mattsk

Whilst understanding the inspiration behind an idea can help in understanding that idea, the source of an idea should have no bearing on whether it is correct or not. If you can, as your OP states, disprove evolution - then you should be able to do so regardless of where darwin got his ideas from.

I await your argument still, however I strongly suspect (based on your posts so far) that you're going to try to disprove evolution based on the origin of the ideas, and not based on the merit of the ideas themselves. Please show me wrong on this score.

Inspiration and reason are most certainly not mutually exclusive, and things that are counter intuitive can still be worked out with reason. Actually my experience is that counter intuitive results actually require reason to work out. Furthermore counter intuitive results don't always need revelation-like inspiration either. Sometimes somebody just runs through a process and produces a funny result that, when checked and cross-checked, turns out to be correct.

GolfVixen

I think this is more ~E~ material. So, there it goes from E/C.

Vixy

mattsk

Just to add to this. You should also understand, no1nose, that darwin didn't propose the idea of evolution itself - he proposed an explanation of how it worked. There is a difference. Other people at the time had different ideas to Darwin on how evolution worked, but they all agreed that evolution happened - the question was *how*. Darwin's idea was actually Natural Selection. This may seem like nitpicking, but you should be clear on what you're disproving if you are going to disprove it.

It should also be mentioned (and indeed may already have been by somebody before me - although I don't recall seeing it when I read the thread) that modern evolutionary theory did not stop with Darwin. There have been 150 years of scientific progress since Darwin's time. The result is a theory much more detailed and robust than what Darwin himself would have had. It would probably be good to take this into account - as you may find that your disprove rests upon something that has already been found and rectified within the modern theory.

no1nose

Quantum theory and the Theory of Relativity flow from the mathematical equations that define these theories and connect them to the real world through experimental observations.

The Theory of Evolution does not flow nor is it defined by mathematical equations but relies until observations. (There are many mathematical equations that have been associated with the Theory of Evolution but they do not flow directly from Evolution and are independent of it. Like ships the sail in the ocean they can sail under any flag.)

The fact that the Theory of Evolution is based on observations then raises the issue of how reliable are these “observations”. In 1931 Kurt Godel proved two theorems that showed that showed the limitations of human theories in describing the “real world”:

Godel‘s “Incompleteness” are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.

“The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.” From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's

At the core of the idea of “incompleteness” is the idea that our minds are inherently incapable of representing four dimensional reality with thought forms. What this actually means can be seen by performing the following thought experiment:

Incompleteness Thought Experiment.

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.

The Gestalt psych term for what the mind in the case of incomplete information; is "the closure principle". It means that, when a person is given an incomplete set of data, his mind will fill in the gaps to make a whole picture so that he can interpret it.

“The principle of closure applies when we tend to see complete figures even when part of the information is missing. Our minds react to patterns that are familiar, even though we often receive incomplete information. It is speculated this is a survival instinct, allowing us to complete the form of a predator even with incomplete information.”

This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.

Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.

However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice beauty and function. If changes in the natural world were do to completely random mutations then the world around us would have more the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a independent and valid description of the natural world

The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation that would make its observation impartial of the “closure principle” and in its functioning it lacks a role for an observer.

.

no1nose

Not sure why the thread was moved here

Quantum theory and the Theory of Relativity flow from the mathematical equations that define these theories and connect them to the real world through experimental observations.

The Theory of Evolution does not flow nor is it defined by mathematical equations but relies until observations. (There are many mathematical equations that have been associated with the Theory of Evolution but they do not flow directly from Evolution and are independent of it. Like ships the sail in the ocean they can sail under any flag.)

The fact that the Theory of Evolution is based on observations then raises the issue of how reliable are these “observations”. In 1931 Kurt Godel proved two theorems that showed that showed the limitations of human theories in describing the “real world”:

Godel‘s “Incompleteness” are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.

“The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.” From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's

At the core of the idea of “incompleteness” is the idea that our minds are inherently incapable of representing four dimensional reality with thought forms. What this actually means can be seen by performing the following thought experiment:

Incompleteness Thought Experiment.

Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.

I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.

The Gestalt psych term for what the mind in the case of incomplete information; is "the closure principle". It means that, when a person is given an incomplete set of data, his mind will fill in the gaps to make a whole picture so that he can interpret it.

“The principle of closure applies when we tend to see complete figures even when part of the information is missing. Our minds react to patterns that are familiar, even though we often receive incomplete information. It is speculated this is a survival instinct, allowing us to complete the form of a predator even with incomplete information.”

This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.

Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.

However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice beauty and function. If changes in the natural world were do to completely random mutations then the world around us would have more the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a independent and valid description of the natural world

The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation that would make its observation impartial of the “closure principle” and in its functioning it lacks a role for an observer.

skepticalbip

:huh: Other than a demonstration of your lack of understanding of GR, QM, and ToE, I don't understand the purpose of the post. Do you understand that what science is all about is making observations and then modeling a theory that can explain those observations - Then testing and improving that model, rejecting it if it doesn't work and making a new one... etc. etc.?

What theory do you have that better models the observed genetic drift, imperfect replication, speciation, etc. than the ToE.

If you are positing ID then I have to ask exactly what kind of sadistic bastard of a god you are inventing that would "create" many, many times the number of species now extant only to watch them go extinct over the last few billion years? Or is this god just incompetent so can't seem to get it right?

AdamWho

These theories are based on observation not on math. Math is a useful tool but you get nowhere unless you start with meaningful data and observations. This is also true with evolution.

The rest of the OP is an incomprehensible mess.

J842P

I heard Wallace got his idea while suffering from high fever in some tropical place he was studying.

no1nose

This seems pedantic and you fail to acknowledge Evolution's lack of math foundation which is the point after all. The post has the tail wagging the dog

no1nose

Please support this assertion otherwise its just an personal attack.


This is completely off topic - please address the issues.