there is no simplicity in self deception. and it isn't "chaos" that is either good or bad. it is harm that is harmful. and harm cannot be avoided by denying reason. calling chaos the negative pole, makes mincemeat out of arrogant pretensions of "balance".
I did not imply that chaos was good or bad just that it is, according to our perception, present. I also did not state chaos as a negative pole or order as a positive one. You claim self deception and arrogant pretentiousness yet you still refer such pronouncements by your own preconceived claims. Judgement upon another is judgment upon oneself whether through word or through deed.
I'm just saying I am not convinced Darwin was a real person just because of that old black and white pic of a man with a beard.
Must be getting close to Yule. Hmm evolution, well, in order for it to be in a state of crisis would it not first have to inhabit a state of being. What exactly is a state of being? Can it truly be quantified or is it nothing more or less than a bonified mystery? We can't even decide upon a way of living in our common existence. Everybody is essentially right and thusly that qualifies them to be inherently wrong as per Bob down the street. Just ask him he'll tell you.... Yet hoooold up now that guy's got it right he's got faith! Faith in what you ask? Oh evolution or gods or aliens or.....well shit it's basically just faith in the state of human being.
Evolution is very well proven indeed. But I agree with chodpa it might not be that important for the future of mankind: we humans as a whole have escaped most biological threats. If we go on with societal and technological progression (not a given ) it might very well appear we as a species are 'evolutionized' to the max. No need to adapt to natural changes means no evolutionary change.
you sure about that? I've mentioned before that one "indicator" that evolution is still functioning as always is the shift in humans immune systems as we have developed much more hygienic practices and our immune systems are not challenged as much as they used to be. The differences are readily apparent and testable in comparing populations that have as little as 2-3 generations raised in "clean" conditions versus people living in rural/farming communities. Now is that a permanent change or can it be reversed in a persons lifetime? How many generations of an environmental stress does it take before the adaptation is incorporated into the genome and permanent?
The common usage of the term "theory" is a lot different than the scientific usage. Gravity, heliocentrism, relativity, they are all "theories" in the scientific sense of the word. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments." To say theory = unproven is a bit reductionist and does not give the full picture.
The idea behind this definition is tragically certain. That however does not make it true. No matter how hard we try to catch them concepts of understanding slip through our fingers like water. Acknowledging them is like building a dam. But we desire the sweet water of reality, momentarily, and the damn is built. Such enjoyment that it is bitter.
Just to point out gravity and relativity are still theories because they are also unproven. Unless someone sorted out the dark matter Vs MoND discussion without me noticing. And if you want my personal feeling on that, I'll go with MoND because believing in dark matter seems to have an uncanny similarity to believing in God. (something you can't see, feel, or measure)
Humanity won't be able to cope with its own intellectual deterioration if we insist on evolving past all hardships. There will come a point where we will have to resist our own intellectual capacity in favor of tribulation, just so that our souls don't stagnate. Darwin's theory is so elegant that anyone who thinks nature was created by God ought to be hoping and praying that it is true. I don't understand this rift between science and religion in this area.
Perhaps that is why we desire complexity, for its elegance. It is complexity that creates the rift I think.
Because it's not a law., nor is it a mere hypothesis.http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html In science, theory means something much more rigorous than somebody's hunch. http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html It is able to give the most plausible account of all the known facts from a wide variety of scientific fields. No rival theory comes close. Yes, gravity is also "just a theory'. Keep that in mind when you take a flying leap off the top of a twenty story building.