 |
| |
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I know they didn't use the theoretical approach to things, but that increases my respect. Theory is a shortcut for practice; theory would help reject a hundred bad ideas you'd have to go through if you didn't know it. Real, formal, theory didn't even begin until Newton started his work, and this is why progress was so greatly increased after this. It doesn't mean they had any less need of the brains they had than we do, though. Pattern-matching, noticing coincidences and discovering similarities are all demanding intellectual tasks, especially when you're starting out with very limited experience/knowledge.
Look at how many great scientists have lived in the last 350 years. I could rattle off a hundred names that made real, original contributions to science and technology. How many great scientists can you name from before 1500? Yet there is 40 000 years of advance made before this by tens of billions of physiologically modern humans. These people were no less intelligent than we, but because they had no foundation to work from their progress was slow and painstaking, trial-and-error. The human mind was stretched to its limits to achieve what we look back on and perceive as minor advancements in flint tools and the like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There isn't really that much evidence for the theory of evolution - a least not enough to satisfy a skeptical scientist (like me!). There is a lot of evidence for certain areas: for example, evolution via mutation does occur in the laboratory in fruit flies, and carbon dating of fossils gives tells us the the Earth is older than the traditional 6000 years. There is also some evidence to suggest that the universe itself is approximately 14 billion years old (but you could dispute that). |
I wonder why the non-scientists are so sure in here when a scientist like you who believe in evolution isn't.
Anyways, carbon dating, what are the conditions for this theory to be true? Does major changes in the climate, athmosphere allow for this theory? For example the bible teaches that the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky and that this burst down on earth. I'm sure the carbon dating method has limitations of certain conditions for it to be true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
I wonder why the non-scientists are so sure in here when a scientist like you who believe in evolution isn't, |
Rogan is not a biologist. There is, for instance, far more evidence for evolution than for the existence of the electron, or for the historical existence of George Washington. Science teaches that everything is a theory: even the theory that the Earth is round, for instance.
But ALL genuine biologists agree that evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt (by "genuine" biologists, I mean the thousands who are open to scientific evidence, not the dozen or so fundies who have managed to obtain degrees in the subject despite not believing what they were taught).
quote:
I wonder why the non-scientists are so sure in here when a scientist like you who believe in evolution isn't. |
Interesting that you dismiss those who accept evolution as "teenagers", "hillbillies", and now "non-scientists". Do you actually know that evolution is the accepted view of basically the entire scientific community? What about the other scientists here on Apolyton? Provost Harrison has a degree in biology, and I expect there are others here.
quote:
Anyways, carbon dating, what are the conditions for this theory to be true? Does major changes in the climate, athmosphere allow for this theory? For example the bible teaches that the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky and that this burst down on earth. I'm sure the carbon dating method has limitations of certain conditions for it to be true. |
Carbon dating isn't particularly relevant to evolutionary history, as it only goes back about 50,000 years. No climate conditions can affect the forms of radiometric dating used to date rocks.
And the Bible does not teach that "the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky". The waters were above the solid firmament which covered the flat Earth like a dome. You're already twisting the Hebrew cosmology to fit some of the findings of modern science: so why stop there?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Interesting that you dismiss those who accept evolution as "teenagers", "hillbillies", and now "non-scientists". |
Teenagers? This was actually adressed to a teenager in here who had a short visit. Hillbillies and non-scientists? You misunderstood this once. Then I explained it. You skip my explanation and then you misunderstood this for the 2nd time. As I stated earlier I was referring to my signature and was not trying to insult anyone. Please don't misunderstand this thrice.
Flat earth:
The bible doesn't teach that doctrine. The earth looks flat from where I stand. That doesn't make it flat. This is what the bible teaches.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And the Bible does not teach that "the earth was surrounded by waters in the sky". The waters were above the solid firmament which covered the flat Earth like a dome. You're already twisting the Hebrew cosmology to fit some of the findings of modern science: so why stop there? |
This is what the bible says:
Gen1:6 And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below.
Psalm 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.
Genesis7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Genesis7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
The waters were above and below according to scripture.
Genesis 7:19: Does evolution theory open up for such a massive flood?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Viper2263
|
|
of Germania
Jan 2002
time: 05:16
|
|
I think precipitation would have been a pretty stagering concept to the ancient Hebrews; God may have told them about modern science, however, when He tried to explain such simple things such as where rain water comes from would have been on about the level you would be able to explain quantum physics to a child. No matter how you put it to them, until they discovered enough on their own they will never understand it. And therefore make up their own explanations, while not perhaps true, that are easily understand able. After all the universe can't be that complex. Can it?
I believe to some degree that modern science is God's current communication with us and he is simply leading us along a path (much like some people can do in conversation) that will help him explain to us, without the Earth shattering, burning bush type, communications of the past, precisely how he created man & Earth.
Science and Religion are effectively two sides to the same coin. People are constantly trying to seperate the two, but lets face it they describe the exact same thing!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:16
|
|
OH.....MY.....GAADD!!!! 
11 entire pages of posts comprised of people banging their heads against a wall in a vain attempt to convince the rest whose collective wills shall not be moved!!
I think the old testament (at the very least) is a load of bollocks, but trying to explain the merits of evolutionary theory to these people is a lost cause, i'm afraid 
The entire point of this is not to disprove the flood, but that it was not done by the will of god! However, this is pointless as it can never be disproven, so it is by virtue a lost cause. What is important, however, is that such a flood, or even a boat, does not prove the existence of god, or more particularly, that he directly influences events on earth, or anywhere else in the universe for that matter!
If people want to believe in the bible, let them, as it is, after all, a matter of faith, not of fact. Of course, this does not give them the right to dictate to everyone else not to teach evolution. The reason they do this is simple. Evolutionary theory challenges, indirectly or otherwise, the bible, so they consider it be; at best, an affront; at worst, blasphemy. The truth of the matter is that scientific education allows one to challenge orthodox science, so it should be taught as it is the purest form of searching for the truth. Biblical teachings cannot be afforded the same level of impartiality, however.
There may be a god, but if there is, he/she is restricted to either creating the universe, in which he could not play a further role in it's development, or he was created with the universe, in which case he is subject to the same laws of physics (whatever they may ultimately be) as the rest of us. I expect neither case to please creationists, so i can expect many vehement and venemous replies of outrage 
Of course, it is always important to point out that evolution of life is only a theory. However, scientific theories allow us to accurately predict events, and alone have allowed the development of all moden conveniences, and the standard of living which few in history have ever enjoyed. God may have set the wheels in motion, but our destiny for now seems firmly in our own hands.
Cheers,
Lung the philosopher 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And the evidence for the common descent of all living organisms from shared ancestors is similarly certain: the odds of the fossil record appearing as it does by chance (or creationist "Flood sorting", or basically anything else except common descent) are much less than the reciprocal of a googol (10 to the 100th power). Similar results apply to the patterns revealed by DNA analysis and other disciplines. Overall, I'd say the certainty of common descent is nailed down as tightly as the value of the electroweak coupling constant. |
I don't know how you can justify this statement. I accept that we are probably 'related' to apes (although I would say that the similarity of our DNA is more compelling than any fossil records, which imho are incomplete), but you are pushing credibility somewhat to suggest that all life on Earth is related. In fact, it is probably not - there is some evidence for silicon based (as opposed to carbon based) life forms living inside volcanos, that cannot be 'related' to the carbon based life forms. I would go further, and suggest that not all carbon based life forms have a common decent either. Life on Earth consists of far more than just apes and humans.
But neither the fossil records nor the similarity of our DNA say anything about the mechanism of evolution. The only evidence that we have for Natural Selection is amongst very short lived organisms which we can 'evolve' in the laboratory. To say that this implies the same mechanism for the evolution of man implies an extrapolation of over 6 orders of magnitude. Hardly convincing. Many people who research such matters would not make this extrapolation. For example, one school of thought is that the mutations do not occur continuously but coincide with some cataclysmic event. These events could explain why there are so many big jumps in the fossil records.
My point here is that while Darwin's evolution is not contradicted by the evidence, the evidence does not, by any means, explore all the implications of his model, but only tests certain aspects. One should be aware that other (albeit similar) models may give surprisingly similar results which also match the current evidence.
And then, there is still the initail creation event(s) which we have been completely unable to reproduce in the laboratory....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
I don't know how you can justify this statement. I accept that we are probably 'related' to apes (although I would say that the similarity of our DNA is more compelling than any fossil records, which imho are incomplete), but you are pushing credibility somewhat to suggest that all life on Earth is related. In fact, it is probably not - there is some evidence for silicon based (as opposed to carbon based) life forms living inside volcanos, that cannot be 'related' to the carbon based life forms. I would go further, and suggest that not all carbon based life forms have a common decent either. Life on Earth consists of far more than just apes and humans. |
I think you're referring to the "extremophile" bacteria that live in near-boiling, highly acidic water around volcanic vents. They are, nevertheless, carbon-based. In fact, they are genetically similar to the mitochondria that metabolize oxygen in our cells. Mitochondria reproduce separately (by asexual fission), and are thought to be bacteria which became involved in a symbiotic relationship with our protozoan ancestors during the "oxygen crisis", when oxygen from photosynthesis began to accumulate in the atmosphere.
It is certain that all multicellular life is related (we are all eukaryotes), and even prokaryotic bacteria and viruses use the same bases in their DNA and the same genetic code. Scientists can be pretty sure that all life on Earth is related.
quote:
But neither the fossil records nor the similarity of our DNA say anything about the mechanism of evolution. The only evidence that we have for Natural Selection is amongst very short lived organisms which we can 'evolve' in the laboratory. To say that this implies the same mechanism for the evolution of man implies an extrapolation of over 6 orders of magnitude. Hardly convincing. Many people who research such matters would not make this extrapolation. For example, one school of thought is that the mutations do not occur continuously but coincide with some cataclysmic event. These events could explain why there are so many big jumps in the fossil records. |
Both mutation and natural selection have been observed many times in animals of all types and sizes. Whenever a human being dies without progeny as a result of a congenital defect, that's a harmful mutation being knocked out by natural selection.
In "Punctuated Equilibrium", the mutations happen regardless of circumstances: what varies is the likelihood that a random mutation will prove beneficial, which tends to be during periods of change. Darwin himself predicted what we now call "chaos theory" with regard to the stability of ecosystems: a single event such as the arrival of a new predator can produce a cascade of change. Variable mutation rates is a more recent concept involving "mutagenic mutations" (mutations whic make further mutation more likely). Because mutations tend to be harmful, such a trait tends to get eliminated, but the situation can be reversed under circumstances where beneficial mutations are urgently needed (in times of rapid change), causing a burst of accelerated mutation. This is still Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection: it is not an "alternative mechanism".
quote:
My point here is that while Darwin's evolution is not contradicted by the evidence, the evidence does not, by any means, explore all the implications of his model, but only tests certain aspects. One should be aware that other (albeit similar) models may give surprisingly similar results which also match the current evidence. |
Any alternative model must include common descent, because this is what the evidence clearly indicates. Furthermore, mutations WILL happen and natural selection WILL operate, so any alternative model must also incorporate the inevitability of Darwinian evolution. So far, other than the fanciful claims of creationists and their ilk, such models operate within Darwinian evolution.
quote:
And then, there is still the initail creation event(s) which we have been completely unable to reproduce in the laboratory.... |
That's abiogenesis, not evolution. But much progress has been made, despite the huge difficulty of simulating all the biochemical reactions in the Earth's oceans over millions of years into hundreds of little test-tubes and a timescale of days or weeks. It's rather like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
God, I hate these boards - just typed in a long reply which then got lost in the ether of cyberspace....
Silicon based life on Earth:
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000035.html
Jack: Since you seem to be well informed on these matters, let me take the opportunity to ask you a question.
What is the probability of 'life' forming from the non-living primordial soup?
Indulge me looking at the possibilities:
1. The probability is very low - low enough that there was only ever one 'creation event', consistant with the idea that all life is descended from one primitive micro-organism (a primitive Adam if you like). My problem with this is that the probability for Adam to be wiped out before reproducing is presumably rather high - so why are we here?
2. To get round this problem the probability of the creation of life must be rather high, so that Adam can have a few goes at life before getting it right and populating the Earth. However, then the probability of having two (possibly identical) Adams succeed would be too high, and all life would not be descended from the same source.
So we must have the probability somewhere in between. High enough that life can form but low enough that there is only one source. This is clearly a rather narrow window, so it introduces a fine tuning problem. Why would the probability be just right to form life from just one Adam?
I would be interested to hear what you think. (No anthropic principles please!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
What is the probability of 'life' forming from the non-living primordial soup?
Indulge me looking at the possibilities:
1. The probability is very low - low enough that there was only ever one 'creation event', consistant with the idea that all life is descended from one primitive micro-organism (a primitive Adam if you like). My problem with this is that the probability for Adam to be wiped out before reproducing is presumably rather high - so why are we here?
2. To get round this problem the probability of the creation of life must be rather high, so that Adam can have a few goes at life before getting it right and populating the Earth. However, then the probability of having two (possibly identical) Adams succeed would be too high, and all life would not be descended from the same source.
So we must have the probability somewhere in between. High enough that life can form but low enough that there is only one source. This is clearly a rather narrow window, so it introduces a fine tuning problem. Why would the probability be just right to form life from just one Adam?
I would be interested to hear what you think. (No anthropic principles please!) |
Obviously, at this stage, we lack hard data for calculating actual probabilities: we don't know what the first self-replicator was, or the exact chemical conditions under which it formed.
But scientists keep pushing back the time at which evidence of life first appears, and it's now so close to the formation of the Earth itself that it's likely life was forming and getting wiped out several times during the "heavy bombardment" era, when there was still a lot of debris floating around the Solar System.
So I'd say the probability is high for the formation of crude self-replicators, it is likely to happen many times. And we know that polynucleotide strings can form under simulated early-Earth conditions and that they can catalyze the formation of similar strings from free nucleotides and proteins from amino acids (both of which should be available).
A successful self-replicator in a primordial soup containing no predators or competition would undergo explosive population growth, so even with a relatively high chance of one emerging (remember we're still talking about a timeframe of millions of years here), it's still very unlikely that a rival would appear and survive. I expect the first good one would multiply until there was no "soup" left, then scavenge the remains of those that die.
So the "window" wouldn't be narrow at all, but very wide: conditions would have to be extremely favorable for a second self-replicator to emerge while the first hasn't yet dominated the world, given the speed of exponential growth. And, if it happened: survival of the fittest. These things would initially be horribly inefficient: plenty of scope for a beneficial mutation in one to cause the extinction of the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Besides, who's to say that life didn't start more than once? They just found a new kind of Archaea in a hot spring in Idaho.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/...e.ap/index.html
Perhaps they were multiple life-forming events, with some finding niches that the dominant life-form couldn't occupy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Hmmm....
I an not sure I really buy that argument - ie that life could form multiple times but one of the 'Adams' got a head start so it could out-compete the others - because there are always places on Earth were competition is minimal. And there are always niches to fill. It is just like why there are som many species on Earth - because there are so many roles to play. But maybe....
UR: it does matter what the probabilities are. Unless you invoke an anthropic principle (ie without successful creation of life on Earth we wouldn't be here to argue the point) we really have to have a non-neglible probability of life forming by random means, or explain why this planet is so different that life would form here.
It is just like throwing a pin in the air. Imagine it lands on the pointy end and balances perfectly. This is statistically possibe but has vanishingly small probability, so if it happens you can be pretty sure there is some other underlying reason...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-01-2002 18:02
You have got to be joking, right? 
|