Denial of evolution II
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
That's what he's saying. In this respect, there is still much debate as to what happened. At the moment, it is highly speculative.
None of these three. You are just confused, not understanding what you have read. I will try to help:
Originally the big band theory did not include the "inflation phase." I forget when this inflation pahse was, but guess it was all over in less than a second after t = 0.
The problem with the original Big Bang model is that it is highly unlikely, very tightly defined, set of parameters that can lead to anything like our universe. Some smart people modified the original big bang model to include this very brief but very violent "inflation" and made it plausible that the Big bang could lead to universes like ours.
This inflation phase is all over long before there is any matter in the universe. Much later matter is formed but all is ionized or plasma. Even when the universe is all only energy and plasma we can not see anything or measure anything. Even the CBR is not from that era.
The expansion now thought to be caused by dark energy has nothing to do with this very early inflation phase of the modified big bang theory. As I said in last post, we measure it from Doppler shift of star light. Einstein put the cosmological constant back in his model when Hubble et al had determined that the universe was in UNIFORM expansion. Much more recently we have learned by looking way back in time (distant galaxies) that the near by (current era) expansion is faster that it was long ago.
So the original (gravity is slowing the expansion down) and the Hubble era (the expansion is uniform) are both wrong. Neither of these POVs is the modern one and none of the three have anything to do with the big bang theory. - That is why your prior post was mainly nonsense. I suspect you have confused the rapid "inflation period" with the dark energy related expansion of the universe.
You are being very unreasonable asking me to go and search for your post where you claim you have already posted three reason why the religious explanation of the species is more plausible than Darwin's. I have asked you twice to give a link (or to re-post your three reason). Frankly I think you have none and are just blowing smoke. At the very least you are inconsiderate and unreasonable. Shut up or put up. "Go search" is not discussion or a reply.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *
I agree. Searching for one post by one member is quite a time-consuming effort. If he could give us a keyword to narrow it down, it would be very helpful. Not "evolution," but something a little more specific. I presume it was on one of the Evolution Denial threads, since that's where all this rubbish is supposed to be collected?
Good ol' Baron. We can always rely on you to misinterpret.
"No definitive answer" is not the same as "no factual information"
and the 15 pages are about evolution, no?
Not the Big Bang/ expansion or otherwise of the universe.
A lack of definitive off-topic information doesn't invalidate anything on evolution.
Funny, I'm not that Lazy.
And I guess neither of you were paying attention when I indicated Post # 170of this thread. You guys appear very tempermental and hostile when you don't get your way.
It's more than possible that I'm merely confused.
From the book I'm reading:
The Gut Era:
10^-43 second after the Big Bang. The universe was a chaotic soup of energy-matter 10 trillion trillion times hotter than the core of an average star. In the next 10^-35 second, particles of matter and their antimatter couterparts sprang fleeting into existence, onlly to vanish again in annihlating collisions that gave birth to yet more particles.
It stands for the grand unification theories put forward by physicist who suggest that three of the four known forces-EM and the strong and weak Nuclear Forces-were at one time still indistinguishable, or unified, in the the electronuclear force. (The unification theores exlude gravity, whis is thought to have assumed its sperate identity must as the Gut ERA began) So dense ws the cosmic broth at the end of the era that the mass of a cluster of galaxies would have fit easily inot a volum smaller than that of a hydrogen atom.
The Inflation Era:
10-^35 seconds after the big bang.
Summary from my book.
A rapid cooling resulting in the electronuclear force remaining intact and creating a false vaccum. Temperature plummets while the total energy of the universe grew. Instead of slowing down it rockets outward. by the end of the Inflation era 10^-33 the volume of space increasing more than a trillion trillion times which eventualy gave way to the matter universe of today.
Which is describing a great speed even if relative.
Followed by:
The Electroweak Era at 10-33 second
Quarks defined at 10^-6 second. (58 seconds later the Neutrino Era
Nucleosynthesis Era 1 to 5 minutes after the big bang.
Really?
Yes. we are moving, as it were, faster than as far as we can detect currently. So that is where the Big Bang model of old and current Dark Energy theory diverge. You're saying that they are seperate causes. I'll really have to do my research on Dark Energy.
No, I didn't know Dark Energy had anything to do with that expansion. I was under the assumption that it was due to quintessence, the distruction of virtual particles in space time. I know almost nothing of Dark Energy.
Once again...I said go to post 170 of this thread... I did not tell you to put up or shut up that would be highly rude and uncivilized.
Ooh, we found a fossil of a "dinosaur arm" with feathers! Therefore, all birds were once dinosaurs ... Q. E. fuckin' D.! ...LOL!
Facts are different to wild suppositions and invented scenarios.
Why don't y'all face the facts ....evolutionists "believe" in evolution even tho' the facts don't actually prove it.
Baron Max
Saquist:
No. Cosmologists are still using the big bang theory. They do not consider it invalidated.
Multiple errors here. First, you appear to be claiming that there was "nothing relating to an explosion", based on nothing. Second, there never was a single point of origin of the big bang; the bag occurred everywhere in the universe at once. The Great Attractor is just a collection of galaxy clusters and the like - a result of inhomogeneities of the distribution of matter in the early universe.
You have things backwards. Actually, the amount of matter and energy in the universe is deduced from what we observe of the universe's expansion. For a long time it was thought that the average density of matter and energy was near the so-called critical value for the universe to stop expanding and recollapse. Recent observations have shown that this is not the case. In fact, there appears to be energy driving an accelerating expansion, though we aren't too sure exactly what it is yet.
No. Cosmologists are still using the big bang theory. They do not consider it invalidated.
Multiple errors here. First, you appear to be claiming that there was "nothing relating to an explosion", based on nothing. Second, there never was a single point of origin of the big bang; the bag occurred everywhere in the universe at once. The Great Attractor is just a collection of galaxy clusters and the like - a result of inhomogeneities of the distribution of matter in the early universe.
You have things backwards. Actually, the amount of matter and energy in the universe is deduced from what we observe of the universe's expansion. For a long time it was thought that the average density of matter and energy was near the so-called critical value for the universe to stop expanding and recollapse. Recent observations have shown that this is not the case. In fact, there appears to be energy driving an accelerating expansion, though we aren't too sure exactly what it is yet.
What's your alternative hypothesis, and what's your evidence for it?
No. Biologists believe in evolution because all the available evidence supports the theory and because no viable alternative theory has been put forward.
Thanks for giving the post 170 ref. Here from it are your three “real objection reasons”
Your point 1 admits evolution on the micro level but not for “wide scale organized restructuring of life.”
No evolution supporter is suggesting that evolution is “organized” – just the opposite is their claim – only chance variation without any purpose of adaption is the model of evolution. I would also dispute your “has not been linked.” In fact in earlier post I have linked the obvious evolution of bacteria to resist anti-biotics (I assume that is “micro evolution”) to macro evolution by noting that if the process can produce significant changes in hours on this micro scale then it continued for millions of years can turn fish into gorillas by many small sequential steps, UNLESS there is some reason to block that. You have offered no such blocking reason. However, as you say, the reasons (for rejection) actually only begin with your point 2.
Your point 2 notes that most (99%) of mutations are not helpful aids to the individual that carries them to reproduce. Actually, I would guess it is less than 1 in 10,000 that are helpfully but the actually number only determines how many failures on average occur before some progress is made to a more reproductive variant. I.e. it sets the time scale required, but does not show the process of evolving is impossible, as you seem to think it does.
Your point 3 also explains why creatures that enjoy a relatively constant environment do not change much in even a million years. I.e. once optimized for that environment any change is suboptimal and will die out, not grow in the gene pool percentages. It certainly is not “designing out the possibility of massive change” when the environment changes to make the old design suboptimal for the new environment.
SUMMARY
Not one of your three (or perhaps only two) reasons rules out evolution or is even a reason to discredit it as you asserted.
First I think quite a large fraction of the better educated (say college graduates) Christians do accept evolution as fact, but I do not have numbers or ref to this –Just my own observations.
Your point 1 admits evolution on the micro level but not for “wide scale organized restructuring of life.”
No evolution supporter is suggesting that evolution is “organized” – just the opposite is their claim – only chance variation without any purpose of adaption is the model of evolution. I would also dispute your “has not been linked.” In fact in earlier post I have linked the obvious evolution of bacteria to resist anti-biotics (I assume that is “micro evolution”) to macro evolution by noting that if the process can produce significant changes in hours on this micro scale then it continued for millions of years can turn fish into gorillas by many small sequential steps, UNLESS there is some reason to block that. You have offered no such blocking reason. However, as you say, the reasons (for rejection) actually only begin with your point 2.
Your point 2 notes that most (99%) of mutations are not helpful aids to the individual that carries them to reproduce. Actually, I would guess it is less than 1 in 10,000 that are helpfully but the actually number only determines how many failures on average occur before some progress is made to a more reproductive variant. I.e. it sets the time scale required, but does not show the process of evolving is impossible, as you seem to think it does.
Your point 3 also explains why creatures that enjoy a relatively constant environment do not change much in even a million years. I.e. once optimized for that environment any change is suboptimal and will die out, not grow in the gene pool percentages. It certainly is not “designing out the possibility of massive change” when the environment changes to make the old design suboptimal for the new environment.
SUMMARY
Not one of your three (or perhaps only two) reasons rules out evolution or is even a reason to discredit it as you asserted.
Amazingly you didn't say anything that didn't know.
I presented the information as it was discovered..
I know they're still using the Big Bang but not all of them.
The Universe was the Big Bang. I know that that part was you talking in a circle it shows that you didn't understand that it mean currently that a point of origin or center location (if it can be called that) doesn't exist. I've read this discertation of problems before I will have to find it to relate it propperly.
I related the observations I as I read them which was intitally that the accounting of mass was thought to be enough to slow the universe down.
I can find this too aswel...which is how they discovered the situation of missing mass. ie Dark Matter.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
There is such a fundamental misunderstanding here that I am no longer surprised you doubt macro-evolution and other established theories.
Clearly you believe the ability to reproduce rapidly and in large numbers offers an improved means of passing ones genes to future generations. Having four offspring rather than one is 'better', having one hundred offspring rather than four is 'better', having one thousand rather than one hundred is better. Nonsense.The key for evolution is how many of these offspring survive to reproduce.
A couple of frogs will generate a pond full of fertilised spawn. How many of these will grow up to be frogs that succefully produce the next generation of tadpoles? On average two. Pretty much the same as it is for elephants and humans.
In fact, at present, the humans are producing rather more than two and the frogs rather less.
Your perception appears to have a gaping hole in it.
So you think it should be a little contest ...who has the best wild-guess scenarios? Then what? We pick the best wild-guess and begin to believe it? And then insult and ridicule anyone who does not believe it?
So because there's no solid proof, we must pick something, anything, so that we have something to ....believe? Biologists are all having a little contest as noted above?
When did science become a profession of "pick the best-guess"?
All of which brings me back to the important question: Why decide on any one best guess? Why not just wait until all the evidence is in, then decide? ...like in a jury trial. No jury decides guilt or innocence before the professionals have presented their final arguments. So ....why decide?
Baron Max
Last edited:
OK, little vid for everyone to watch, esp those who doubt evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel_page
As I have admitted in exchanges with the Baron, there is no conclusive proof of anything. The theory of evolution has been tested in various way for 150 years both man-made* and natural experiments.** Not once has any observation conflicted with the theory.
*The transport of fish above a waterfall in Brazil where the predator fish were absent and thus the pressure to reproduce ASAP, before being eaten, was no longer operative. This lead to delayed reproduction with many more eggs being laid by the larger fish that evolved. (As Ophiolite noted for you, most eggs never survive to the stage where they, as fish, can reproduce. Thus, the fish that only made 6 eggs usually lost out in the competion to put its genes into the next generation with one that laid 60. After only 15 years, none of the small early-fertile, few eggs laid, fish existed above the falls.
**The formation of a new species of mammals, the preá, in only 8000 years from the Santa Catalina Guinea Pigs. - see posts 83 and 131 for more details and note that exactly the conditions that evolution theory requires for rapid evolution were ALL present in this unusual case. Tiny population (40 animals max); extreme stress (many if not most dying each generation by starvation); total isolation; total absence of predators (no beneficial to reproduction mutation lost by being eaten); extreme inbreeding*** (so beneficial mutation, even if recessive under sexual reproduction, spread though out entire population in a few generations)
***So extreme that now all animals of the population are genetically identical, at least as measured by DNA testing that normally can confirm (or deny) who is the father. (I suspect that detailed DNA sequencing would still show many isolated mutational differences, but probably only in the “non functional” or “trash DNA” sequences.)
SUMMARY:
It is totally wrong, only a reflection of your ignorance and lack of understanding (see Ophiolite recent post also) that allows you to falsely assert:
"... there does not seem to be any evidence ..."
Fact that you do not know of the evidence (are ignorant of it) does not make your assertion true.
There is no excuse for your ignorance: I have asked you before to comment on post 83 & 131 - is there any point in doing so again? Do you prefer to remain ignorant? I am not claiming those post are irrefutable proof of new species evolution – only that evolution is much more plausible explanation for the facts than any other alternative, such as spacemen landed on that tiny island and some of their pets escaped. Or any of the Baron’s suggested alternatives. Do feel free to try to produce an alternative explanation of the current facts.
Further comment / examples about the abundance of evidence you are obviously ignorant of:
There are in fact hundreds of fossil artifacts, only relating to the evolution of man, known. Something approaching 100,000 other pieces of evidence are also known, all consistent with and supporting the theory of evolution. I will just mention two, very strong, biochemical points:
One, which for me by its self alone is quasi-proof that all animals come from a common biological origin is that only 22 of the 10,000 or so possible amino acids are used in ALL animal life forms.
Another very strong piece of evidence is that many molecules used in living organism, come in pairs with identical chemical formulae but different spatial forms. (One is the mirror image of the other, like right hand's mirror image is a left hand.) For example, dextrose and levose sugars are chemically identical but each is the other's mirror image. (I hope memory is serving me correctly here, but if not there are thousands of other examples where only one symmetry is biologically active.)
All animals utilize only one of the two these possible alternatives, the same one (because they all come from one source ancestor). They can only produce that one. During the long history of evolutionary generation of new species after new species, the off springs never broke with their parents on the choice of which. - That would have required many, many biochemical switches for that off spring to be viable.
If life forms exist on other planets, some may also ALL be using the mirror image of these molecules from those that are used by Earth's life forms. Non-living chemical processes do produce both symmetries in equal abundance - it is only a matter of chance that Earth's life forms use only one of the two possible symmetries and the fact that if a mutation occurred that produced the other, it will be dead in the egg or womb as the rest of the rest of its biochemistry is not able to use the "wrong" symmetry version.
As Ophiolite said: Your ignorance of the evidence and lack of understanding of the processes is so great that one hardly knows where to begin when trying to explain things to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
In the eyes of some kinds of willfully ignorant and defiantly unreasonable non-scientists, it always has been - you can tell when one of them is present, because they say things likebaron said:
that.
A "good guess" of Darwin's and Russell's kind - one that explains a huge body of otherwise inexplicable facts, makes sound predictions of future discovery and agrees with subsequent major discoveries not predicted, has wide applicability in formerly unrelated fields and unexpected domains of comprehension, and changes the human understanding of the natural world permanently and fundamentally,
is nothing to sneeze at.
That is too sweepingly general. I am nearly* certain the Baron, Saquist, the Visitor, and several others who do not understand are none the less still humans.
-----------
*I could be wrong, but do not think bots have advanced to their level yet.
- Status