T.J_Runyons Evolution Rubrick

No, the electron and muon are different fundamental particles in the Standard Model. However they are both leptons, meaning particles with spin-1/2 and are not affected by the strong force. Both are fundamental particles, so both are considered point particles. There are other differences between the muon and electron. For example, the muon is 200 times more massive than the electron, and is very short-lived: within 2.2 microseconds it will decay away. Whereas electrons are indefinitely stable particles, as far as we know.

A fun fact about electrons and muons: while the magnetism of the electron has been found to agree between theory and experiment to 12 decimal places, the magnetism of the muon was measured about a decade ago and found to be off by 3 sigma from its predicted value in the Standard Model. Because of that, people are currently rerunning the experiment with greater precision (3 sigma is not enough to count as a discovery). It is possible that the muon may hold a hint to explaining what is wrong with the SM.


I think we should be careful not to take the “zero-size”-ness of fundamental particles too far. Zero-size simply means that in our theory we consider them to be points. But other physical parameters associated with an electron, for example, are spatial, such as its electric and magnetic fields. Electrons also constantly move in space; an electron in an atom has a probability “cloud” which extends in space around the nucleus. One could thus argue that the probability cloud of an electron is closer to our traditional understanding of what “size” is.

Thus I don’t see any major philosophical or theological problems coming out of its pointlike nature. Other consequences of quantum mechanics, such as energy-time uncertainty or “spooky action at a distance” are far more philosophically interesting.

Intuitively, the pointlike nature of fundamental particles makes sense to me: we think of everyday spatially extended objects as being “made” of something smaller - a body is made of cells. Cells are made of molecules, which are made of atoms. You keep going down until you hit the limits of our knowledge - quarks and electrons. At this point you can no longer talk about volume or size, because that would imply that the fundamental particles have some deeper structure which we don’t know yet.


If you separate this between Common Ancestry and Universal Common Ancestry, you’ll even get the YECs on board with the former! In fact, YECs tend to accept more evolution here than OECs (i.e., YECS view “kind” usually around family, while OECs generally stick closer to species and genus).

A post was split to a new topic: Thinking about Cosmology and CMB

@T.j_Runyon - How can we have a “process” without a well defined mechanism. This breaks down into an axiom that life emerges from life.
I wouldn’t call such a general statement as a theory. Add assumptions of methodological materialism and it becomes an unfalsifiable tautology.
I would love to hear @swamidass opinion in this.

I look at evolution as a set of competing theories which cannot be unified into one. Sometimes Common descent comes across as a PR stunt to establish that a unified consensus theory actually exists.

The Neutral Theory of Evolution is very well defined.

1 Like

Goodness gracious. This irrelevant nitpicking is getting old. If you don’t like it then change it to the thesis that new species emerge as the modified descendants of pre-existing ones.

The mechanisms are described in number three. You can accept number two without any knowledge of the mechanisms.

Be nice. I think he is trying to figure it out.

I apologize.

1 Like

There is a reason for the nitpicking. Scientists often claim evolution is as settled as the theory of gravity in public forums. You yourself mentioned 2 as what they are referring to when they make this claim.
Is is too much to expect from a well established theory that it be well defined and make testable claims? Put yourself in the shoes of. Non-specialist who is told “evolution is as true as gravity” and think about it.
I am just pointing out that it might be useful for an honest communication to stop talking about evolution as one theory, but rather many competing theories regarding how “modified descendants” emerge and new species are formed.

Instead , what we get is authoritarian assertions that evolution is true followed by just so stories/artistic renderings of what is supposed to have happened.

This is a bizarre statement and accusation of dishonesty. We are honest. The only theory that makes sense of the data without invoking God’s action is common descent.

Common ancestry makes testable claims. And I agree evolutionary theory is composed of multiple theories. I’m separating UCA and the theory itself here.


Larry Moran explains that well here:

I am not accusing you of dishonesty. But guys like this guy are-

Because of his sustained and oft confusing campaign. Claims like this one below become the norm.
"The theory of evolution encompasses the well established scientific view that organic life on our planet has changed over long periods of time and continues to change by a process known as natural selection."

The smaller claims of common descent are very often used to establish “natural selection” as the overarching guiding force of evolution. I don’t know if this happens accidentally… however I have seen this bait and switch very often in public discussions of evolution.

Well that is a real problem. They should talk more about The Neutral Theory of Evolution and other non-Darwinian processes.

1 Like

If that is done, which I know it is because ive witnessed it before, then yes, they are in the wrong. Evidence for common ancestry isn’t evidence for mechanism.

Which is why I always insist on what people mean by common descent before any discussion.
It may seem like nitpicking… But it is nitpicking that is necessary.
@T.j_Runyon - sorry if I am being unnecessarily long winded.

No apology necessary. Im sorry for coming off rude. Just been a long day @Ashwin_s

1 Like


@Ashwin_s has no motivation to do so. The worst day of his life was finding out that BioLogos was spending more time endorsing God-led speciation.