Some Logical Questions about the Big Bang and Evolution

[stratego]

This shows that one specie can become two different species.

 

[Ovulator]

an interview with Mary Leakey (who spent her whole life searching for these missing links) said to the Associated Press in Dec 10,1996 : " All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." To be fair it needs to be noted that Mary was still an evolutionists but wonder if man would ever find these links.

i don't see where people even see the "missing link" anymore. what link is it that needs to be filled. and you say 'between man and monkey' do some research because there are a lot of species in between.

the difference between these two is like a patch for Civ3 (micro-evolution) and change Civ3 to Doom 3 (macro-evolution). the idea that if we continue patching Civ3 with small changes until Doom 3 is the same saying a lot of micros add up to macros. The big problem with this idea the eventually the game will no longer work without huge jumps in the programming to still have a game. Because of this there are those in biology and biochemist questioning this.
www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf

this whole anology is flawed because for example human and chimp genomes are 98.8% the same, so only very small 'programming' changes need to be made, where as civ3 and doom3 don't share 98.8% of their programing.

 

[Ovulator]

'Mere evolution', yes. But in what way does it validate #5 or #6 evolution?

evolution doesn't work by a homo sapien popping out of a chimpanzee.

 

[Furry Spatula]

Big Bang
-Actually, some scientists are beginning to reject the idea that matter can not be created or destroyed, and start to lean towards the idea that gravity is the thing that can't be created or destroyed. (This would require that you believe in parallel universes though).

No it doesn't. Matter has been known to be destroyed for quite some time. In nuclear explosions matter is "destroyed" by its conversion to energy.

Anyhow, there is no explanation as to where the energy and matter that is our universe originated. Atleast nothing that the scientific community considers seriously.

 

[carlosMM]

Which non-scientific sense, #5, or #6? (Terms #5 and #6 taken from article.) This article is about what I've been saying for years. You people keep changing definitions on me in mid-sentence. It's like fighting a wave on the ocean. You've got the 'formless' part of Sun-Tzu down pat, I'll say that.

nope!

you still do not understand!

You always try to whittle down the definition to ONE aspect. But it is a complex process, influencing many levels, from single molecules up to whole ecosystems. You CAN'T address ONE part using the partial definition for ANOTHER part (as you are prone to try)!

 

[stratego]

No it doesn't. Matter has been known to be destroyed for quite some time. In nuclear explosions matter is "destroyed" by its conversion to energy.

You mean E= (gamma)mc^2? That's old news. This is new theory being tested by UCB professors.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

nope!

you still do not understand!

You always try to whittle down the definition to ONE aspect. But it is a complex process, influencing many levels, from single molecules up to whole ecosystems. You CAN'T address ONE part using the partial definition for ANOTHER part (as you are prone to try)!

Uh, that's what I'm complaining about YOU doing! How did that cake in your hand taste when you ate it?

Sheesh.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

This shows that one specie can become two different species.

But does it show that a mushroom can become a lichen or sac-fungi? Does it show that a primitive rodent can branch out and become dogs, cats, bears, woodchucks, or marmosets?

No.

All it shows is that mushrooms can get picky about breeding with other mushrooms.

That's MICRO-evolution.

*Lifts the bun, peers underneath.* Where's the MACRO?

 

[carlosMM]

But does it show that a mushroom can become a lichen or sac-fungi? Does it show that a primitive rodent can branch out and become dogs, cats, bears, woodchucks, or marmosets?

No.

All it shows is that mushrooms can get picky about breeding with other mushrooms.

That's MICRO-evolution.

*Lifts the bun, peers underneath.* Where's the MACRO?

GARGH!!!!!!

Is this SOOOOOO difficult???????
a RODENT is called a RODENT because it has specific autapomorphies it shares with all other rodents (except for those who later dropped them). a RODENT will not 'become' a CAT - in todays definitions!


GGAARGGHH!!!!!!!!


If something you today would call a fish has, in the long run, offsrpings that you today would call mammals - would that satisfy your definition of evolution?

Yes?


go see the other thread in about ten mins - I am busy writing a long post there right now.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

And how many times have I heard that the first mammal was a primitive rodent-like creature? So now it wasn't?

Will you evos make up your minds?

 

[carlosMM]

And how many times have I heard that the first mammal was a primitive rodent-like creature? So now it wasn't?

Will you evos make up your minds?

Will you learn to take the meaning of the word?
rodent-like!

as in 'you guys have no idea, but you'd probably call it a rat, based on external appearance. It is totally different in most important aspects from a rat, but you ignorant rednecks wouldn't even notice, so we say it's rodent-like to give you a roguh idea.'

that comparison addresses only the points of size, general body proportions, integument (fur), probably coloration and lifestyle. NOT the exact and important details!


I'd be surprised to see 1 in 1000 non-biologists distinguish a mouse-sized insectivore from a small rodent on external appearace, btw. But the insectivore is actually closer to the first mammal.

 

[col]

I'll leave the evo stuff up to the eminent paleaologist. My master's thesis was in cosmology so I guess I'm probably as qualified as any to answer the first questions.

The Big Bang"
1. What, if anything, was the cause of the original bowling ball (or marble, or whatever) that made up all the matter in the universe? Had it always existed, or what?
2. What caused this ball to explode as it did?
3. How could all the matter in the universe have fit into a ball that small?
4. What evidence is there for this theory, other than the fact that all those galaxies, etc. are rushing away from each other at such a great speed?


We have good models of the universe as has previously been stated back to the first few picoseconds. Oversimplified: we can convert energy into matter and vice versa. This happens all the time. Even in a vacuum, quantum fluctuations of energy due to the uncertainty principle are creating and annihilating new matter all the time. This has been experimentally confirmed.

Gravitational energy is negative. You can create a lot of it if you create positive energy at the same time. Starting from nothing, it is possible with a big enough fluctuation to create the initial point that was our universe. There was no matter but a lot of energy. We dont have a working quantum theory of gravitation which is needed to fully understand this but there are strong indications from existing theories that this is not only possible but inevitable at some point. Cosmologists usually indicate that time itself began with this step so there was no 'before'.

The universe then went into an expansion phase whereby negative gravitational energy and positive energy which created particles and photons was balanced and increasing. This is what is usually referred to as the big bang. Its not an explosion. Space itself is expanding. ie the atoms in your body are getting further apart. We are all expanding!

The remnants of that early high temperature/energy phase are detected as the cosmological microwave background. There is no other explanation for its remarkable uniformity. Its current frequency distribution and temperature was predicted by cosmologists before its discovery by Penzias and Wilson in 1965.

The cosmic abundances of Hydrogen and Helium were predicted usuing models of the conversion of energy to matter and early fusion reactions. They agree closely with observed abundances.

Other models of the universe such as the steady state theory have all fallen by the wayside. Only the big bang model - which is continually being refined - stands up to observational tests.

 

[betazed]

@Ado de Fimnu : Pardon my skepticism, but you have brought up questions on two topics that have little relationship to each other except the fact that they are pet peeves of the Christian right. So I guess it is a little hard for me to ignore the assumption that there might be a hidden agenda after all. If not, sorry.

The evolution stuff has been beaten to death again and again (and I see carlosMM and FL2 at it again, good to see things haven't changed at all in my brief absence ). Hence, I will leave that in their capable hands.

As for Big bang, TLC, Gothmog and Col has pretty much covered everything that can be said simply and I will add just a minor point.

It is possible to concoct an explanation for the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) in other theories too, for example the Hoyle-Narlikar steady state theory. But IIRC, that involves bringing in artifacts to the theory like C-Fields etc. Hence, they are not very elegant. The CMB arises from the inflationary model elegantly without any additional assumptions. Moreover, the inflationary model can not only explain the CMB but even the minute variations in the CMB. Currently, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) is completing the survey of the entire sky for this variation. The jury is still out if everything is found compatible but majority thinking is that no surprises are due.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Nice to have you back, betazed!

 

[betazed]

[off topic]

Nice to have you back, betazed!

thanks.

[/off topic]

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Hey look, its betazed Welcome back sir!

 

[Vanadorn]

Thank the infinite, expanding universe betazed's back! The general IQ of this board just jumped 6 points!

V

 

[betazed]

Hey look, its betazed Welcome back sir!

Thank you DP and Vanadorn. I feel so loved.


As for the evidence of big bang and its relationship with CMB and the WMAP probe here is very good NASA page

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

 

[The Last Conformist]

Thank the infinite, expanding universe betazed's back! The general IQ of this board just jumped 6 points!

V

On last count, we had 49904 members. Assuming the average IQ to've been 100 before he rejoined, it follows his IQ is just under 300,000. Bright guy.

 

[Adso de Fimnu]

@Adso de Fimnu : Pardon my skepticism, but you have brought up questions on two topics that have little relationship to each other except the fact that they are pet peeves of the Christian right. So I guess it is a little hard for me to ignore the assumption that there might be a hidden agenda after all. If not, sorry.

What point would a "hidden agenda" serve? I related the two topics because I have questions about both of them. I personally do not consider them 'pet peeves'. They are both fascinating theories which I would like to learn more about. (By the way, your skepticism is pardoned, but unecessary.)