrin.... post 35



Do you find it necessary to use nose clips to allow you to live with yourself?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How did that seedling come to be?

Some posit the origin of life from "space garbage."

You'd be exhibit one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin was right about one thing. Creatures over time do evolve. Human beings have become more intelligent, much changed in appearance, and have a much modified diet from our ancient caveman ancesters, My Aunt Polly as a PhD historian married to a PhD anthropologist/archealogist and did some major research on the horse that were once all dog size creatures 50 million years ago but evolved into the magnificent creatures we now have.

It is interesting that since the dinosaurs were erased from the Earth than no similar enormous land creatures have developed. The closest thing we have are the largest whales in the sea.

So yes, Darwin can answer some questions of how things got to be the way they are, but there are so many holes left in the paleontological record that to pretend Darwin is the only science a person needs to know about development of life on Earth is simply ludicrous.

Sorry, Foxy, but that is a misunderstanding of evolution.


The term refers to one species changing into another, one with which it is incapable of reproducing.


AI Overview
Learn more

In science, "evolution" refers to the process by which the characteristics of a population of organisms change over generations, primarily driven by natural selection acting on genetic variations within a species, resulting in the development of new traits and potentially new species over time; essentially, "descent with modification.".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Life likely began in much simpler form than bacteria which are relatively complex. But atoms, molecules, bacteria. . .EVERYTHING. . .logically had to come from something. As Maria sang in "Sound of Music": "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. . . ."

And what that something is no scientific theory even begins to try to address it.

There are numerous actual scientists who don't eschew the view that a higher power is at least in part, responsible.



"..according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen....

....the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God.

For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
Page not found | Harper's Magazine



"Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities."
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


His article in Harpers is worth your time.




1. Alan Lightman (born November 28, 1948 in Memphis, Tennessee) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities.
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The accidental universe:
Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

3. In the article, Lightman explains the concept so that even a fraud such as yourself will find it difficult to obfuscate...

"Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the laws of nature, which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

.If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principlesto explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they areis futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isnt true.

Because there is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove. Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sigh.

There is no such thing as "nothing".

Nothing is a pipe dream, a figment of your imagination.

In the vacuum of empty space, there is NOT "nothing".

The stuff that's in there, is what life is all about.

Empty space is teeming with energy. You can see some of it, in the form of "quantum fluctuations". How much of it you see depends on how fast you're moving and whether you're accelerating. It has a temperature, it's measurable.

Life is a direct consequence of that universal energy.

No, we don't understand it. But it's there, and we can measure it.

The people who said life came from "nothing" are WRONG. The people who said the universe came from "nothing" are WRONG. "Nothing" doesn't exist. There's no such thing as "nothing".

In "empty" space, there is energy. Particles are constantly being created. And destroyed. Sometimes when they're created, we get stable configurations. Those configurations go by names like "matter", "photons", "quarks", "electrons", and so on. These are STABLE configurations of the universal energy. Most configurations are "not" stable, they pop into existence and they pop back out again.

Life is exactly the same way. It depends on the stable configurations of energy. It is "meta" complexity, it builds complex systems from simpler ones. Life is CONSTANTLY being created. It is a basic property of the universe. It is being created NOW, as we speak. Constantly. Every minute, every microsecond.

Not according to Liberal scientists.


...... the Leftist astrophysicists will make the absurd claim.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist andcosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?

And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.




Nothing frightens Leftists more than religon.

 

[ReinyDays]

Charles Darwin was a natural philosopher ... and he published books on ... you guess it ... natural philosophy ...

Most of Darwin's personal contributions to ToE have been dismissed ... we don't use "survival of the fittest", at least not how Darwin defined fitness ... and "natural selection" was actually Russell Wallace's contribution ... Gregory Mendel's genetic work and the population dynamic studies done in the late 19th Century all combined to form what we call today the Modern synthesis (20th century) - Wikipedia ...

Darwinism is no better than alchemy or witchcraft ... today's ToE is chemistry ... we describe evolutionary change down to the individual atoms and electrons ...

Oh I'm sorry, I'm using college science again ... when will I learn my lesson eh? ... anything past not kissing your sister when she has the mumps is lost ...

 

[Foxfyre]

There are numerous actual scientists who don't eschew the view that a higher power is at least in part, responsible.



"..according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen....

....the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God.

For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
Page not found | Harper's Magazine



"Alan Paige Lightman (born November 28, 1948) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities."
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


His article in Harpers is worth your time.




1. Alan Lightman (born November 28, 1948 in Memphis, Tennessee) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities.
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The accidental universe:
Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

3. In the article, Lightman explains the concept so that even a fraud such as yourself will find it difficult to obfuscate...

"Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the laws of nature, which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

.If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principlesto explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they areis futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isnt true.

Because there is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove. Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture."

Spinoza and Einstein, neither theists in the traditional sense--neither believed in a God who interacted with people-- also did not rule out the possibility of a higher power as well. They saw patterns and beauty and concepts that seemed to them as improbable if only natural selection was in play. They couldn't intellectually rule out some intelligence involved and guiding it all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, Foxy, but that is a misunderstanding of evolution.


The term refers to one species changing into another, one with which it is incapable of reproducing.


AI Overview
Learn more

In science, "evolution" refers to the process by which the characteristics of a population of organisms change over generations, primarily driven by natural selection acting on genetic variations within a species, resulting in the development of new traits and potentially new species over time; essentially, "descent with modification.".

I don't think that is substantially different than what I argued, but point taken.