Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[Si modo]

Yes.

It meets all the requirements of a scientific theory.

 

[bripat9643]

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

For once I agree with you. Creationism is quackery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that: “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . . This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .”

Horseshit. There is no evidence that supports creationism. None. Those that claim there is are almost never scientists, and the ones that are scientists are not biologists. Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution.

As for the rest of your screed, even if every last word of it is true, it doesn't undermine the evidence for evolution. It simply points out that many people find the facts of evolution distressing. The truth is often distressing.

P.S. Conservatives don't help their credibility by spewing this ridiculous anti-evolution, anti-science crap. You come off looking like religious nutburgers.

"Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution."


OMG...another fearful post avowing evolution....but without producing any evidence.

That's OK....you don't have to put in any effort: simply admit the theory, as is your post...is based on faith.



Wow....you guys sure get testy when your beliefs are found faulty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes.

It meets all the requirements of a scientific theory.

1. Actually, it doesn't. Not if the definition of science necessitates evidence, and the ability to be tested, as is required in the scientific method.


Many elevate science to the level of God, which is their right, but is flawed in that there are huge gaps in knowledge that, for the nonbeliever, require leaps of faith: scientists, at times, invest in the same kinds of faith as religious people do.


2. Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion:

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences



3. But most are not so self-aware, and don’t realize the faith status of their own views: secularists think they are objective and unbiased, even in the face of the East Anglia revelations.

“Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives.

Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.”
Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

For once I agree with you. Creationism is quackery.

That's because you really don't understand modern science.

Tomorrow, I'll write an OP about it...I hope you'll read it.

And, you may feel like answering it....

 

[Toro]

I think it is about the right moment to have a global warming debate...

I can assure you the GOP doesn't think it's the right time to have an evolution debate.

 

[Si modo]

Yes.

It meets all the requirements of a scientific theory.

1. Actually, it doesn't. Not if the definition of science necessitates evidence, and the ability to be tested, as is required in the scientific method.


Many elevate science to the level of God, which is their right, but is flawed in that there are huge gaps in knowledge that, for the nonbeliever, require leaps of faith: scientists, at times, invest in the same kinds of faith as religious people do.


2. Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion:

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences



3. But most are not so self-aware, and don’t realize the faith status of their own views: secularists think they are objective and unbiased, even in the face of the East Anglia revelations.

“Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives.

Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.”
Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip

1. Horse hockey, it does. Simple example of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Many more evidence to be had, as well - repeatable, too.

2. So what? Science is based on proof, not belief. Scientists know that. YOU misunderstand what was said.

3. Going on about faith? Science is about proof - more exactly, disproof. You're being silly, or ignorant, or both about what science is.

4. And, the theory of evolution is falsifiable - a must-have to be a scientific theory. You missed that pretty important demarcation between science and pseudo-science, or even myth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes.

It meets all the requirements of a scientific theory.

1. Actually, it doesn't. Not if the definition of science necessitates evidence, and the ability to be tested, as is required in the scientific method.


Many elevate science to the level of God, which is their right, but is flawed in that there are huge gaps in knowledge that, for the nonbeliever, require leaps of faith: scientists, at times, invest in the same kinds of faith as religious people do.


2. Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion:

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences



3. But most are not so self-aware, and don’t realize the faith status of their own views: secularists think they are objective and unbiased, even in the face of the East Anglia revelations.

“Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives.

Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.”
Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip

1. Horse hockey, it does. Simple example of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Many more evidence to be had, as well - repeatable, too.

2. So what? Science is based on proof, not belief. Scientists know that. YOU misunderstand what was said.

3. Going on about faith? Science is about proof - more exactly, disproof. You're being silly, or ignorant, or both about what science is.

4. And, the theory of evolution is falsifiable - a must-have to be a scientific theory. You missed that pretty important demarcation between science and pseudo-science, or even myth.

It is not at all difficult to find leaders in a number of areas related to the issue who admit to a very different view than you have.


1. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park



2. Is a physicist out of place here?
Well, then, as you refer to "bacteria developing antibiotic resistance," Zuckerkandl might hold more sway.

"Émile Zuckerkandl (born July 4, 1922) is an Austrian-American biologist considered one of the initiators of molecular evolution. He is best known for introducing, with Linus Pauling, the concept of the "molecular clock", which enabled the neutral theory of molecular evolution."
Emile Zuckerkandl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!

You can read it here: J Mol Evol 1997 Apr;44(4):470.

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Seems there are noted scientists "Going on about faith."

Are you saying that they are 'silly or ignorant'?
Or, simply, that you are far wiser than they?

 

[Si modo]

1. Actually, it doesn't. Not if the definition of science necessitates evidence, and the ability to be tested, as is required in the scientific method.


Many elevate science to the level of God, which is their right, but is flawed in that there are huge gaps in knowledge that, for the nonbeliever, require leaps of faith: scientists, at times, invest in the same kinds of faith as religious people do.


2. Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion:

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences



3. But most are not so self-aware, and don’t realize the faith status of their own views: secularists think they are objective and unbiased, even in the face of the East Anglia revelations.

“Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives.

Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.”
Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip

1. Horse hockey, it does. Simple example of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Many more evidence to be had, as well - repeatable, too.

2. So what? Science is based on proof, not belief. Scientists know that. YOU misunderstand what was said.

3. Going on about faith? Science is about proof - more exactly, disproof. You're being silly, or ignorant, or both about what science is.

4. And, the theory of evolution is falsifiable - a must-have to be a scientific theory. You missed that pretty important demarcation between science and pseudo-science, or even myth.

It is not at all difficult to find leaders in a number of areas related to the issue who admit to a very different view than you have.


1. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park



2. Is a physicist out of place here?
Well, then, as you refer to "bacteria developing antibiotic resistance," Zuckerkandl might hold more sway.

"Émile Zuckerkandl (born July 4, 1922) is an Austrian-American biologist considered one of the initiators of molecular evolution. He is best known for introducing, with Linus Pauling, the concept of the "molecular clock", which enabled the neutral theory of molecular evolution."
Emile Zuckerkandl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!

You can read it here: J Mol Evol 1997 Apr;44(4):470.

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Seems there are noted scientists "Going on about faith."

Are you saying that they are 'silly or ignorant'?
Or, simply, that you are far wiser than they?

Now you're talking about molecules?

OK. I can do that.

1. FYI, in the simplest terms to lay persons, the Schroedinger equation is unsolvable for any molecular system other than the hydrogen atom. There are two Schrodinger equations as well....time dependent and not. Relativity factors in. To solve the Schrodinger for molecules with more than just a hydrogen atom, requires a basis set....chosen based on the molecule and the specific information one wishes to glean from the "solution". Solutions are obtained through ab initio calculations requiring pretty powerful computers. And, fundamentally, the solution to the Schrodinger provides us with the "wave function" of the molecule which describes and defines the molecular orbitals. And, those orbitals are extremely consistent with the actual chemistry done in the lab.

Which, really has little to do with the theory of evolution.

2. In case you didn't know, molecular evolution as it relates to nucleic acids is quite closely tied to the theory of evolution - driven by mutations.





Of course there are noted scientists going on about faith. Plenty of scientists are religious and/or spiritual. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Most scientists are able to do science and still pray, if they are spiritual.

Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists, or that they lack any faith in some higher power? More silliness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Horse hockey, it does. Simple example of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Many more evidence to be had, as well - repeatable, too.

2. So what? Science is based on proof, not belief. Scientists know that. YOU misunderstand what was said.

3. Going on about faith? Science is about proof - more exactly, disproof. You're being silly, or ignorant, or both about what science is.

4. And, the theory of evolution is falsifiable - a must-have to be a scientific theory. You missed that pretty important demarcation between science and pseudo-science, or even myth.

It is not at all difficult to find leaders in a number of areas related to the issue who admit to a very different view than you have.


1. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park



2. Is a physicist out of place here?
Well, then, as you refer to "bacteria developing antibiotic resistance," Zuckerkandl might hold more sway.

"Émile Zuckerkandl (born July 4, 1922) is an Austrian-American biologist considered one of the initiators of molecular evolution. He is best known for introducing, with Linus Pauling, the concept of the "molecular clock", which enabled the neutral theory of molecular evolution."
Emile Zuckerkandl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!

You can read it here: J Mol Evol 1997 Apr;44(4):470.

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Seems there are noted scientists "Going on about faith."

Are you saying that they are 'silly or ignorant'?
Or, simply, that you are far wiser than they?

Now you're talking about molecules?

OK. I can do that.

1. FYI, in the simplest terms to lay persons, the Schroedinger equation is unsolvable for any molecular system other than the hydrogen atom. There are two Schrodinger equations as well....time dependent and not. Relativity factors in. To solve the Schrodinger for molecules with more than just a hydrogen atom, requires a basis set....chosen based on the molecule and the specific information one wishes to glean from the "solution". Solutions are obtained through ab initio calculations requiring pretty powerful computers. And, fundamentally, the solution to the Schrodinger provides us with the "wave function" of the molecule which describes and defines the molecular orbitals. And, those orbitals are extremely consistent with the actual chemistry done in the lab.

Which, really has little to do with the theory of evolution.

2. In case you didn't know, molecular evolution as it relates to nucleic acids is quite closely ties to the theory of evolution - driven my mutations.





Of course there are noted scientists going on about faith. Plenty of scientists are religious and/or spiritual. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Most scientists are able to do science and still pray, if they are spiritual.

Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness.

"Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness."

Of course I never said that.


"Plenty of scientists are religious."
Glad we agree.

 

[Si modo]

It is not at all difficult to find leaders in a number of areas related to the issue who admit to a very different view than you have.


1. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park



2. Is a physicist out of place here?
Well, then, as you refer to "bacteria developing antibiotic resistance," Zuckerkandl might hold more sway.

"Émile Zuckerkandl (born July 4, 1922) is an Austrian-American biologist considered one of the initiators of molecular evolution. He is best known for introducing, with Linus Pauling, the concept of the "molecular clock", which enabled the neutral theory of molecular evolution."
Emile Zuckerkandl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!

You can read it here: J Mol Evol 1997 Apr;44(4):470.

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Seems there are noted scientists "Going on about faith."

Are you saying that they are 'silly or ignorant'?
Or, simply, that you are far wiser than they?

Now you're talking about molecules?

OK. I can do that.

1. FYI, in the simplest terms to lay persons, the Schroedinger equation is unsolvable for any molecular system other than the hydrogen atom. There are two Schrodinger equations as well....time dependent and not. Relativity factors in. To solve the Schrodinger for molecules with more than just a hydrogen atom, requires a basis set....chosen based on the molecule and the specific information one wishes to glean from the "solution". Solutions are obtained through ab initio calculations requiring pretty powerful computers. And, fundamentally, the solution to the Schrodinger provides us with the "wave function" of the molecule which describes and defines the molecular orbitals. And, those orbitals are extremely consistent with the actual chemistry done in the lab.

Which, really has little to do with the theory of evolution.

2. In case you didn't know, molecular evolution as it relates to nucleic acids is quite closely ties to the theory of evolution - driven my mutations.





Of course there are noted scientists going on about faith. Plenty of scientists are religious and/or spiritual. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Most scientists are able to do science and still pray, if they are spiritual.

Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness.

"Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness."

Of course I never said that.


"Plenty of scientists are religious."
Glad we agree.

OK. So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.

 

[del]

1. Horse hockey, it does. Simple example of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Many more evidence to be had, as well - repeatable, too.

2. So what? Science is based on proof, not belief. Scientists know that. YOU misunderstand what was said.

3. Going on about faith? Science is about proof - more exactly, disproof. You're being silly, or ignorant, or both about what science is.

4. And, the theory of evolution is falsifiable - a must-have to be a scientific theory. You missed that pretty important demarcation between science and pseudo-science, or even myth.

It is not at all difficult to find leaders in a number of areas related to the issue who admit to a very different view than you have.


1. "Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality," Richard Feynman remarked in his lectures on turbulence. The remark has been widely quoted. lt is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted: "We cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all hold strong opinions either way."

Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record | Genesis Park



2. Is a physicist out of place here?
Well, then, as you refer to "bacteria developing antibiotic resistance," Zuckerkandl might hold more sway.

"Émile Zuckerkandl (born July 4, 1922) is an Austrian-American biologist considered one of the initiators of molecular evolution. He is best known for introducing, with Linus Pauling, the concept of the "molecular clock", which enabled the neutral theory of molecular evolution."
Emile Zuckerkandl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!

You can read it here: J Mol Evol 1997 Apr;44(4):470.

a. What then to make of the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ crowd? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Seems there are noted scientists "Going on about faith."

Are you saying that they are 'silly or ignorant'?
Or, simply, that you are far wiser than they?

Now you're talking about molecules?

OK. I can do that.

1. FYI, in the simplest terms to lay persons, the Schroedinger equation is unsolvable for any molecular system other than the hydrogen atom. There are two Schrodinger equations as well....time dependent and not. Relativity factors in. To solve the Schrodinger for molecules with more than just a hydrogen atom, requires a basis set....chosen based on the molecule and the specific information one wishes to glean from the "solution". Solutions are obtained through ab initio calculations requiring pretty powerful computers. And, fundamentally, the solution to the Schrodinger provides us with the "wave function" of the molecule which describes and defines the molecular orbitals. And, those orbitals are extremely consistent with the actual chemistry done in the lab.

Which, really has little to do with the theory of evolution.

2. In case you didn't know, molecular evolution as it relates to nucleic acids is quite closely tied to the theory of evolution - driven by mutations.





Of course there are noted scientists going on about faith. Plenty of scientists are religious and/or spiritual. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Most scientists are able to do science and still pray, if they are spiritual.

Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists, or that they lack any faith in some higher power? More silliness.

i don't understand why this is so difficult for some of these pinheads to understand.

feynmann would choke laughing at the op

 

[del]

Now you're talking about molecules?

OK. I can do that.

1. FYI, in the simplest terms to lay persons, the Schroedinger equation is unsolvable for any molecular system other than the hydrogen atom. There are two Schrodinger equations as well....time dependent and not. Relativity factors in. To solve the Schrodinger for molecules with more than just a hydrogen atom, requires a basis set....chosen based on the molecule and the specific information one wishes to glean from the "solution". Solutions are obtained through ab initio calculations requiring pretty powerful computers. And, fundamentally, the solution to the Schrodinger provides us with the "wave function" of the molecule which describes and defines the molecular orbitals. And, those orbitals are extremely consistent with the actual chemistry done in the lab.

Which, really has little to do with the theory of evolution.

2. In case you didn't know, molecular evolution as it relates to nucleic acids is quite closely ties to the theory of evolution - driven my mutations.





Of course there are noted scientists going on about faith. Plenty of scientists are religious and/or spiritual. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Most scientists are able to do science and still pray, if they are spiritual.

Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness.

"Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness."

Of course I never said that.


"Plenty of scientists are religious."
Glad we agree.

OK. So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.

chunky's next point will, of course, be her first.

 

[percysunshine]

I think it is about the right moment to have a global warming debate...

I can assure you the GOP doesn't think it's the right time to have an evolution debate.

Well, no one is using a debate on evolution to shut down the energy industry either...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now you're talking about molecules?

OK. I can do that.

1. FYI, in the simplest terms to lay persons, the Schroedinger equation is unsolvable for any molecular system other than the hydrogen atom. There are two Schrodinger equations as well....time dependent and not. Relativity factors in. To solve the Schrodinger for molecules with more than just a hydrogen atom, requires a basis set....chosen based on the molecule and the specific information one wishes to glean from the "solution". Solutions are obtained through ab initio calculations requiring pretty powerful computers. And, fundamentally, the solution to the Schrodinger provides us with the "wave function" of the molecule which describes and defines the molecular orbitals. And, those orbitals are extremely consistent with the actual chemistry done in the lab.

Which, really has little to do with the theory of evolution.

2. In case you didn't know, molecular evolution as it relates to nucleic acids is quite closely ties to the theory of evolution - driven my mutations.





Of course there are noted scientists going on about faith. Plenty of scientists are religious and/or spiritual. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. Most scientists are able to do science and still pray, if they are spiritual.

Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness.

"Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness."

Of course I never said that.


"Plenty of scientists are religious."
Glad we agree.

OK. So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

 

[Si modo]

"Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness."

Of course I never said that.


"Plenty of scientists are religious."
Glad we agree.

OK. So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly. If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.

 

[Si modo]

As a post script, the Church is cool with the theory of evolution, too.

Pope Benedict has written quite extensively about it when he was a Cardinal.

Ben:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.​

And:

In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation.​

And, the new catechism teaches:

159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....​

Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[newpolitics]

In response to the question posed..... yes.

I won't bother to explain why. If you haven't figured it out by now you aren't going to.

Can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen, essentially, the very same post!

It always means one of the following:

1. The poster never got beyond junior high school level in science….but doesn’t want anyone to know that.
2. The poster has a palpable fear that other members of his herd might believe he isn’t toeing the party line.
3. The poster couldn’t comprehend the carefully crafted critiques in the OP and my later post.

So that I may address you correctly….which of the above apply?

You are not interest in actually being answered correctly, because you are not here to learn. You are here to argue, so, there is no point in giving into your pointless charade which everyone can see through. If you were really interested in learning about evolution, you would research it instead of ask people on a political debate forum.

 

[newpolitics]

OK. So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly. If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.

its a fantasy reality unsupported by any evidence. Funny that these charlatans have the audacity to challenge an empirically-baced discipline like evolution because they can't make it fit into their bible. Awww Poor fundamentalists.

 

[percysunshine]

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly. If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.

Yup, its a fucking fantasy reality supported by ZERO evidence. Funny that arrogant charlatans have the audacity to challenge an empirically-baced discipline like evolution because they can't make it fit into their bible. Awww Poor fundamentalists.

I knew we would get around to global warming again.