[G0atmaster]

I missed the post before KJ's. I believed that the species in an environment, to a degree, make up that environment. What started the grand competition? Furthermore, if a single-celled organism would be better suited to survive if it became a multicelled organism, why are there still single-celled organisms around today? Doesn't Natural Selection dictate that the older, weaker, un-adapted species would die off?

[G0atmaster]

And to Newman: my apologies. I jumped the gun a bit there, and was wrong.

[The E]

I missed the post before KJ's. I believed that the species in an environment, to a degree, make up that environment. What started the grand competition? Furthermore, if a single-celled organism would be better suited to survive if it became a multicelled organism, why are there still single-celled organisms around today? Doesn't Natural Selection dictate that the older, weaker, un-adapted species would die off?

Only if there is a multicelled organism filling the same niche more effectively than a single-celled organism. If the single-celler is better suited (more fit for) a given environment, then the single-celler will not be replaced.

Also, please don't double-post.

[newman]

No probs, man, carry on. *newman grabs some popcorn and takes some decisive observation action.. I wish. Time to get back to doing what the bossman is paying me for.

[Herra Tohtori]

Slashdot posted an article about a year back stating, essentially, that radioactive decay is not the universal constant that it was once thought to be.  In fact, radioactive decay on Earth has to do with the Earth's distance from the sun.  How trippy is that?

Radioactive decay, like most other natural constant, is closely tied to the so called fine-structure constant.

It is a factor of several other natural constant, and it is debatable as to whether the fine structure constant is derived from other natural constants, or if other natural constants are derived from fine structure constants.

The constant-ness of of fine structure constant is also debatable, but so far there is no conclusive evidence for or against.

In other words, we don't really know yet if the fine structure constant (and by extension several other constants such as speed of light, permittivity and permeability if vacuum, strength of elementary charge, planck constant and coulomb constant) are actually the exact same on every point in space and time.

It is possible that these constants experience certain amount of variation, but so far our observations of universe seem to suggest that those variations would be extremely small, simply because things seem notably similar in a wide range of space and time - as far and as accurately as our current instruments can determine.

Large variations in the fine-structure constant or associated constants would result in things such as unstable matter or completely different physical interactions, which would mean for example that it would be impossible for stars and galaxies as we know them to form. As an example, fusion reaction of hydrogen nuclei occurs when the energy of the positive nuclei is sufficient to overcome the electric repulsive force, and as a result the nuclei fuse to form helium (as a simplified explanation).

Now, if let's say electric force (which is one of the things affected by the fine-structure constant, and has also ties to weak force which by the way affects things such as radioactive decay) were significantly stronger or weaker.

Stronger, and the threshold of fusion gets higher - you need a bigger protostar to increase the pressure and temperature sufficiently to overcome the increased repulsive force between the nuclei. You would also have harder time separating the electrons from the nuclei to form plasma, and by the way the average size of atoms would be smaller as the attractive force between nuclei and electrons would be higher... matter would be denser and the properties of elements probably somewhat different.

Weaker, and you might have started fusion reactions in much smaller protostars, such as Jupiter. You would also have less dense matter and it would be easier ionized by radiation, which could mean that even visible light spectrum could possibly disintegrate any matter it meets, which would make things quite difficult indeed.

In other words: It would be extremely unlikely for matter as we know it (and by extension life as we know it) to survive significant changes in the fine-structure constant.

Therefore it is most likely that the fine-structure constant is a constant or only undergoes very minor variations (there's probably an upper limit to those variations that matter and life can withstand while continuing normal operations), and definitely not large enough variations to account for significant changes in the decay times of radioactive isotopes.


Therefore, the age estimates of the solar system and other age estimates based on radiological decays are likely to be very accurate.

Within the appropriate error bars, of course.


EDIT: appropriate post quoted.

[Mikes]

I'm not talking about arousal/dopamine response, I'm talking about long-term, vasopressin/oxytocin mediated 'true love'.

Won't we love it when our wifes makes sure we don't forget the pill that holds the marriage together... well of course we will *love it*

[Bobboau]

[edit]16 new replies...  really?[/edit]


"Salvation hinges on the grace offered by the Son of God, not by how I believe the Earth came into being."

Excellent, out of your entire post I think this one sentence is the most important thing you said. If there is a God, and said God is good and worthy of praise, then, spiritually, the important thing is not about the facts of the mechanics of the universe, but rather how said God wants you to live. I think this is particularly important, because it means that you can consider the mechanics of the universe without having to hold yourself back for fear of what the repercussions will be toward your faith. With this attitude you could learn that every word of the Bible was fiction, but still maintain your faith, and yet also harvest the fruits of knowledge (well, unless god tells you not to. bah, but he wouldn't to that). if you accept that the Bible might as well be fiction then you don't have to 'defend' it from science, the trains don't meet.



"everyone everywhere believes for some reason or another that there is a "right" way to live and a "wrong" way.  There is no "naturalistic" explanation for this."

actually there is, and you go on to address it.

"In this instance, the "herd instinct" and the "self-preservation instinct" are in conflict.  Something else, something entirely different than any inborn instinct, causes us to choose one of these two instinctual responses as being a more just course of action."

a fish swims upstream toward it's spawning ground, but a bear waits for it, the fish sees the bear and now it's spawning instinct is in conflict with it's stay-the-****-away-from-bears instinct. yet as we know, the fish does not sit indecisively in the stream, one of the two instincts wins, and the fish acts accordingly. Now let me ask you, what do you think it would be like to be one of these fish, how would that instinct feel? How would you be compelled to risk life and limb (well, ok, fin I guess, as fish don't have limbs) to exhaust yourself swimming up some stream you don't even really remember? maybe it would feel a lot like how we feel when we do something 'wrong'?
A lot of people like to assert that humans are born blank slates. I am not one of these people. I am of the opinion that we have motivations and urges built into the structure of our minds that has it's origin in the DNA that codes for the construction of all tissues in our body. The common elements of most moral codes found throughout all cultures is likely inborn. but even if it is not, it does not have any bearing on the supernatural, it is completely logical that a social animal would develop behaviors that benefited it's group at the cost of it's self, even if these behaviors were learned from parents, or copied from peers. And that's the neat thing about evolution, it will provide solutions for problems that work, not ones that make sense, so any of those options (and others I won't ever think of) is doable.



"The problem I have, however, is in combining this with the idea of mutation to create a theory of evolution."
if you accept that mutation occurs and that natural selection works, then why do you have a problem assuming that they both happen?

"How can mutations that are supposed to be random be guaranteed to bring about beneficial change?"
they are not.

"what is to say that those same mutations won't reoccur later down the line?"
only the very largeness of the number of possible mutations makes it unlikely, but in principal nothing would stop it.

"Why does there seem to be an overall trend of what we would call advancement or progressiveness in increasing complexity?"
first off the concepts of "advancement" or "progressiveness" are simply human concepts, we are a rather arrogant animal an assume we are the best of everything (you've noted this yourself in describing man's hubris), naturally we look at the history of life and assume we are the absolute pinnacle of it all, when in reality we are just simply a byproduct of it.

now to more directly answer your question, why we see things like bacteria then eukaryotes then multi-cellular life is that at a few (quadrillion) points in time mutations occurred that led to a (very small) change in the organism. for each mutation it either provided an immediate benefit, or was neutral enough for the mutation to survive in the population. apparently the changes that led to the more structured internals of a eukaryotic cell, or cells living in tight colonies (leading to multi-cellular organisms) were of utility to the populations were these mutations occurred. there is no goal or drive for things to become more complex or 'better' in fact often the simpler creatures survive better (it's why they are still around), and if you look at the fossil record it seems like life didn't bother to get very complex until relatively recently, it's only been the last 500 million years (of 4.5 billion) were we have had organisms that we could call animals.

"Any designer will tell you that the more complex something is, the LESS likely it is to run efficiently, the LESS likely it may survive."
Tell this to Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, or the people who ~design~ and build aircraft carriers. Yes, these systems are prone to breakdown due to their complexity, but they provide capabilities that offset this. Now it is not a simple fact that one or the other way is better, the fact that we are still fighting a war in Iraq against people using improvised explosives proves that simplicity has it's advantages to, but the fact that we haven't been driven out either shows that simplicity does not trump complexity. it is a cost benefit trade off and if complexity is worth the cost it will win, or at least keep going.
think about it this way, what is more complex, a gun, or a sword? guns jam all the time, and require a lot of upkeep, but what happened to the arena of warfare when guns were invented? can you even imagine sending an army armed with swords against an enemy armed with guns? yet even with the gun's dominance on the battlefield solders still will carry a combat knife, cause sometimes the old simple knife WILL trump a gun.

besides by count, the number of 'complex' life forms that have ever existed is _massively_ dwarfed by the number of 'simple' life forms.

""The Environment changes to better meet the needs of the changing environment."  WTF?"
WTF? indeed. no idea what you mean here.

"And if I believed in the entirety of the Theory of Natural Selection, this would still remain true."
Natural Selection is a law of Evolutionary Theory, much like how Conservation of Momentum (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) is a law of Newtonian Motion Theory (aka Classical Mechanics).
This is a nit pick, so, sorry for being a nitpick, but I figured this would be a good point to help clarify some scientific terminology that a lot of people misinterpret, so we don't use the same words so mean different things.

"Plus, this does nothing to account for the onset of what we call sentience, consciousness."
no, it doesn't, at least not directly, but it was never intended to. Much in the same fashion as how quantum mechanics does not explain the tides.




"Scientific Method states that you cannot get something from nothing.  Something has to have ALWAYS existed.  Physics (as best I understand it) calls this the Higgs Boson, the factor they decided to use to fill in all the "wtfs" in the standard model."

ah.. err..... no. Higgs Boson is the elemental carrier of mass, it has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, other than it was a product of it along with all the other elemental particles. and it's not Scientific Method that states that, it's the law of Conservation of (Mass and) Energy, which is a staple of all physical models made in the last 500 years that I am aware of.
but your problem here is that this is a problem that science brought on it's self, it is a fact about the universe we have determined and does not impact a creative God one way or the other. This is because tacking a god into this doesn't help, it just makes it unnecessarily more complex.
you say god made the universe.
I ask what made god.
you say god is eternal.
I say the universe is eternal.
god is unnecessary, you end up with an explanation that is just as unsatisfying and unuseful with god as you do without.


"I call it God.  God Himself declares it, stating that he is the great "I AM."  "Before Abraham was, I AM," says Jesus.  When Moses asked God, revealed in the Burning Bush, what his name was, The Hebrew text, translated to English, states that he calls himself, "I AM THAT I AM."  Now, Hebrew thinking is somewhat Eastern when compared to the US, so let's go with the Greek thought on the matter.  The Septuagint was the Hebrew laws and scriptures translated into Greek.  The wording used for "I AM THAT I AM" in the Septuagint literally translates to, "I AM THE ONE THAT IS."  This is a very deliberate thought, speaking to the permanence of God.  "Before anything was, I AM.  There is no beginning to me, nor any anding. I am not, "I was."  Rather, I AM.  Always.""

ok, this seems to be something of a tangent, but I think my response to this should be;
I have no problem if you what to use the God of the Gaps. there are points at which science has not yet penetrated, beyond the horizons of these frontiers I have no problem with people putting God there, I just personally doubt such a position because it has been proven false in the past when the old frontiers were passed.



"I am wholly comfortable saying I have no effing clue."

ok, that's not a bad answer, at least you aren't convinced that it is 6000 years old.



now, finally, and out of order
"Evolution's king failure next to Genesis is in explaining how things began in the first place."

This is by design. Science does not favor all inclusive theories of everything. yes it does favor complete theories about a particular subject, for example physicists have been trying desperately for the last hundred years or so to find a mechanics theory that explains things as well a quantum mechanics and relativity do but with out the incompatibility/discontinuity that the two theories currently have (this has led to the cluster **** mess known as string theory(s)). but when/if this theory is completed, it will be limited to simply describing how particles/atoms/objects/forces interact, it will not describe how groups of flocking animals behave, it will not solve NP complete problems, it will not find prime numbers, it will form the basis of chemistry, but it will be largely independent of that on a whole. The theory you are looking for is Abiogenisis, and because it describes a one time event (rather than an ongoing process) that to the best of our knowledge has not happened seance and cannot be tested there is very little work done on it. If you wish to say "God did it" here I cannot offer you a much better explanation. I personally do not hold that position, but the evidence on this frontier is unfortunately quite thin, so I can't really feel too much superiority in my position here.
Abiogenisis is not nearly as well supported as Evolution is.
also, Genesis doesn't actually 'explain' ANYTHING, it simply states it.

[Kosh]

One time someone said to me that the center of the Milky Way looked like a cross and therefore god exists. Using that kind of BS reasoning I asked if the Sombraro galaxy was made by Mexicans. True story.

[Shivan Hunter]

Kosh:

OK, the thing about evolution is that there's actually no uncertainty that it exists. It's as observable, measureable and testable as the theory of gravity. If a drop a pencil I'm holding, it will fall to the floor. If I take members of a species and stick them in two different environments, I will observe speciation. Evolution makes testable, measurable claims about the development of species that are consistently proven right.

"The problem I have, however, is in combining this with the idea of mutation to create a theory of evolution."

This is like saying you accept the existence of 1, and the existence of 2, but not the fact that 1 + 2 = 3. I have no idea if you've actually read the science on this, but evolution logically follows from mutation and natural selection, for statistically trivial reasons. IF species randomly mutate, they will randomly change. If certain mutations happen to be better suited to a species' environment (that is, they increase the mutation's chance of surviving- not necessarily an individual with the mutation's chance of surviving to reproduce- fitness is one of the less intuitive aspects of evolution), then said mutation will spread throughout the species' gene pool faster than a mutation that is not beneficial.

[General Battuta]

I don't understand why those without an understanding of a theory feel they can form opinions on it.

It's like arguing about the morality of quantum chromodynamics when you don't know what a color charge is. If you can make statements like

Furthermore, if a single-celled organism would be better suited to survive if it became a multicelled organism, why are there still single-celled organisms around today? Doesn't Natural Selection dictate that the older, weaker, un-adapted species would die off?

you clearly don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion on it. And since God, if It exists, can create the world any way it damn well pleases, why is it important for you have to have an attitude on evolution? Just leave it to the scientists.

[JCDNWarrior]

EDIT: Just a quick addon to my post before I give off the wrong idea.

I'm not completely sure which theories work better - The one described in the Bible or the one described by scientists. Both sides give me reasons to believe as well as to mistrust them. Losses of translation versus biased researchers; convenient quotation to convince people something's accepted by God, versus reaching pre-set conclusions to push through legislation. I'm not too convinced of both sides.

My main gripe with evolution, though, is that what the theory of evolution has been, and is still being used for, by those more interested in abusing the scientific theory to fulfill a agenda or reach a certain goal.  Eugenics is the main example. Developed by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin. The idea was very popular under the Nazis, for instance. One of such examples is the Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring).

Any German was a target if they were found to be suffering from a range of perceived hereditary ailments, such as congenital mental deficiency, schizophrenia, manic-depressive insanity, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, blindness, deafness, any severe hereditary deformity or even severe alcoholism. Official pronouncements insisted that these individuals were a drain on the German people, both biologically and financially (see right). The law passed on this day ultimately led to an estimated 400,000 people being involuntarily sterilized in pursuit of this national goal of "racial hygiene," to eliminate handicapped descendants.

So when discussing such subjects, about creation(ism) versus evolution(ism), it's important to know that both sides have their very negative effects - Christianity had it's Crusades, led by the Vatican (Not Christians) and Evolutionism has Eugenics (Not Darwin, but Galton).

In other words, I don't disagree with evolution, as there are most definitely signs of people and animals, plants adapting to environments - Look at Pripyat, plants and trees grow fine there in midst of radiation - But we should be careful to say one thing is good, while leaving out the potential for abuse. That's probably what worries people more too, rather than their favorite book being right.

Hope these two cents help a little when discussing such things, as even if one of the sides is right, it's probably better to discuss how to avoid tragedy because a small group can decide for the rest what they can do with their lives - be that Church time or the ability to breed or live.

[Bobboau]

[edit]lol ttuta quoted the wrong person[/edit]

I don't understand why those without an understanding of a theory feel they can form opinions on it.

It's like arguing about the morality of quantum chromodynamics when you don't know what a color charge is. If you can make statements like

Only if there is a multicelled organism filling the same niche more effectively than a single-celled organism. If the single-celler is better suited (more fit for) a given environment, then the single-celler will not be replaced.

you clearly don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion on it. And since God, if It exists, can create the world any way it damn well pleases, why is it important for you have to have an attitude on evolution? Just leave it to the scientists.

I think he was just making a simplification, or he meant to say 'out compete', rather than 'replace'.

[The E]

I don't understand why those without an understanding of a theory feel they can form opinions on it.

It's like arguing about the morality of quantum chromodynamics when you don't know what a color charge is. If you can make statements like

Only if there is a multicelled organism filling the same niche more effectively than a single-celled organism. If the single-celler is better suited (more fit for) a given environment, then the single-celler will not be replaced.

you clearly don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion on it. And since God, if It exists, can create the world any way it damn well pleases, why is it important for you have to have an attitude on evolution? Just leave it to the scientists.

Yes, it was an oversimplification for the purposes of making a point. Which I admit is not very scientific, but I hoped it would help illustrate the point.

And I do (arrogantly) presume to have enough of an education in basic biology to actually be able to form an opinion on the subject, thank you very much.

[General Battuta]

So when discussing such subjects, about creationism versus evolutionism

No, no, no. Evolution is not an ism. There's no belief called 'Gravitism'. I suppose there was 'Heliocentrism' back when religious people wanted to pretend the earth didn't orbit the sun. Evolution is something that happens. You can go out and observe it. It's an incontrovertible thing.

Disputes often arise over whether evolution leads to speciation. This is pretty silly because the mechanisms of that are known as well, but it is less silly. Evolution is not a social belief. Eugenics does not have to do with the scientific truth of evolution.

I don't understand why those without an understanding of a theory feel they can form opinions on it.

It's like arguing about the morality of quantum chromodynamics when you don't know what a color charge is. If you can make statements like

Only if there is a multicelled organism filling the same niche more effectively than a single-celled organism. If the single-celler is better suited (more fit for) a given environment, then the single-celler will not be replaced.

you clearly don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion on it. And since God, if It exists, can create the world any way it damn well pleases, why is it important for you have to have an attitude on evolution? Just leave it to the scientists.

Yes, it was an oversimplification for the purposes of making a point. Which I admit is not very scientific, but I hoped it would help illustrate the point.

And I do (arrogantly) presume to have enough of an education in basic biology to actually be able to form an opinion on the subject, thank you very much.

What? You didn't even make the statement I was quoting. 

ed: oh ****, I quoted the wrong person - fixing

[General Battuta]

Okay there fixed, sorry The_E, I meant to grab a quote from G0atmaster.

[Bobboau]

My main gripe with evolution, no matter if i'm biased or not, is that what the theory of evolution is being used for. Eugenics, developed by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin. The idea was very popular under the Nazis, for instance. One of such examples is the Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring).

And the Theory of Relativity was used to make nuclear weapons.
what is your point?

And that is an example of artificial selection (breeding/domestication), not natural selection, therefore not Evolution. at the very least it is an atypical scenario.

[JCDNWarrior]

Edited my post earlier as re-reading it, it came across a bit wrong. Typing things too fast without checking my tone is a bad idea.

[Bobboau]

I'm not completely sure which theories work better - The one described in the Bible or the one described by scientists. Both sides give me reasons to believe as well as to mistrust them. Losses of translation versus biased researchers; convenient quotation to convince people something's accepted by God, versus reaching pre-set conclusions to push through legislation. I'm not too convinced of both sides.

well, I'll tell you a nice method for determining which theory works better when you have two competing possibilities. make a prediction based on what each of the theories say and then test the predictions and see which prediction most accurately describes the outcome. for added bonus accuracy, have other people do that same thing and compare results, include people who have divergent views, if everyone gets the same result, then you can be fairly confident that you know which theory is the right one.

Now what is a measurable prediction that "Creation Theory" makes?

[JCDNWarrior]

The main problem with that is that we all, sadly, don't have the needed information to make conclusions on whether Evolution(ism) or Creation(ism) is the correct explanation. I'm thinking it's something in between, or completely different. I'm meaning to bring out what people -use- the ideas for, and they generally can turn bad, especially in the hands of a state religion/scientific theory. By convincing groups of people that theory A is correct, and you're able to mold theory A into your plans, what you're trying to reach, it's a problem that makes it hard for me to support such ideas.

Creation(ism) has it's own problems, though. Things that worked 2000 years ago because of the climate, the world of then, and it's population, combined with a less developed scientific model, makes using such information harder. If only the Bible was written from the current knowledge and time we live in, it would probably get closer to the, truth. Same can be said in different ways about evolution(ism) in my opinion, but mostly because of it being abused for, as said, political, sociological, and sometimes psychological reasons and goals.

Conclusion: I don't think any of these ideas are correct, though they give decent perspectives, theories, of what actually happened. It's like two somewhat unreliable narrators to the same story. The most important thing is not to let such discussions divide you or make you think the opposite site are [fill in derogatory terms]. This subject is in dire need of more information and a lot less two-camps-claiming-total-knowledge.

[The E]

The main problem with that is that we all, sadly, don't have the needed information to make conclusions on whether Evolution(ism) or Creation(ism) is the correct explanation. I'm thinking it's something in between, or completely different.

The problem is, there is no "in-between" between Science and Religion. Creationism belongs firmly in the realm of religion, and as such, cannot be proved or disproved by Science. Keep in mind, the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that can be tested for and proven. Creationism doesn't (since it involves an all-powerful creator doing stuff, which is a supposition that cannot be proven or disproven using scientific tools).

I'm meaning to bring out what people -use- the ideas for, and they generally can turn bad, especially in the hands of a state religion/scientific theory. By convincing groups of people that theory A is correct, and you're able to mold theory A into your plans, what you're trying to reach, it's a problem that makes it hard for me to support such ideas.

Yes, but that is quite a different thing from Science or Religion themselves.

Creation(ism) has it's own problems, though. Things that worked 2000 years ago because of the climate, the world of then, and it's population, combined with a less developed scientific model, makes using such information harder. If only the Bible was written from the current knowledge and time we live in, it would probably get closer to the, truth. Same can be said in different ways about evolution(ism) in my opinion, but mostly because of it being abused for, as said, political, sociological, and sometimes psychological reasons and goals.

What a steaming heap of wrongness. How a given theory is used in non-scientific areas has no impact on the validity of the theory itself.

Conclusion: I don't think any of these ideas are correct, though they give decent perspectives, theories, of what actually happened. It's like two somewhat unreliable narrators to the same story.

Except that one of the narrators is open to being corrected if the audience finds faults with his story, and the other spends his time sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA". I'll let you guess which is which.

 

The most important thing is not to let such discussions divide you or make you think the opposite site are [fill in derogatory terms]. This subject is in dire need of more information and a lot less two-camps-claiming-total-knowledge.

Again, the difference is, the Evolution camp has a scientific theory and a scientific framework to test it. The Creationist camp has a religious theory and tries to use the scientific framework to prove it right. Which is not working. At all.

(Also, the Creationists are unbelievably arrogant in assuming that the Christian version of things is correct, ignoring the vast majority of all humans who have lived and died believing in different theories.)