Forums

The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)

Elroch
TruthMuse wrote:

Can be modeled in our designed programs?

Sorry but, to be frank, the point is intellectually beyond you (based on all previous dialog). Others understand that some digital systems have emergent behaviour which is closely analogous to emergent behaviour in the natural world and can be enlightening, and you don't just as you don't understand a great deal.

While the latter is true for everyone, you react to it in a foolish way rather than having appropriate respect for what others know. Your inappropriate reaction is surely protective of an inappropriately sensitive ego, and no more justification is needed for you.

TheBestBeer_Root
wrote:

If you think that limbs can't change through evolution then what about snakes.

…..yeah well prayer and understanding has manifested limbs that were for whatever reasons removed.. as well regained teeth, hair, you name it, you gain such understanding to remanifest it is absolutely possible, just as what’s yet even fathomed is possible in a very near future I do firmly believe. happy.png

Elroch

It has no scientific merit. Firstly, if it had much mass, it would have been detected by its gravitational influence. Secondly, it is vanishingly improbable that an object (which avoided this by having small mass) would stay permanently hidden - the Sun is only half a degree wide. It may even be impossible because of the other bodies that interact with the Earth (mainly the Moon and Jupiter). Also such an object would be visible from space.

MarkoHoog

How can a snake pray and it would anyway not change anything if they could

TheBestBeer_Root

lol as if I said they could. I only was bringing up a valid reality to place other’s noggins in thinking mode as to what’s actually possible. (any religious discussions with such further all’s welcome PM’ing me.)

StormCentre3

On the face of it, saying that life created the universe is preposterous as long as the Big Bang and all the accepted steps leading to the creation of earth are true. Yet what if they are just the assumptions of a current scientific model or paradigm? By definition, a paradigm shift calls into question the rock-solid assumptions on which the previous paradigm rests.
Biocentrism aims to topple any version of reality based on physicalism, the doctrine in science that roots reality in physical objects from quarks to galaxies and on to multiple universes. Physicalism created the modern world of science and technology. But having reached the horizon where time, space, matter and energy come into existence, physicalism reached a dead end. This was (and still is) the last thing anyone expected. In place of a crowning, all-embracing Theory of Everything, investigators found themselves faced with logic-defying questions.
What came before time? What lies outside space? How did matter acquire a mind, or is it the other way around? - copied 

Elroch
StormCentre3 wrote:

On the face of it, saying that life created the universe is preposterous as long as the Big Bang and all the accepted steps leading to the creation of earth are true. Yet what if they are just the assumptions of a current scientific model or paradigm? 

I can help you out there. They are not.

StormCentre3

A force - called “Life” was 1st. It is responsible for   the Origins of the Universe. 
Intelligent ? Not necessarily so.

Designed? Yes … but with a purpose other than procreation? Not necessarily so.

This Life force brought into existence the material world - which lives and dies much the same as all Life itself. The cycles are the same. Birth , growth, death , new beginnings.