Hmm. I think my only hope is that I'm understood, even if in the end, we agree to disagree.
Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Isn’t that the underlying purpose of communication?
You asked if I hoped for something beyond that purpose. Why?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You should look at the cartoon it is so helpful and you can see it is not a Hippo.
Alex
Glad we got the most important part of the video out of the way.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
So you know what you are missing out on?
Anyways the wave of the universe...did I miss it or was there a mechanism suggested in the links.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Wegs, the fact of the matter is that if you have been following this thread, the only conclusion to be reached is that Jan is a liar and tends to change definitions to suit his agenda.
This is the same character that claims Ätheism implies god exists" This is the same character that claims this thread is not about religion and/or god...yet it is in the religious section, and he claims that Darwinism and the theory of evolution are not fact. If they were not fact [which they catagorically are] it automatically assumes a god.
This is the same character that has yet to disclose exactly what cult or denomination he chooses to follow. Probably so extreme as to liable to draw the wrath of even more members.
This is why he has created so much opposition to his unsupported claims. A normal well adjusted creationist would say, that he prefers to believe in a god, despite the scientific evidence to support Darwinism and evolution.
Most people do learn from discussion and banter. You have not and simply continue with your changing of definitions to suit your agenda and lies followed by more lies.
Most physicists and cosmologists reject any physical singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and density, but accept the singularity as defined by the failure of our laws to describe.
By the way, I see some speculation on a universe expanding and contracting? This was an hypothesis called the "Oscillating theory" and was in competiton with Hoyle's "Steady State" and the BB.
The subsequent serendipitious discovery of the CMBR by Wilson and Penzias saw the BB rise above the other two.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Your perspective is your affair but, contrary to what you said, we do not "know that it came from a singularity".
The BB did certainly arise from a singularity as defined by where our laws of physics and GR fail us, that being the quantum/Planck level at and below t+10-43 seconds.
Most cosmologists do though dismiss a physical singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and density.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ere-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#22e6c4347d81
"Almost everyone has heard the story of the Big Bang. But if you ask anyone, from a layperson to a cosmologist, to finish the following sentence, "In the beginning, there was..." you'll get a slew of different answers. One of the most common ones is "a singularity," which refers to an instant where all the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated into a single point. The temperatures, densities, and energies of the Universe would be arbitrarily, infinitely large, and could even coincide with the birth of time and space itself.
But this picture isn't just wrong, it's nearly 40 years out of date! We are absolutely certain there was no singularity associated with the hot Big Bang, and there may not have even been a birth to space and time at all. Here's what we know and how we know it.
When we look out at the Universe today, we see that it's full of galaxies in all directions at a wide variety of distances. On average, we also find that the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be receding from us. This isn't due to the actual motions of the individual galaxies through space, though; it's due to the fact that the fabric of space itself is expanding.
This was a prediction that was first teased out of General Relativity in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann, and was observationally confirmed by the work of Edwin Hubble and others in the 1920s. It means that, as time goes on, the matter within it spreads out and becomes less dense, since the volume of the Universe increases. It also means that, if we look to the past, the Universe was denser, hotter, and more uniform.
more at link.........
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I really like this link, however I do have a question about the narrative.
I disagree with both statements.
a) the universe in its inflationary epoch did not contain any particles, they could not form yet, and therefore had no opportunity to meet when extrapolating back in time.
b) IMO, a quantum event (Big Bang) does not require a region of finite size, only Inflation does. This is at the Planck scale beyond observation as posited elsewhere in the article and may well have been a singularity of indeterminate size.
I do find it ironic that Forbes also published this a few months after they published Paddo's linked article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...kground-comes-from-the-big-bang/#6e1514ac71c3
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ere-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#22e6c4347d81
I disagree with both statements.
a) the universe in its inflationary epoch did not contain any particles, they could not form yet, and therefore had no opportunity to meet when extrapolating back in time.
b) IMO, a quantum event (Big Bang) does not require a region of finite size, only Inflation does. This is at the Planck scale beyond observation as posited elsewhere in the article and may well have been a singularity of indeterminate size.
I do find it ironic that Forbes also published this a few months after they published Paddo's linked article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...kground-comes-from-the-big-bang/#6e1514ac71c3
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Inflationary epoch the universe expand at an ever increasing rate, it is basically a doubling up approach I believe, yet that epoch ends and expansion slows to a much slower rate in an instant it seems. That seems unrealistic.
Alex
Alex
No, not really. No need to when science is on your side.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I don't see it that way. In my model the inflationary epoch was unrestricted because for that incredibly small instant space was expanding in a totally permittive prior condition, without any mathematical physical control functions until a treshold of free expansion was reached by the cooling of the energetic plasma and space acquired density and the universal mathematical functions (constants) emerged.
After this incredibly fast expansion, creating initial space, the rapidly cooling plasma reached a sufficient density and was mathematically required to slow down to the physical propagation limit of "c".
The mathematics of spacetime kicked in and the unrestricted expansion had reached a treshold temperature where universal mathematical/physical constants began to form the deterministic evolutionary chronological expansion of the universe as we can still observe today (looking back).
I love to cite H2O to demonstrate the wonderful emergent properties that become expressed by the formation of different specific patterns using the very same ingredients.
A collection of H2O molecules are fluid, until a treshold temperature is reached where the molecular pattern becomes more dense until @ -1 C it loses fluidity altogether and becomes solid ice.
I see a similar progression happening directly after the BB. First, unrestricted expansion (inflation). Second, a rapid cooling of the expanding space until space acquired sufficient density, Third, a slowing down of the expansion down to the universal mathematical functional constants we can observe today and the self-formation of measurable spacetime emerging from the chaos .
Last edited:
Imaginary pictures, and testimony, isn’t science. You’ve yet to explain how whale evolution is a fact, and not just an elaborate idea.
Correct. Science is science.
Radioisotope dating is not "imaginary pictures and testimony" - it is science, even if you don't understand it.
Comparative anatomy is not "imaginary pictures and testimony" - it is science, even if you don't understand it.
Molecular clocks are not "imaginary pictures and testimony" - they are science, even if you don't understand them.
DNA sequencing is not "imaginary pictures and testimony" - it is science, even if you don't understand it.
In other words, science is science, and your attempt to trivialize it does not reduce it to imagination. It merely shows the limits of your understanding of it.
Asked and answered.
You are assuming that whale evolution is science. Just listing a ranger scientific practices does not explain how whale evolution is a scientific fact, and not just an elaborate idea, where results are made to fit the idea.
The only example/s of results made to fit mythical ideas, are your own in redefining words and lying simply to satisfy your need to maintain that warm inner glow and refusal to understand that death is finality...the end, kaput!!!
Darwinism and the theory of evolution are facts and no amount of lying, misrepresentation and redefining of words on some remote science forum will ever change that fact...other then perhaps in your own agenda afflicted small mind.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
The evolution of whales:
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.
Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too. The hypothesis that Ambulocetus lived an aquatic life is also supported by evidence from stratigraphy — Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.
Isotopic analyses help us figure out the likely habitats of extinct whales like Ambulocetus.
Whales that evolved after Ambulocetus (Kutchicetus, etc.) show even higher levels of saltwater oxygen isotopes, indicating that they lived in nearshore marine habitats and were able to drink saltwater as today's whales can. These animals evolved nostrils positioned further and further back along the snout. This trend has continued into living whales, which have a "blowhole" (nostrils) located on top of the head above the eyes.
As whales evolved increasingly aquatic lifestyles, they also evolved nostrils located further and further back on their skulls.
These more aquatic whales showed other changes that also suggest they are closely related to today's whales. For example, the pelvis had evolved to be much reduced in size and separate from the backbone. This may reflect the increased use of the whole vertebral column, including the back and tail, in locomotion. If you watch films of dolphins and other whales swimming, you'll notice that their tailfins aren't vertical like those of fishes, but horizontal. To swim, they move their tails up and down, rather than back and forth as fishes do. This is because whales evolved from walking land mammals whose backbones did not naturally bend side to side, but up and down. You can easily see this if you watch a dog running. Its vertebral column undulates up and down in waves as it moves forward. Whales do the same thing as they swim, showing their ancient terrestrial heritage.
This vestigial hindlimb is evidence of basilosaurids' terrestrial heritage. The picture below on the left shows the central ankle bones (called astragali) of three artiodactyls, and you can see they have double pulley joints and hooked processes pointing up toward the leg-bones. Below on the right is a photo of the hind foot of a basilosaurid. You can see that it has a complete ankle and several toe bones, even though it can't walk. The basilosaurid astragalus still has a pulley and a hooked knob pointing up towards the leg bones as in artiodactyls, while other bones in the ankle and foot are fused. From the ear bones to the ankle bones, whales belong with the hippos and other artiodactyls.
At left, the ankle bones of two middle Eocene protocetid archaeocetes, Rodhocetus balochistanensis (left) and Artiocetus clavis (right) from Pakistan, compared to those of the pronghorn Antilocapra americana (center). At right, the ankle region and foot of Basilosaurus. The pulley part of the astragalus (outlined) connects to the tibia and fibula.
The evolution of whales:
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.
Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too. The hypothesis that Ambulocetus lived an aquatic life is also supported by evidence from stratigraphy — Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.
Isotopic analyses help us figure out the likely habitats of extinct whales like Ambulocetus.
Whales that evolved after Ambulocetus (Kutchicetus, etc.) show even higher levels of saltwater oxygen isotopes, indicating that they lived in nearshore marine habitats and were able to drink saltwater as today's whales can. These animals evolved nostrils positioned further and further back along the snout. This trend has continued into living whales, which have a "blowhole" (nostrils) located on top of the head above the eyes.
As whales evolved increasingly aquatic lifestyles, they also evolved nostrils located further and further back on their skulls.
These more aquatic whales showed other changes that also suggest they are closely related to today's whales. For example, the pelvis had evolved to be much reduced in size and separate from the backbone. This may reflect the increased use of the whole vertebral column, including the back and tail, in locomotion. If you watch films of dolphins and other whales swimming, you'll notice that their tailfins aren't vertical like those of fishes, but horizontal. To swim, they move their tails up and down, rather than back and forth as fishes do. This is because whales evolved from walking land mammals whose backbones did not naturally bend side to side, but up and down. You can easily see this if you watch a dog running. Its vertebral column undulates up and down in waves as it moves forward. Whales do the same thing as they swim, showing their ancient terrestrial heritage.
This vestigial hindlimb is evidence of basilosaurids' terrestrial heritage. The picture below on the left shows the central ankle bones (called astragali) of three artiodactyls, and you can see they have double pulley joints and hooked processes pointing up toward the leg-bones. Below on the right is a photo of the hind foot of a basilosaurid. You can see that it has a complete ankle and several toe bones, even though it can't walk. The basilosaurid astragalus still has a pulley and a hooked knob pointing up towards the leg bones as in artiodactyls, while other bones in the ankle and foot are fused. From the ear bones to the ankle bones, whales belong with the hippos and other artiodactyls.
At left, the ankle bones of two middle Eocene protocetid archaeocetes, Rodhocetus balochistanensis (left) and Artiocetus clavis (right) from Pakistan, compared to those of the pronghorn Antilocapra americana (center). At right, the ankle region and foot of Basilosaurus. The pulley part of the astragalus (outlined) connects to the tibia and fibula.
- Status