Evolution; is it considered as a proven fact?

Originally Posted by skygazer

Panspermia theory seems to me the best fit for humanity.

The trouble with panspermia is that it just answers the question "how did life begin" with an answer of where rather than how.
It does agree with evolution that life on Earth evolved from microscopic life forms, but claims them to be of extraterrestrial origin.
If that is the case then how did life begin "off Earth"?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Everly

Evolution is an empirical, provable fact. Whether it explains the origins of human life as we know it is a matter of opinion. All anyone has to do is observe a virus and its evolution is obvious. All anyone has to do is a modicum of research on humans in the last 300 years (or even less) and the comparison between the average human then and now is astonishing. Evolution is adaptation. Virii adapt/evolve to survive. Everything adapts or dies.

Evolution is not a fact, it's a conclusion that we can draw based on facts. We know that offspring inherit that attributes of their parents. That's a fact. Natural selection is a theory that is primarily founded on that fact.. is 'evolution' another word for 'natural selection'?

But there is also the matter of spontaneous mutation. Are spontaneous mutations adaptive responses or a sort physiological screw-up? And is there really a difference?

Spontaneous mutations, like cancer?

It's so easy to see evolution at work. Why is it even necessary to argue it in terms of biblical myth and parable? That said, it can be interesting to read what others have said about the evolution and origins of various lifeforms on this planet. (Ruth Montgomery's ideas are fascinating and while I never bought her whole story, I think there might be nuggets of truth in there.) OTOH, evolution as it stands does explain it all.

Well, in contrast to religious narratives, evolution is a clear winner... I think it was Krauss who said something like, science is not believing what hasn't been proven and believing what has, and religion is not believing what has been proven and believing what hasn't.

[revolver]

I honestly cannot understand how anyone in this day and age, cannot see that evolution is for real, its mind boggling to me.

[Mr Interesting]

Weirdly enough life started because life exists now. Life exists now because it exists in the future and life exists in the future because it existed in the past..

Originally Posted by Everly

Evolution is an empirical, provable fact. Whether it explains the origins of human life as we know it is a matter of opinion. All anyone has to do is observe a virus and its evolution is obvious. All anyone has to do is a modicum of research on humans in the last 300 years (or even less) and the comparison between the average human then and now is astonishing. Evolution is adaptation. Virii adapt/evolve to survive. Everything adapts or dies.

But there is also the matter of spontaneous mutation. Are spontaneous mutations adaptive responses or a sort physiological screw-up? And is there really a difference?

It's so easy to see evolution at work. Why is it even necessary to argue it in terms of biblical myth and parable? That said, it can be interesting to read what others have said about the evolution and origins of various lifeforms on this planet. (Ruth Montgomery's ideas are fascinating and while I never bought her whole story, I think there might be nuggets of truth in there.) OTOH, evolution as it stands does explain it all.

The very first part of what I have quoted there does not seem a correct semantic fit. "Evolution" is the attempt at an explanation based on the empirical data that has been found. The empirical data is what is being observed, not evolution.

The reason why I said that it is too complicated to be called a fact is because you go from talking about viruses to talking about humans. As much as some may say that humans are somewhat like a virus, they are 2 different things. I have seen this line of argument before and it does not compare like for like.

You cannot observe human evolution - it is not testable. I am not going as far as to say it is not science but it can only ever be a theory based on the data. The patchy pieces of evidence relating to human evolution support the theory reasonably well from a scientific point of view (if we trust the integrity of all the people who gathered it). The evidence does not prove it unequivocally. Explanations are not the empirical data - they are the result of people trying to make sense of the findings.

That is the material science out of the way. I am probably wasting my time writing all of that because I see material existence as an emergent property of the mind/ consciousness anyway. If I were to be perfectly honest with you, I find science a futile escapade. It is like a dog chasing its tail. The only reason for my engagement in science is because it pays cash and was interesting (for a while)... In other words I actually see no spiritual benefit to science whatsoever - I see it as a distraction from reality (hence the reason why I am here on this forum). I prefer to play the game rather than examining the circuitry of the computer to work why it was made (just a metaphor).

It is possible to be aware of consciousness and mind. The material world is simply an assumption. A brain requires intelligence to exist/ intelligence does not require a brain to exist.

Originally Posted by Mr Interesting

Weirdly enough life started because life exists now. Life exists now because it exists in the future and life exists in the future because it existed in the past..

To be honest I have only ever existed in the present. That is not to say that I do not believe in time - I am simply observing an ever changing present.

Originally Posted by revolver

I honestly cannot understand how anyone in this day and age, cannot see that evolution is for real, its mind boggling to me.

I believe that there is a theory called evolution - I am highly sceptical about what real means. I use the term reality to define what is observed consciously. I see no reason why this state of consciousness will exist infinitely because all things change and this body that I seem to be stuck with for the moment is finite. If the "universe" really were 13.8 billion years of age then I have experienced somewhere in the region of 0% of that to several decimal places. I have personally observed more or less 0% of the "current" physical universe as well - I have not met anyone else yet who can say any different.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone in this day and age think they know much about anything at all!

GEM - we seem to agree on most things. I think I kind of went off at a bit of tangent here though.

[skygazer]

Originally Posted by Cheesus Toast

... If I were to be perfectly honest with you, I find science a futile escapade. It is like a dog chasing its tail. The only reason for my engagement in science is because it pays cash and was interesting (for a while)... In other words I actually see no spiritual benefit to science whatsoever - I see it as a distraction from reality (hence the reason why I am here on this forum). I prefer to play the game rather than examining the circuitry of the computer to work why it was made (just a metaphor).

It is possible to be aware of consciousness and mind. The material world is simply an assumption. A brain requires intelligence to exist/ intelligence does not require a brain to exist.

There is no "spiritual benefit to science". That is the science the we are made aware of today, we are only told a small percentage of what is known.

There was a time when science and spirituality were as one, the Pagan Gnostics wrote about it.

[skygazer]

Originally Posted by Olorin

The trouble with panspermia is that it just answers the question "how did life begin" with an answer of where rather than how.
It does agree with evolution that life on Earth evolved from microscopic life forms, but claims them to be of extraterrestrial origin.
If that is the case then how did life begin "off Earth"?

the same way.

Originally Posted by skygazer

There is no "spiritual benefit to science". That is the science the we are made aware of today, we are only told a small percentage of what is known.

There was a time when science and spirituality were as one, the Pagan Gnostics wrote about it.

I have a sense that this "age" in time seems like a dark age (and I am probably contradicting all my stuff about existing in the present ). I have grown to become very weary of materialism. I seem to get the impression that that is what you are referring to.

Unfortunately, at the moment, I put a negative slant on everything. It is more likely that there is a darkness within me and it is being manifest in what the mind is perceiving as external. I feel that there is something lacking spiritually.

No one has actually mentioned that I would not be using the internet if it were not for "modern science". Maybe in another type of reality we would be linking minds in telepathic union (I am kind of messing around but, then again, maybe not).

I believe in an infinite existence with infinite possibilities (except for paradoxes maybe). I don't want to hang around right here in this present reality too long.

(I am aware I am going off topic now so maybe I should do a new thread in an appropriate area of the forum).

[DaiBach]

I think that there's a massive 'spiritual benefit' that comes from science. For example, we wouldn't have the internet without science, and without the internet how would we know about Crystal Children, Soulmates, Greys or Starseeds?

On a more fundamental level, science has given (the majority of us) fresh water, abundant year-round food supplies and modern medicine , without which none of the conversations on this Forum would take place.