For the alternative theorists:

[Write4U]

it fits what the record shows.

What does the record show, that has escaped everyone ellse's notice?

not evolution as you know it.

An alien evolution just like the virus? It has no place in our Tree of Life. Yet here it is!

rephrase the question.

You have permission to rephrase it any way you like. I just want a clear answer to a simple question.

 

[leopold]

In the Big Bang model, there was a soup of quarks, leptons, and photons. All this came from earlier energy. I don't really understand why you can disagree. Unless you can offer some better idea.

there is no proof the universe began.
the energy required for such an event would be unimaginable.

As I read your earlier posts, Leopold, I'm not disconcerted, but puzzled.

what's so puzzling about my posts, maybe i can alleviate your concerns.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You have permission to rephrase it any way you like. I just want a clear answer to a simple question.

I answered the question in what was pretty text book stuff. (You didn't ask me the question though.)

 

[leopold]

What does the record show, that has escaped everyone ellse's notice?

read the referenced article in "science" and find out.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm not so concerned with arguing, I'm curious as to what you'd think other than the Big Bang model.

 

[paddoboy]

there is no proof the universe began.
the energy required for such an event would be unimaginable.

what's so puzzling about my posts, maybe i can alleviate your concerns.

When will you ever learn. There is no 100% proof with regards to scientific theory.
But the BB/Inflationary model, is so well evidenced, that like SR, and GR, any future QGT or similar, will almost certainly encompass all three...ie the BB, SR and GR.

The Universe just maybe the ultimate free lunch [which you have refused to comment on] which makes any deity requirement fully redundant.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Trippy, I clearly stated : "billvon, I can accept your first two (2) statements".

billvon, and myself were discussing the "number" of cells and the methods utilized in cellular biology to increase the "number of cells".
Our discussion did not concern the "size" of the cells.
Though, of course an increase in the total amount of cells in any organism would most likely contribute to an increase in the "size" of that organism.

People always forget.

Trippy, again I am sorry, but I cannot concur with the ^^above quoted^^ statement.

So what you're saying then is that Mitosis makes each generation of cells progressively smaller than the previous generation of cells?

Of course. You quoted it.

:roll:

Okay.

During Mitosis cellgrowth occurs during the G[sub]1[/sub] and G[sub]2[/sub] phases, so yes, actually, your discussion does concern the size of individual cells (as well).

Of course it does.

Think about it.

Okay.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm not so concerned with arguing, I'm curious as to what you'd think other than the Big Bang model.

He can't and won't answer that, as admitting the Universe-space-time did have a beginning, leads to evolutionary and Abiogenesis deductions.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course. You quoted it.


Okay.


Of course it does.


Okay.

Yet either way evolution is not invalidated and Abiogenesis remains a logical certainty.

 

[Write4U]

I answered the question in what was pretty text book stuff. (You didn't ask me the question though.)

I uderstand and agree. It is Leopold who seems to question accepted science and logically tested hypotheses.

I am curious how he sees the scope and function of the universe and its constants.

 

[paddoboy]

"The following was taken from "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.




. there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[leopold]

It is Leopold who seems to question accepted science and logically tested hypotheses.

yes, because of the article i found in "science".
the alleged retraction not printed in "science", nor has "science" issued ANY kind of errata concerning the referenced article.
the attacks on lewin, calling him a liar, some even called him a creationist which he isn't.
read the article buddy, then start asking questions about it.

I am curious how he sees the scope and function of the universe and its constants.

oh, about like everyone else does i guess.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Of course. You quoted it.


Okay.


Of course it does.


Okay.

Yet either way evolution is not invalidated and Abiogenesis remains a logical certainty.

Of course, it does.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

yes, because of the article i found in "science".
the alleged retraction not printed in "science", nor has "science" issued ANY kind of errata concerning the referenced article.
the attacks on lewin, calling him a liar, some even called him a creationist which he isn't.
read the article buddy, then start asking questions about it.

oh, about like everyone else does i guess.

My text book, I believe, has a lot more peer review than what you stated: "science."

I haven't looked at the article you mention, but like... I think you'd be arguing with a text book: Fundamentals of Physics 8th Edition.

(I haven't really looked at the other one I have.)

 

[paddoboy]

Yet either way evolution is not invalidated and Abiogenesis remains a logical certainty.

Of course, it does.

Exactly. Meaning of course, exactly the point that Evolution and Abiogenesis is not invalidated. Just to clear your meaning up dmoe. No one argues about some uncertainties in details and fine tuning...Some more fine tuning may even be required for the BB.
But these details creationists clutch for dear life, are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their continuing incessant efforts to invalidate Evolution or Abiogenesis, which they do not come close in doing.

yes, because of the article i found in "science".
the alleged retraction not printed in "science", nor has "science" issued ANY kind of errata concerning the referenced article.
the attacks on lewin, calling him a liar, some even called him a creationist which he isn't.
read the article buddy, then start asking questions about it.

.

One Swallow does not a Summer make.
You are continually focusing on one supposed, probably misinterpreted negative. If it at all exists, while ignoring the Mnt Everest of supporting data for the same thing.
And you still deny having an agenda?

 

[Trippy]

This might be interesting.

http://www.nature.com/news/solar-energy-springtime-for-the-artificial-leaf-1.15341

Eeeenteristing.

 

[leopold]

My text book, I believe, has a lot more peer review than what you stated: "science."

I haven't looked at the article you mention, but like... I think you'd be arguing with a text book: Fundamentals of Physics 8th Edition.

(I haven't really looked at the other one I have.)

don't let "peer review" fool you.
don't ever think "it can't happen here".
dig around and find out how the peer review process is being manipulated by lobbyists, politics, and big bucks.

 

[Trippy]

the article doesn't divulge this information.

This statement represents everything that is wrong with your position on this matter

It was organized by:
Dr Joel Cracraft
Jeffery Levinton
Niles Eldridge - co-founder of the theory of punctuated equilibrium (a theory of evolution).
and David Raup

Sewall Wright, George Ledyard Stebbins, and Bobb Shaeffer atteneded. I've singled them out because they also atteneded the 1946 conference on Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (held at Princeton).

Stephen Jay Gould, Eldridge, Steven M Stanley, Richard Lewontin, Russell Lande. I'm fairly sure other attendees included John Maynard Smith, George Oster, David Jablonsky, George Lauder, E. O. Wiley, John Endler, Walter Bock, R. Soklol, A. G. Kluge.

There's 20 names for you. I'm sure I read somewhere that something like 43 people were invited.

Do you understand yet Leopold?

I have open, in another window, an article I purchased from JSTOR. The article is written by someone else who atteneded the same conference Lewin reported on.

In the closing lines from the article it has this to say:

The question of whether paleontologic species represent biologic species naturally involved the topic of the formation of biologic species. F. J. Ayala[sup]16[/sup] presented the case for gradual change from one species to another over ecologic time in the extremely well-studied dorsophilids, whereas H. L. Carson[sup]17[/sup] considered population flushes and crashes the key to speciation. Other specific models of speciation were presented by M. Rosenzweig,[sup]18[/sup] G. Dover, and Wright. [sup]19[/sup] Endler simply stated that there are no critical genetic data for any model of speciation. In any case, from a paleontological perspective, speciation appears to be rapid. Whether or not a biologic species then persists as the same genetic entity for millions upon millions of years, i.e., undergoes "stasis", was not agreed upon​

 

[Trippy]

it fits what the record shows.

You mean the incomplete fossil record?

That record?

It was at the fifth or "macroevolutionary" dimension that most of the argument occurred. Right away there were problems in establishing an appropriate scale, as Stebbins pointed out the first morning. Geneticists sample (and select) over weeks to years and observe "gradual" phenomena. By the time the paleontologist gets around to seeing anything over a minimum of many thousands to tens of thousands of years, a gradual change becomes a compressed "sudden" transformation. This question of scale elicited considerable interest in the topic of "how good" is the fossil record. Some (e.g., E. C. Olson) emphasized its inadequacy except in so far as it reveals that major changes have occurred and the paleoecological conditions concomitant with those changes. Others (e.g., J. Sepkoski,[sup]10[/sup] G. Vermeij," R. Bambach,[sup]12[/sup] A. Hallam[sup]13[/sup]) felt that these very long term changes are what one should be studying, especially to determine how much can be explained within the limits of resolution. Some experienced paleontologists (e.g., Hallam, Bambach) supported a near literal interpretation of species durations as revealed by the fossil record, whereas other contributors (e.g., T. Schopf, K. Niklas, J. Hopson, D. Wake) urged a more conservative view of what the fossil record "reveals" at the species level. Plant and animal examples were given of the bias'[sup]4[/sup] of differential morphologic complexity, of the evidence that most mutations may not occur in hard parts,[sup]15[/sup] and of the now widespread knowledge of significant genotypic change (and speciation) in the near absence of discernable morphologic change. These and other factors conspire to limit recognition of biologic species, and thus artificially lengthen "species" duration.​

 

[leopold]

This statement represents everything that is wrong with your position on this matter

It was organized by:
Dr Joel Cracraft
Jeffery Levinton
Niles Eldridge - co-founder of the theory of punctuated equilibrium (a theory of evolution).
and David Raup

Sewall Wright, George Ledyard Stebbins, and Bobb Shaeffer atteneded. I've singled them out because they also atteneded the 1946 conference on Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (held at Princeton).

Stephen Jay Gould, Eldridge, Steven M Stanley, Richard Lewontin, Russell Lande. I'm fairly sure other attendees included John Maynard Smith, George Oster, David Jablonsky, George Lauder, E. O. Wiley, John Endler, Walter Bock, R. Soklol, A. G. Kluge.

There's 20 names for you. I'm sure I read somewhere that something like 43 people were invited.

Do you understand yet Leopold?

i don't remember reading this stuff in the article.
i DO know ayala and gould was apparently there.

I have open, in another window, an article I purchased from JSTOR. The article is written by someone else who atteneded the same conference Lewin reported on.

well, why didn't you purchase the issue the article was taken from and post it?

In the closing lines from the article it has this to say:

The question of whether paleontologic species represent biologic species naturally involved the topic of the formation of biologic species. F. J. Ayala[sup]16[/sup] presented the case for gradual change from one species to another over ecologic time in the extremely well-studied dorsophilids, whereas H. L. Carson[sup]17[/sup] considered population flushes and crashes the key to speciation. Other specific models of speciation were presented by M. Rosenzweig,[sup]18[/sup] G. Dover, and Wright. [sup]19[/sup] Endler simply stated that there are no critical genetic data for any model of speciation. In any case, from a paleontological perspective, speciation appears to be rapid. Whether or not a biologic species then persists as the same genetic entity for millions upon millions of years, i.e., undergoes "stasis", was not agreed upon​

and STILL no corrections and or errata from "science" concerning said article.