patrick.net

Bap33 says

"TIME" just like everything else, in this case a dimension, had to be created. God created time first, "IN THE BEGINING". THen God created "DISTANCE" and "MATTER" second, "God created the Heavens and Earth". That makes the three dimensions required to have "energy". Accelerating matter over a distance in a measured amount of time creates energy. God accelerates matter, hangs the electrons of each atom in perfect orbit with super gravity, and energy results.

These statements are so ridiculous, pulled out of thin air with no proof that I don't even know where to begin. God created time, distance and matter and then energy. He mixed it up and then gave us the earth. Brilliant. Where is the proof?

Why should there be an existence of God for all these? Why can't matter and energy simply just exist? Why should there be a Creator?

Oh why bother - when you won't even ask these basic questions? Continue your blind faith.

Bap33 says

when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start?

What clock? You can trace all the way to Big Bang. Our Milky Way Galaxy is one among billions of galaxies that are there in the universe.

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

It is the deepest image taken of our universe.

Earth is not all that big or special, you know?

Here's a great scientist, explaining about the Pale Blue Dot.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wupToqz1e2g

Bap33 says

How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

When you say life showed up 1B years later, was the Earth cool yet? Was there atmosphere and water vapor and oceans and photosenthisis ... or what? Serious question.

There are lots of theories, such as primordial soup theory wherein the organic compounds (proteins, amino acids) that are required for basic life to sustain, formed first.

then, prokaryotes (simple cells) and so on.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

There are questions asked about origin of water as well.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Earth

In either case, none of these require some external Creator to perform these things. Anybody claiming there is an external Creator gets the burden of proof. Not the one who claims "I don't know". Science's answer to the questions it cannot adequately answer is "I don't know".

hey hey, smart guy, I asked questions. Go check. See, I asked questions, I didn't give you God as the only answer.

So, lets recap. I asked how far along Earth was in it's own evolution at 4.6B years ago.

ANd then I asked when did life first show up.

ANd then I asked what the state of Earth was at that exact time.

I just don't see much God in my questions. You seem a bit jumpy about that part, huh?

The only part you are really wrong about is that whole "burden of proof". You have the burden of proving how something comes from nothing, and how nothing in the middle of nowhere made everything all at once, with no reason or purpose or plan, exploding in mass chaos, resulting in perfect balance.... yea ... that'll happen. I am not thusly burdened, as I know God did it.

You are just as blind to grasp a science book and "know" that all there is to know about anything is in there. Science gets to use the word "theroy". Believers in God use the word "faith". You may be well served to realize that much of science is "best guess". Always has been. The good scientists made sure to shape their words to leave an out.

THe one part that really is cool is how everthing is laid out in a flat plane in our solor system and galaxy ... rotating ... around nothing. That flat plane design was key to many things, huh? Gravity ... the kind that hold electrons in orbit .... where did that come from? You can't get that from chaos, even in science, can you?

Bap33 says

The Earth age you give, of 4.6B, when in the Earth's evolution of coming into being does the clock start? Like, when the first two iron molecules began to rotate the Sun, or after the mantel was done froming, or whatever. How done was the Earth on day 1, 4.6B years ago? Was it cooled off yet?

There were not simply a first or first two "iron molecules". A massive amount of iron atoms and other heavy elements were blow off into interstellar space by a supernova. When this supernova exploded we don't know as that star has long since moved away from us.

Some of the ejected material coalesced into a slowly spinning disc. As the disc condensed and became more well-formed, the angular momentum was preserved by increasing the spin like an ice-skater spinning faster as she draws in her arms.

At the center of the disc, the sun began to form. At other parts further from the center, various small planetoids began to form. This happened approximately 4.6 billion years ago. While the sun began fusing hydrogen atoms together to form helium and releasing photons (light) as a result, the various small planetoids were crashing into each other forming larger structures which eventually became the familiar eight planets. [Pluto is still undergoing this process in the Kuiper Belt, which is why it is no longer considered a planet.]

The earliest known life on Earth appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. Life may have existed earlier than that, but we don't have any evidence yet. Even so, the Earth had about half a billion years to cool and form oceans and continents before life even began. And that life all existed in the ocean. Land was only conquered much later.

If you are interested in learning more about this subject, which I personally find fascinating, I suggest viewing a television series called The Universe. Strangely, this program is on The History Channel rather than The Science Channel, but it is nonetheless an excellent series that is easily understood by someone not familiar with physics or astronomy. It is also visually breathtaking. The series has been going on for years, and season one went over the formation of our solar system in great detail. I believe you can watch episodes online at the above website.

This

Bap33 says

See, I asked questions, I didn't give you God as the only answer.

completely, blatantly, contradicts with this.

Bap33 says

I am not thusly burdened, as I know God did it.

you have made an implicit assumption based on nothing but BLIND FAITH that God did it. Religion is an awesome way of ignoring the burden of proof, through blind faith. You are ignoring the burden, not removing it.

Bap33 says

with no reason or purpose or plan, exploding in mass chaos, resulting in perfect balance.... yea ... that'll happen

Yeah of course that could happen. For you, it is just all too much to not have a Father figure. For most of the scientists, not so much.

Bap33 says

THe one part that really is cool is how everthing is laid out in a flat plane in our solor system and galaxy ... rotating ... around nothing.

What flat plane? Where did that come from? Do you think the Earth is a flat disc? LOL.

According to M-theory, there could be up to 11 dimensions (10 space + 1 time). Space-time curvature is the basis of theory of relativity. LOL, what's the point when you have "faith" to answer all questions!

Bap33 says

You can't get that from chaos, even in science, can you?

let's see here. Science has massive evidence up to a very short duration after the Big Bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer

COBE mission actually proved that the Big Bang Theory is the closest we can get to the truth about the earliest stage of the universe.

Science does not know the answer to the state of universe prior to the Big Bang. So the best answer is there are speculations, but no definitive answer. On the other hand, blindly believing that a Father figure just waved a wand and started the Big Bang makes perfect sense - except that can never be proved. Nice.

um, yea, reduce caffine intake, pal. You are going to throw a rod at that RPM. By "flat plane", I mean the system is all on the same plane ... flat ,,, the orbits of each planet are not all over the place on different planes around the sun .... like, electrons around an atom are commonly shown in art, going around on different planes. Geeeze, you took extra arguement powder today I see.

@Dan,
I enjoy the subject alot too. Neil DeGrasse(sp) has some really good programs I watch on youtube.

Bap33 says

pal. You are going to throw a rod at that RPM. By "flat plane", I mean the system is all on the same plane ... flat ,,, the orbits of each planet are not all over the place on different planes around the sun ....

makes no sense whatsoever. Gravity actually curves space and time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

All planets are not in the same plane, they all revolve around the sun but definitely not on the same plane.

Orbits are geodesics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

No problem for you, there's always faith to answer all questions!

austrian_man says

Science does not know the answer to the state of universe prior to the Big Bang.

Science is a process, so we really shouldn't make statements like "science does not know" when what we really mean is "mankind does not know, at least yet".

As a process, science is the best idea that mankind has ever, ever had. Period. There is absolutely no disputing this. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that unites all of mankind. A physicist from Kenya can talk to a physicist from California using the same equations. That's beautiful in itself.

Furthermore, science has accomplish things that religion quite frankly never could both in terms of explaining the nature of the universe and allowing us to create technologies that enhances our quality of life and our lifespans. And that is why one should respect science.

Dan8267 says

Science is a process, so we really shouldn't make statements like "science does not know" when what we really mean is "mankind does not know, at least yet".

What I mean by "Science does not know" is that Science hasn't answered the question yet. It is not to demean science as a process itself, it is by far the best we got.

The true answer to the moment prior to the Big Bang (at least so far) is "we don't know but we have speculative theories". But that is far more smarter than blindly believing anything.

In fact I would say "Science does not know" is a humble, modest statement on the part of scientists to accept their limitations in answering questions that are notoriously difficult. Rather than claiming some spooky father figure who created the universe, but actually doesn't give a sh*t.

austrian_man says

What I mean by "Science does not know" is that Science hasn't answered the question yet. It is not to demean science as a process itself, it is by far the best we got.

I understand that and you understand that. However, I think the wording is confusing bap. Religious people tend to personify everything.

@austrian man
RE: flat plane of our planets' orbit around Sun:
I just looked to make double sure. Only Pluto, that is not a planet, has an orbit that is a bit off the same plane as the other planets. I just put "orbit of planets" and clicked "images", and there it is. I can't figure why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane? Without the smartassed anti-God venom? Dan can, and does, express information without the crap, take a clue.

What have we seen of space due north or due south of our solor system?

@Dan,
Thanks.

Bap33 says

That flat plane design was key to many things, huh? Gravity ... the kind that hold electrons in orbit .... where did that come from?

Bap33 says

can't figure why you suggest they are not on the same plane.

Bap, there's a lot of stuff in the math and science that you don't understand. And unfortunately, you have a lot of misconceptions about how things work. Explaining each incorrect fact probably isn't the best approach -- although I will try to straighten you out on some things. However, I strongly advice taking a free online course in high school physics or introductory to physics.

Start with this video course from MIT. Don't let the fact that it's MIT scare you. The content is the same as you would find in a high school physics class. I haven't checked to see if it ever uses Calculus, but even if it does, you can get a lot out of it using only algebra and arithmetic.

Now about some of the misconceptions you have.

A flat plane is a mathematical model. As it is a 2D construct, it doesn't actually exist in the real universe. Things approximate a flat plane, but nothing ever is a perfectly flat plane. The planetary disk had thickness, but it was small compared to the major and minor radii of the disk.

Similarly, planets do not orbit in circles as true circles never exist. Our planetary orbit is close to being a circle, but not a perfect circle. Our planet's orbit is even closer to be a slightly elongated ellipse, but it is not a perfect ellipse because every object affects our orbit including the other planets, asteroids, etc.

Electrons are not held in orbit around an atomic nucleus by gravity. Electrons weigh practically nothing. Even atomic nucleus produce incredibly little gravity. Furthermore, electrons do not orbit nucleus in ellipses like objects orbiting due to gravity do. Electrons orbit erratically.

What holds electrons in orbit is the electro-magnetic force, not gravity. Electrons are electrically charged, that attracts them to the nucleus which has positively charged protons. However, a moving electric charge produces a magnetic field and a magnetic field exerts a force on electric charges. As a result, electrons zip around in very complex and unpredictable motion around the nucleus, but the motion is spread statistically evenly along the surface of an imaginary sphere determined by the orbit type and whether or not the electron is "excited".

To start out with physics, you will learn to measure four quantities: distance, time intervals, mass, and charge. Then you will see how to define other ideas using these terms. Finally, you will see how these ideas relate to each other and imply new things using mathematics. Here's a quick start.

Mass is a body's resistance to change in its motion. Although related to weight, mass is not weight. Mass is measured in kg.

Distance is measured in meters (m). Distance means what you conventionally think of as distance.

Time is measured in seconds (s). Time means what you conventionally think of as time.

Charge is measured in coulombs, but you won't have to deal with that for a while.

One more point on measurements. There are two common types of measurements: scalars and vectors. Scalars have only magnitude. For example, time, money, temperature are scalar measurements.

Vectors have a magnitude and a direction. Distance is a vector. 1 mile north is different from 1 mile east. If you go 3 miles east and then 4 miles north you have not traveled 7 miles, but rather only 5 miles from your point of origin. Vectors are added using the Pythagorean Theorem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. For example, 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.

Now that we have time, distance, and mass defined, we can define new terms.

The average velocity is simply the distance traveled divided by the time taken to travel the distance. v = (x2 - x1) / t

A little more advance, the instantaneous velocity at any given time is the instantaneous change in displacement with respect to time. This is done using derivatives (part of Calculus).

dx is the instantaneous change in displacement
dt is the instantaneous change in time

v = dx/dt

OK, now with velocity defined, we can define acceleration. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time.

a = dv/dt

Since a = dv/dt and v = dx/dt, we know a = d^2x / d^2t. That is, acceleration is the second derivative of displacement with respect to time.

We can also add units to our understanding.
x is measured in m.
t is measured in s.
v is measured in m/s.
a is measured in m/s/s or m/s^2.

So far we have just defined commonly understood terms. Let's do our first bit of physics by introducing a law. An object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. An object in motion stays in its motion unless acted upon by an outside force. So what's a force? A force is the acceleration of a mass. We define force as

F = ma
Force = mass times acceleration

How much force does it take to accelerate a 10 kg mass by 5 m/s^2?

F = 10 kg * 5 m/s^2
F = 50 kg m / s^2

We give the expression (kg m / s^2) a special name since it is commonly used. We call it a Newton or N for short.

F = 50N

The equation F=ma is the most important concept in classical physics. If you understand this equation, you can pretty much derive everything else in mechanics, which is most of what you learn in physics 101 until you get to electricity and magnetism.

Using F=ma, we derive an important law of conservation. x is displacement.
F = ma
F*x = m * a * x
F*x = m * d^2x/dt^2 * x (Technically, I'd use an integral here, but I'll keep it simple.)
F*x = m * dx/dt
F*x = m*v
Fx = mv
impulse = momentum

This equation says that if you apply a constant force on an object for a given distance you will impart a specific momentum on that object. As momentum is conserved (never created or destroyed), this is a very important law that explains many things in the universe including planetary formation. The equation Fx = mv refers to linear momentum, which is conserved. But there is also an equation for angular momentum, which is also conserved.

The fact that momentum is conserved means that if two people are on wet ice (i.e., a frictionless surface), they start at rest, and they push against each other, their net momentum is zero or
m1 * v1 = m2 * v2

So if one person is twice as massive as the other, he will be moving at only half the speed when they part.

Next we define Kinetic Energy (KE) as

KE = (1/2) mv^2

Let's calculate the kinetic energy of the two people we mentioned. Remember m2 = 1/2 * m1 and v2 = 2 * v1.
KE1 = (1/2) m1 * v1^2
KE2 = (1/2) m2v2^2
KE2 = (1/2) (1/2 * m1) * (2 * v1)^2
KE2 = (1/4) m1 * 4 v1^2
KE2 = m1 * v1^2

So, the kinetic energy of the smaller person is twice that of the larger person. Most of the energy when to the smaller person.

Energy is measured in kg m^2 / s^2 or Nm (Newton-meters) which is given the name Joule (J). Energy is also conserved in classical physics. In modern physics, mass-energy is conserved by that other famous equation E = mc^2.

And that is how physics works. Known fact or definition + math = new known fact or definition. And this is the process that got us to the moon.

cool.

heres a pic of the planet orbits.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=planet+orbits&view=detail&id=59279445EE37AE313A300CB0F9E1D418A080CD0B&first=0&qpvt=planet+orbits&FORM=IDFRIR

Bap33 says

I can't figure why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane?

Sure, Space in reality is not flat (flat is just 2-dimensions). Space has at least 3 dimensions (for e.g., a cube). Time is also a dimension according to Theory of relativity.

See this image for e.g.,

The image is a Two-dimensional analogy of spacetime distortion. Matter changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry being interpreted as gravity.

So there is no such thing as "flat", the space/time dimensions are warped and curved.

Bap33 says

Without the smartassed anti-God venom?

Sure, if you want to learn more: head over to http://www.khanacademy.org/#physics

They have a lot of videos that cover a range of topics.

Dan has done a decent job of demonstrating some basic physics, if you're interested there's TONS of online resources that you can use.

Apologies -- I thought you knew more on high-school or freshman physics.

austrian_man says

So there is no such thing as "flat", the space/time dimensions are warped and curved.

Flat like "ellipse" is mathematical perfection. As such, the Universe likely only approximates it.

Lobachevskian Geometry is often used in quantum mechanics while Riemannian Geometry is used for the Universe on the very large scale (many lightyears). Now, technically, space is quantized but the Planck Length is so small, 10^-35 m, even when dealing with quantum mechanics that you can for the most part treat space as continuous and differentiable.

So, if you have a space that is differentiable and it goes from having negative Gaussian curvature to positive Gaussian curvature, it must at some point have zero Gaussian curvature, i.e. it must be flat at that point.

For example, a torus (doughnut shape) has all three geometries. The topmost and bottommost horizontal cross-sections are circles in which Euclidean geometry applies. Note that you calculate Gaussian curvature by multiplying the max and min differentials at a point on a surface.

Dan, Bap had asked:

why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane?

This is a meaningful question. The answers yet were that each single orbit is (slightly) 3 dimential. Yet they are still very close to be an ellipse in the "plane" of their orbit.
Now, Bap's question is: when depicted all these planes are usually places in the same "plane" (which has a very small third dimension comparing to two other dimensions).

Dan8267 says

1. The plethora of evidence supporting it from genetics to fossils to carbon dating.

2. The real-time observations of evolution in bacteria, viruses, and other life forms with very short generations.

3. The commercial manipulation of the evolution to great new, useful organisms like bacteria that can act as batteries or clean pollution such as oil spills.

4. The observed evolution of humans in things like resistance to AIDs and the production of high density cholesterol, which prevents heart attacks and extends life. Google these things -- I'm tired of doing everyone's research.
5. The fact that genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution. And genetic code is legally accepted evidence in every court of law in the United States and most, if not all, other western nations.

So does that make me an evolution fundamentalist?

It does not as long as you are open to discuss these. I would appreciate if you explane how genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution.

Also, the process you call evolution is apparently different form what austrian_man calls Evolution, since he obviously does not understand how the process works:
"To consider what you just said, you say that human jaws becoming weaker means that humans had to die out. That is again disingenuous because you have to consider the totality of changes in any species that leads to its strength/weakness. Humans have the most advanced brains of all species, which means that we're smarter than any other animal on earth. We can outsmart the predators with our brain-power and the usage/building of tools that can help us."

So, would you be so kind to:
1. describe the process you call evolution;
2. show how genetic code mathematically mandates it.

I understand, I ask for quite a lot, but you did excelent jobs with your terse description of high school physics, i think i ask for much less than that.

michaelsch says

Also, the process you call evolution is apparently different form what austrian_man calls Evolution, since he obviously does not understand how the process works:

LOL, prove why I don't understand how the process works, rather than just making a blind assertion. Explain where I am wrong in understanding how evolution works.

Here's my definition: Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection.

Dr. Brian Alters' comment is very relevant here, as michaelsch seems to be of the camp of creationism.

The key issue revolves around misunderstanding the nature of science, particularly that modern science does not entertain supernatural causation. Modern creationism involves the belief that a supernatural power intervened in the natural processes of the development of life on Earth. Proponents want this taught in science classrooms as science and oppose parts or all of biological evolution

Note that science does not entertain supernatural causation, not because science is arrogant or anything like that. Science is based on observation and experimental/empirical evidence. That is the best way we got to get closer to the truth in whatever natural process we study.

I think I get what Dan means by "how genetic code mathematically mandates evolution", so I'll give it a shot.

Here's a quote by Dr. Eric Green, a Genomics scientist.

Evolutionary changes that allow a species to adapt and survive now help scientists identify functional sequences in the genome. Nonfunctional sequences tend to undergo change more readily than functional areas

So Genetic drift and mutation play a role in evolutionary changes and therefore they are an important factor in understanding the process. If there are changes in the genetic code/structure, we have changes in function (observed over long periods of time). This is what I think Dan means, when he says it is mathematically mandated. Meaning that evolution is an inevitable process.

michaelsch says

Dan, Bap had asked:

why you suggest they are not on the same plane. Could you explane?

This is a meaningful question.

I though I in effect addressed this. Planes, circles, ellipses are all mathematical ideals. Real motion approximates these ideals imperfectly because there is a crap load of stuff in the universe all affecting everything else. So you never have a situation simple enough to produce a perfect ellipse.

But yes, the eight major planets are all coplanar in practical terms because they where form by the same planetary disk. Pluto's orbit is inclined about 17.1 degrees from this plane because Pluto formed in the Kuiper Belt, which is a an area between two imaginary spheres just past the orbit of Uranus. The Kuiper Belt formed from the nebula that existed around our sun at the time it was forming. That nebula no longer exists, at least not in its original form.

michaelsch says

the process you call evolution is apparently different form what austrian_man calls Evolution

No. There is only one process of evolution and it's definition is world-wide. People don't get to make up their own definition of evolution any more than they get to make up their own definition of gravity or prime numbers. Austrian_Man is smart. He has the same understanding of evolution as I do.

michaelsch says

So does that make me an evolution fundamentalist?

It does not as long as you are open to discuss these.

Can you disprove the Theory of Evolution? In principle, yes. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. When Darwin first proposed Evolution, it was indeed an extraordinary claim. But what followed was 250 years of the most extraordinary proof that -- well, I would say "that man could imagine" except that we couldn't even image the proof because it was so extraordinary.

In order to disprove Evolution, you would have to show that all that evidence is wrong and explain how we were fooled by it. That is an extraordinary claim even greater than The Theory of Evolution was when Darwin published On the Origins of Species. To put it in perspective, it would be easier to prove that the world is flat and that somehow all our satellites stay up in the sky despite that.

Still, some people will still try just that and fail.

michaelsch says

I would appreciate if you explane how genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution.

I thought this would be obvious, but ok. Here's an example.

There are moths of some species in ecosystem with state S1. In S1 all trees are a light brown.

A gene G produces a pigment. A moth is light brown if it has 0 copies of gene G. A moth is dark brown if it has 1 copy of G. A moth is black if it has 2 copies of G (i.e., a copy from each parent).

Genetic variance in the moth species produces a ratio of 6:3:1 of moths that are light brown, dark brown, and black under state S1.

Humans pollute the crap of the ecosystem with coal power plants that release soot into the atmosphere which gathers on trees, changing the bark to black, state S2.

The light colored moths are quickly seen and eaten by predators as the they rest on the tree bark. As a result, any offspring of two moths both lacking gene G will likely die before reproducing. Offsprings of G/~G parents will fair much better. But the offspring of G/G parents will do best. This causes the number of copies of G to increase and the ~G sequences to decrease.

Given enough generations under S2, the ratio of genetic sequences becomes something like 1:2:8. With enough evolutionary pressure, the entire population could become double G.

Similarly, negatively selecting for a gene (i.e., selecting the negative of the traits resulting from the gene), can cause the population to lose that gene.

Genes compete with each other by letting natural selection selectively filter them from subsequent generations. This is the very definition of evolution. You cannot have competing genes without having evolution.

Bap33 says

When you say life showed up 1B years later, was the Earth cool yet? Was there atmosphere and water vapor and oceans and photosenthisis ... or what? Serious question.

Just to add a bit more info on this:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/AOqtJ5YZDtk

Brian Cox is a high-energy physicist at CERN Lab Switzerland. If you haven't heard of CERN, it is the most advanced physics laboratory in the world. They're actually having particles collide extremely close to the speed of light and are asking questions about the deepest laws of nature.

He says that there's a theory that microbes could have landed on earth from some other planetary body, which I thought was very interesting.

A very important statement he makes in the video:

I'm comfortable with the unknown. That's the point of science

I think most religions are born from, and survive on, an unnecessary but strong desire to fill in all the gaps of the unknown. Wherever there's a hole in our knowledge, we often place God, rather than skeptical and rational inquiry.

Dan, your moth example is a pure Mendelian genetics.
I don't see how a new species produced in this example.
In essence it is not different from the development of the Nordic human race. (white, Caucasian, whatever you call it). Biologists I know claim light skin, blond hair, and blue/grey eyes are a very recent development in humans. Most of the time modern human race existed it had dark skin, dark hair, and black/brown eyes.

While it could have a pigmentation genes mutation involved here, it could be that low pigmentation genes existed earlier in a small number of humans. Anyway, they prevailed when some human tribes moved to the North.

However, only a hyper-Nazi would claim it creates any new species.

I actually, hoped you would summarize the basic Darwins principles of constant random chanches in genetic code (mutations) and of natural selection. While your moth example demonstrates the natuarl selection principle, by itself it can't produce anything new, thus is not sufficient for evolution.

Dan8267 says

Austrian_Man is smart. He has the same understanding of evolution as I do.

Well, he writes: "To consider what you just said, you say that human jaws becoming weaker means that humans had to die out...."
Please read it carefully: it is about the mutation necessary for the evolution of humans. Humans did not exist yet, we are talking about a mutation in ape-like creatures, but he assumes they already somehow (mistically) turned to humans. That's exactly what I called the worship of the Great Goddess Evolution.

This.

michaelsch says

2. Anatomic changes of jaws, necessary for handling the variety of sounds in languages, but making human jaws much weaker than of any beast

is inconsistent with:

michaelsch says

Humans did not exist yet, we are talking about a mutation in ape-like creatures, but he assumes they already somehow (mistically) turned to humans. That's exactly what I called the worship of the Great Goddess Evolution.

LOL. You're the one who talked about human jaw weakness and not apes. You did not even mention the word "apes".

michaelsch says

Humans did not exist yet, we are talking about a mutation in ape-like creatures, but he assumes they already somehow (mistically) turned to humans.

You are making an unclarified assumption.

As I mentioned, the evolution of human brain is a fascinating field in and of itself, because it is quite nascent. There's a lot of discoveries to be made and that is what is fascinating in science.

We know that human brain is by far the most advanced organ of any organism that ever lived on the face of the earth. We also know that human brains are much larger than all other animals.

Mutation is not the only answer to the process of evolution, there's genetic drift (which is random) and there's natural selection. So it is a combination of factors at play. For instance, researchers have found that once an organ reaches a sufficient level of complexity (such as the human brain), organ-specific evolution slows down.

michaelsch says

That's exactly what I called the worship of the Great Goddess Evolution.

More assumptions. Dan and I admire the scientific process and agree that is the best we have. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific evidence and we see that evidence as factual support to the theory.

michaelsch says

I don't see how a new species produced in this example.

You did not ask for this example. The branching of one species into several or the change of a species into a new one is only part of evolution. You asked how genes cause evolution.

As I have explained, the fact that genomes compete for existence drives evolution. As long as you have competing genomes, you will see the process of evolution whether it's due to survival of the host organism or the ability of the host to attract mates.

As for the divergence of species, that was also covered in detailed by biologists ever since On the Origins of Species was published 250 years ago. Seriously, a cursory Google search is all that separates you from the entire knowledge base of mankind.

Nevertheless, I'll go over this material yet again. The worst thing about religion is that it causes people to form very bad though processes which in turn lead them to adopting many misconceptions about how nature and/or scientific theories work. Perhaps the most famous example of this is Christine O'Donnell thinking that just because humans are descendent from monkeys, the Theory of Evolution requires that monkeys would no longer exist. Even a fifth grader has a better understanding of evolution than that.

Unfortunately, you are also getting hung up on misconceptions that have nothing to do with biology or evolution. The term "species" is a human classification of animals made for our convenience in discussing the creatures. Nature does not classify things into nice, little non-overlapping categories that fit nicely into textbooks. Nature is messy. So biologist do their best in making it as neat as possible so they can talk intelligently about it.

That said, the term species is entirely a human concoction. There is no line between one species and its predecessor. The species line you are imagining is no more real than the International Date Line. It's purely imaginary. If you don't understand that, then watch this video in its entirety. It's 10:24 long, but is entertaining and worth it.

That said, biologist consider two animals of sexually reproducing species to be of the same species if and only if they could produce fertile offspring together. Of course, even by this definition, which applies only to sexually reproducing life, produces a continuous gradient of overlapping fuzzy sets as time goes on. There is no distinct species separation over time, although they are clear distinguished sets of species at a given time.

So, michaelsch, are you suggesting that our species is not descendant from monkeys? Such a claim is quite frankly ridiculous given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'll leave that as an exercise for you. But ask yourself, why do you have a problem with the idea that you are descendant from monkeys, rodents, fish, and ultimately single-celled organisms? Isn't pride supposed to be the original sin?

uomo_senza_nome says

New username and icon?

Dan8267 says

New username and icon?

:) Yep. Got bored with the old one.

Dan8267 says

So, michaelsch, are you suggesting that our species is not descendant from monkeys? Such a claim is quite frankly ridiculous given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That is a very good question. In fact, I would say if michaelsch thought that the answer is no to that question (meaning he accepts that we're descendants from monkeys), we wouldn't even be having such an elaborate discussion on why evolution is true.

Chimpanzees are our closest cousin michaelsch, whether you like it or not.

Dan8267 says

That said, biologist consider two animals of sexually reproducing species to be of the same species if and only if they could produce fertile offspring together.

LOL, after all the preaching you gave quite a meaningful definition. Of course it's not 100% accurate, as you mentioned, but it is the best we have now.

So, michaelsch, are you suggesting that our species is not descendant from monkeys?

No, where did you get this?
What I say is:
1. Development of humans out of ancient apes (or ape-like creatures, monkey is to general a word here) has several issues not fully explained yet, and possibly not explainable, because we have not enough evidence left, and because any Lab experiment seams unlikely.
2. Nevertheless, some evolutionist biologists find it appropriate to come up with various hypotheses, which seam to be unlikely and based on nothing, in order to exlplain out these issues. This indicates they treat Evolution not as a scientific theory, but as a dogma and something they need to serve, not something supposed to serve their research work.
3. Evolution classes are designed to avoid any white spots in the process of evolution. Usually, they are given as an introduction to biology to students who are clueless in natural science. That's why I consider them brainwashing indoctrination rather than science education.
4. This type of "education" causes damage to science, because researches are so used to ignore the "white spots" that only the most talented of them even get to addressing them.
5. Altogether, considering our existing Evolution classes much closer to cults than to education, I can understand why followers of different cults wish to skip such. That does not necessary mean I accept their cult.

michaelsch says

1. Development of humans out of ancient apes (or ape-like creatures, monkey is to general a word here) has several issues not fully explained yet, and possibly not explainable, because we have not enough evidence left, and because any Lab experiment seams unlikely.

Unethical, yes. Impossible, no. In principle I can reactivate dominant genes in your cells that would cause you to grow hair like your non-human ape ancestors did a mere 2 million years ago or would cause you to grow a tail like your monkey ancestors. In fact, there are genetic diseases that do exactly this because we are descendant from apes and, before that, monkeys. It is only a matter of time before this is technologically feasible as well.

Using genetics, biologists have mapped the relationships among hundreds of species of primates including all hominid species.

And "monkey" is not too general a word. It has a precise biological delimitation. There are three kinds of primates.

1. Prosimians - they have snouts and tails
2. Monkeys - they have flat faces and tails
3. Apes (including humans) - they have flat faces and lack tails.

Why are you so averse to acknowledging that you are a descendant of a monkey? Do you feel that makes you inferior or less special? Put away such childish nonsense. The more you learn about the long and random road that led to your existence, the more empowered you become.

michaelsch says

2. Nevertheless, some evolutionist biologists find it appropriate to come up with various hypotheses, which seam to be unlikely and based on nothing, in order to exlplain out these issues. This indicates they treat Evolution not as a scientific theory, but as a dogma and something they need to serve, not something supposed to serve their research work.

No. Simply no.

Dogma is for religion. There is no dogma in science. That's what you're failing to grasp. Belief is based solely upon evidence, not faith. The very concept of dogma is incompatible with science.

michaelsch says

3. Evolution classes are designed to avoid any white spots in the process of evolution. Usually, they are given as an introduction to biology to students who are clueless in natural science. That's why I consider them brainwashing indoctrination rather than science education.

No science class every hides facts or even lack of knowledge. I challenge you to provide a video of any real-world instance of this happening.

Here's how the science classes I took in school went.

Biology
Me: Why does A happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in chemistry.

Chemistry
Me: Ok, that explains A, but why does B happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in physics.

Physics I
Me: Ok, that explains B, but why the hell does C happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in Physics II.

Physics II
Me: Wait, you're saying that C was only an approximation? It's really D? OK, D makes more sense than C, but why does it happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in Physics III.

Physics III
Teacher: Everything you learned in Physics II was wrong. But now that you understand that, we can teach you what's really going on.

Of course, each layer of physics did give me a deeper understanding of the universe even though it's sometimes frustrating not knowing why a law exists because it involves more advance physics and mathematics than you currently have. But there is no other way to learn things.

michaelsch says

4. This type of "education" causes damage to science, because researches are so used to ignore the "white spots" that only the most talented of them even get to addressing them.

Ditto response to point 3.

michaelsch says

5. Altogether, considering our existing Evolution classes much closer to cults than to education, I can understand why followers of different cults wish to skip such. That does not necessary mean I accept their cult.

Have you every actually taken a class in evolution? Not being a medical student or biology major, I haven't. Sure, I read about it, but the closest to getting a class in it has been in general high school biology.

How many evolution courses have you taken? Of course, there are free ones online, but somehow I don't think you've actually sat through such a course as you do not seem to grasp even the basics of it. A person passing such a course would have a much more detailed and deep knowledge.

uomo_senza_nome says

Chimpanzees are our closest cousin michaelsch, whether you like it or not.

Bonobo chimps and humans share 98.8% of their DNA. There's not much difference between us. We're just lucky to have first evolved slightly larger brains or they would have ruled the earth.

Given Bonobo behavior though, that might not be a bad thing. Bonobos don't go to war because they solve disputes by having sex. Damn, I joined the wrong species. Wait, no. That would mean having sex with Cloud. Ewwwww.

michaelsch says

3. Evolution classes are designed to avoid any white spots in the process of evolution. Usually, they are given as an introduction to biology to students who are clueless in natural science. That's why I consider them brainwashing indoctrination rather than science education.
4. This type of "education" cause damage to science, because researches are so used to ignore the "white spots" that only the most talented of them even get to addressing them.
5. Altogether, considering our existing Evolution classes much closer to cults than to education, I can understand why followers of different cults want to skip such. That does not necessary mean I accept their cult.

All of the above statements fly completely contrary to reality. If you really want to talk about indoctrination, we should talk about the 2005 Federal Court case that dealt with whether "Intelligent Design" should be taught along with evolution in class rooms. "Intelligent Design" = creationism.

Federal court judge's ruling on the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

michaelsch says

and possibly not explainable, because we have not enough evidence left, and because any Lab experiment seams unlikely.

That's kinda lame. That's like saying Newton's laws of physics is the best we can do. That's true only until an Einstein came along.

Medical students? They are required to study only a very small course in nutrition. Nutrition is the cornerstone for good health. I have diminishing respect for them every time i think of that. So who cares about where they stand on religion. Religion is intangible to the closed eye anyway. Oh and btw, what if ot were all true and based on visitors from another world? The world is not flat.

KILLERJANE says

So who cares about where they stand on religion.

The point is we do care where they stand on evolution and whether or not they attend classes in medical school. See the AIDs example I gave above for why. If their religion conflicts with the science upon which their profession is based, then they must choose between the two, and if they choose their religion then they don't get to practice medicine.

Practicing medicine is not a right. It is a privilege earned by going through the rigorous process of medical training.

KILLERJANE says

Nutrition is the cornerstone for good health.

Not when you get hit by a bus. There's way more to learn about than nutrition when it comes to earning a D.M. And the vast majority of doctors do not become nutritionist. I suspect those who do, take more than one course in it.

Mike Weiner - aka Dr. Mike Savage - is a nutrient doc.

Dan8267 says

Not when you get hit by a bus. There's way more to learn about than nutrition when it comes to earning a D.M. And the vast majority of doctors do not become nutritionist. I suspect those who do, take more than one course in it.

No they prefer to treat patients chronically, more $$$. I have personally seen 3 people get well by juicing. But doctors told my mom n law it wasn't a good idea. One person, by juicing, got to throw out her high blood pressure medicine. The second saw a chronic illness of 7 years disappear. The third was a boy who had a 102 fever go away within 6 hours.
Even more stories where people are healed from cancers. Google it.
But yeah you can worship the docs if you want. And yes i know they are great for many accident injuries. But, however they also prefer to do chemo and all other sorts of "practice" without any regard of nutrition first.

Oh yeah and the godlike doctors also gave thousands upon thousands labotomies ( forgive spelling) in the 50's or so. They don't don't do that anymore. I guess when they were practicing then they made some poor judgements.

Dan8267 says

Practicing medicine is not a right. It is a privilege earned by going through the rigorous process of medical training.

Yes and from there they "practice". Don't assume the world is flat because someone said so. I am not questioning the Science behind the science, but the fact is the universe is vast.

And science on going. We learn new things everyday. Ok so you know so much to completely disrespect people religion then please tell me this;
Who, what, where, when, and why of the pyramids of Egypt?

KILLERJANE says

Ok so you know so much to completely disrespect people religion then please tell me this;

How the fuck is insisting that medical students actually attend the core classes of their curriculum before practicing medicine "disrespecting people's religion"? That is the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time.

If my religion refused to acknowledge the existence of atoms because it contradicted my holy book, would I be excused from taking an organic chemistry class and still be allowed to practice medicine? What if my religion forbids the study of anatomy? Evolution is no different. Grow up.