Evolution is a linear type idea however we live in a nonlinear and quantum universe. Therefore Evolution can never be the complete truth-- only tangent to it at one point. Evolutionary theory operates completely in a macro linear world whereas life itself occupies a four dimensional nonlinear space with critical functions occurring at the quantum level. Evolution is based on a foundation that in truth does not exist and so it is at best a very poor guide to explaining life. Evolution in the global sense is strictly a linear thought form. Yes, some biology is nonlinear but this does not in any way validate evolution. Evolution is simply unnecessary baggage - it will sometimes be tangent to the truth but it will never predict the future or accurately account for the past.
The human mind is only capable of linear thought on the conscious level. The unconscious mind can and does make quantum leaps and nonlinear thought. Evolution is a systematic conscious thought and therefore linear. And therefore will never be anything more than simply tangent to reality at one or more points. The physical world we live in has 3 dimensions plus time (n-space). The world of the mind is different place. The mind can conceive of two places and two times simultaneously. The conscious thought comes out of these quantum changes. The problem here that our physical being occupies a different space than our minds. Thus we have problem in understanding the true nature of reality. Thought is the outworking working of quantum changes in the brain.
In short life is n-dimensional and Evolution is (n-1) dimensional and will never fully explain its subject.
That’s waffle, you haven’t said anything. Are you saying that our minds or a theory are incapable of understanding/explaining the physical world? There is no real reason to believe this, any arguement used relies on maths; if we understand the maths we can design a theory.
My concern is with Atrabates’s point. Cannot, say, “chaos theory” be a more than three dimensional mathematical model which could be implemented to explain Evolution more fully than the verbal theory states in itself?
I also wonder if you are saying that “myth”, or imagination, is a more accurate depiction of the world than science is when applied to life experience? An example being the study of meaning in the humanities.
Thanks (but wait there’s more) The human mind is only capable of linear thought on the conscious level. Evolution is a human thought therefor it is linear and like all other human ideas that have attempted to explain reality it may be tangent to truth but as time passes a gap will appear and spread.
Hum, do you fully understand quantum mechanics well enough to support how it refutes the theory of evolution.
I am open to this concept, as those in the hard sciences, like math, often oppose evolutionary theory.
However, scientists, to date have not explained how the theory of quantum mechanics operates, and do not appear to understand it, much less explain it.
In contrast, evolutionary theory is easy for most to understand, even me.
Do you mean like the Heisenberg uncertainty theory? My understanding of that is that it comes from the fact that you can’t study something experimentally without altering what you’re studying.
But since scientists don’t seem to think this, I probably don’t know the philosophy of it well enough.
The reason for this isn’t because Evolution is invalid but because evolutionary theories span the gammut of hard sciences to the softer sciences like anthropology. Often evolutionary anthropology is looked down upon by the natural sciences because much of its data isn’t reproducable through experimentation.
Clearly you don’t understand Evolution outside its popular context. I won’t waste any time trying to explain Evolution to you because there are better methods for that. I would suggest buying an audio course by the Teaching Company entitled Biological Anthropology: An Evolutionary Experience/Theories of Human Development. If you listen to that you’ll probably change your mind.
Only when examined in retrospect, and only because our mind makes it ‘linear’
The failure of this point is the failure of your essay, as it all seems to hinge on this.
The point of this thread is that there is something real out there but our minds can’t completely encompass. Giving it a name (evolution) and getting dogmatic is what’s really a waste of time.
am i failing to understand this or is it just ambiguous? with the visualizations linear and tangent, i imagine a sheet of graph paper with a line and a circle. why is it only possible for the line to be tangent to the circle? why cant it go inside the circle? why cant our “linear” ideas coincide completely with the “nonlinear” world? what makes you think that?
is it because our mind assigns a definite cause to everything and in the universe that is not always the case? are you basing the statement that the universe does not always provide a specific cause for every effect on the fact that science is unable to make sense of (unable to assign specific causes to) a lot of things that happen in quantum mechanics?
does that really disprove all of cause and effect? or is it merely a sign that our ability to discern quantum particles by smashing them with other quantum particles is not the best way to get complete information about them?
what do you mean evolution exists in a macro linear world?
what about the strand of dna in a monkeys testicle that was smashed by some solar radiation and jumbled around into a new code that allowed his childrens’ brains to grow larger? that happened in the real world, if we had a camera that wasnt required to bounce photons off of objects to see them, we could have seen it happen.
what is this ‘linearity’ you are talking about and why is the previous paragraph an example of linearity that cant be possible in a non linear world.
ohhh now i get it! the whole world is an illusion and the REAL world is only experienced in our dreams and perhaps when we die. it is a magical land where effects dont have causes and our simple, puny, stupid consciousness cant even properly fathom the infinite dimensions of complexity that make up this meta-land.
so why did you say evolution, specifically, is disproven? shouldnt you have said that every single thing that science thinks is real is disproven? and that the entire existence of the universe is most likely the dream that our meta-body has when it meta-sleeps? and the only thing that is certain is that i think therefore i am? what would be the point of saying that?
i think when we dream, its actually a unicorn farting, but its an eternal fart with no cause or effect. and therefore my ideas of cause and effect make no sense in light of the fact that the unicorn fart of my dreams has no cause or effect.
Natural selection is logical. Whatever genes increase a living thing’s chances of survival in a particular environment are more likely to be passed on to future generations. Why? Because increased chances of survival=increased chances of reproducing. What does predicting the future movements of an atomic particle have to do with it?
Evolution isn’t linear, it’s chaos. Certain genes are passed on or not due to a variety of factors. The strongest,smartest population of any living thing may be wiped out by fire,flood,rockslide,etc…etc…so their genes will not be passed on to future generations. Perhaps their primary food source is dessimated…they starve…no genes moving forward. Nature is random. Did you know that we can only accurately predict weather a few days into the future? That the Biodome project was a monumental failure because of our complete lack of knowledge of all the variables involved in creating a functioning ecosystem?
Evolution is simply the theory that species of living things will evolve according to what genes are passed on for whatever reason.
If we accept that genes exist, and we accept that sometimes they mutate, I don’t see how we can possibly deny some form of natural selection. A goat is born with six legs and no eyes because it’s mom lived near a cell-phone tower. It dies and doesn’t reproduce. Natural Selection!
Evolution, so far as I can tell, just says that this has all been happening for a very long time, minus the cell phone towers. Now, that’s not to say that everything that atheists attribute to unguided evolution is logical- human reason, the current level of bio-diversity, certain organs that may have exhibit ‘irreducible complexity’, all of these things -or none of them- may be examples of cases where evolution needed a Guide in order to produce what it produced. But there’s very little doubt in my mind that Evolution describes the general way life on Earth has proceded.
i have absolutely no idea why your ideas should refute evolution theory, no1nose
i rather think you drag things into places where they absolutely don’t belong and then try to glue them together in a very inconsistent fashion
Of course I can but it would simply be a rehashing of what I have learned from other sources. It’s a rather complex set of theories which must be explored in great detail. This is why I sent you to another source which could do a better job then I. My claim that you don’t understand Evolution is still valid, I state this because you haven’t said which set of theories are disproved by QED or quantum uncertainty. Why not try and find a copy of The Blind Watchmaker Evolution Simulation Software and play around with it. Its both fun and educational!
I’ll chime in on the non-linear understanding of evolution. I think the thread is founded on a misconception of the nature and properties of evolutionary development.
I would also question the notion that the human mind is only capable of linear thought. I’d like to see this proven. I can think of any number of instances where the concept of linear thought could be challenged. Our knowledge of brain function at this point would seem to make such a statement a bit premature.
That’s what I meant by ‘only in retrospect’
If you look from a current species ‘downward’ it can apear linear;this evolved from that, which evolved from that, right on down the line.
But from the ground up it’s more like a really branchy tree.
It isn’t really ‘linear’ whatsoever, but it is ‘fixed’ in regards to past tense.
But what isn’t?
The most important point here is that our minds occupy a different space than our bodies. This means that the ideas that our minds have about the space that our bodies occupy will never be complete.
While I have picked on “evolution†this difficulty applies to all theories.
For example the TOE (Theory of Everything) will never completely explain everything - but the journey will still be exciting and worthwhile… Being unable to fully understand the world around us is pretty much the way it has always been. All we can say for certain is that all world views (including evolution) have a self life and with the wisdom of hindsight one can say that it pays not to be too dogmatic about the fragments of reality that we hold so dearly.