KnifeMissile

I was just reading the The creation of the universe.. Evolution or Religion..? thread and I was shocked, disappointed and angered that it was a merged thread. It was conflating several disparate issues and everyone was taking really poorly conceived potshots at each other. It was painful and embarrassing to read. So, I am starting a new thread...

This thread will concentrate on a single issue: that biological evolution (specifically common ancestry) is incontrovertible scientific fact. It is not an exaggeration to say that Evolution is as well supported a theory as Gravitation. Here are a couple of sources to help you understand this:

For some reason, no one ever seems to notice the excellent sticky at the top of this forum, written by tecoyah. They are excellent refutations of common creationist myths. In typical TFP tradition, please go read that thread before posting any questions here.

Converging Lines of Evidence is an excellent article aimed at the layperson (that's all of you!) on why we know that evolution happened. The theme is that several different and unrelated disciplines of biology all independently confirm evolution.

If you're literate and have some free time, an indepth coverage of the scientific evidence for evolution can be found at 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, which was written by Dr. Douglas Theobald, a practicing biochemist at Brandeis University.

Now, what *I will be doing here is answering any questions you might have regarding the theory of Evolution. I may refer you to articles or youtube videos if I feel they will answer your question better than me or I feel overwhemled by questions (I don't really see this happening) but, generally, I expect to answer them personally. Particularly, I will answer questions of what evidence exists, although the sources above should do that, and how alleged flaws aren't really flaws. I may also explain how "creation science" claims aren't really science, if I've heard them before.

What I won't be doing is debating theology. Evolution, like all science, is perfectly agnostic as to the existence of God, an untestable hypothesis. This will be a strictly scientific thread. As such, it's tempting to place this in the science forum but not only is the motivational thread here but the sticky here deals with the science, so obviously some scientific discussion may happen in this forum.

So, come read, come learn and have fun!




*while I'm not a biologist (I'm a mathemagician), I do feel that I understand far more science than most of the people in this forum. Additionally, I am connected to some scientists, including biologists, and I am willing to forward any questions I can't, personally, answer...

Jinn

I don't have a question, since I too believe evolution to be an incontrovertible fact, but I'm posting here just so you don't think no one read your thread.

I did.

Bring on the questions, people!

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

Astrophysics explains the "creation" of the universe. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. Evolution explains why proteins are now driving Priuses.

/thread

KnifeMissile

Oh, the futility!

I wish I had taken a more careful look at that other thread...

The majority of that thread was posted in 2003! From a cursory glance, all but 3 members, who might have questions, are long gone...

jewels

Did you know that the schools in Florida will now be teaching evolution as a theory? I wish someone like you had been around to keep the bible belters from setting new precedents in our kids' public schools.

P.S. If you have some time, follow the link and see how adamant some of these people are in the discussion following the article.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/flor...ry/425473.html

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

Willravel

Sometimes it's nice to live in California... still I love Miami. Second best beach sunsets in the US!

abaya

I'm sure there are still some Creationists wandering around the TFP... but I think we gotta be careful to not cross the line into making this an evangelical-bashing thread. Keep in mind that a lot of "religious folk" have worked out a way to believe in both God and evolution, as did all of the biology professors at my extremely Christian university.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Martian

Technically evolution is a scientific theory. So is gravity. Where the confusion comes is what actually constitutes a theory in the scientific community. Most laypeople don't understand the clear and important difference between a theory and a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Wiki goodness, explaining the difference between facts, theories and hypotheses.

I still haven't mastered flying. 'Throw yourself at the ground and miss,' indeed.

I see your point, and I think this thread really has the potential to go in two directions. The first is as you describe, basically a theological bashfest. The second is as a means of providing information on what's stated above; namely the difference between facts and theories, and how evolution can be classified as a theory and still be assumed as true. We could also discuss the compatibility of evolution and Christian dogma, but I'm not sure this is the correct place for that; perhaps another thread would do better.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

HALLELUJAH! HE'S SEEN THE LIGHT!

KnifeMissile

Did you miss this, abaya, or did you simply not believe me?

Jinn

While she might trust you, she (like me) probably doesn't trust the remainder of the respondents to adhere to the same rules set forth in the OP.

Fucking evangelicals..

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

abaya

Yep. My words weren't directed at you, KnifeMissile... they were directed at everyone else who might chance upon this thread. I'm not worried about debating theology, I'm worried about bashing people for their beliefs (even if I don't agree with them). As I think JinnKai is trying to point out, in a sarcastic way?...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

KnifeMissile

I'm sorry, that's my mistake. For some reason, I had the crazy idea that:
...was directed at me. I feel like Cole in Twelve Monkeys, where he thinks the radio ad is a "very special message" to him...

I suspect the point may be moot as the sound of crickets continue...

telekinetic

Yes. This here? This is a good way to keep dialog civil. I am actually in the process of actively trying to evaluate critically all of the evidence for evolution against a backdrop of "Evangelical" belief, and was wondering if anyone else had done the same. Ah well, nevermind, I'll take my fucking evangelical questions elsewhere.

From a strictly agnostic point of view, I still can't fully grok counterpoints to irreducible complexity, and also a lack of reproducable abiogenesis. But this is probably my own fault for not educating myself about these areas rather than a lack in the field.

__________________
twisted no more

Jinn

I was joking...

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Martian

Abiogenesis has more to do with astrobiology than evolutionary theory. We have direct observable evidence that life spontaneously came into existence on our planet; the question of how is interesting and not well understood yet, but evolutionary theory deals more with what comes after. Evolution is strictly an answer to how complex life can develop from simpler organisms through the principle of natural selection. Interestingly, this creates one of those little nooks in our understanding that allow theology and modern science to co-exist peacefully. We know that life originated, and we know (more or less) what happened after that. As to what happened before, what you want to believe is your lookout. If you want to believe that God nudged a couple of amino acids in the right direction, more power to you.

Equally interesting is what happens when we combine abiogenesis with the anthropic principle. We can, essentially, state that life originated on Earth because, even though the odds of life spontaneously arising on any one particular planet are exceedingly low, life arising when taken from a Universal perspective is pretty much inevitable. It had to happen somewhere and our little rock just happened to be the one that got it right. Admittedly, this is a somewhat weak argument from a scientific standpoint due to the difficulty of obtaining proof, but it does explain why attempts to replicate spontaneous abiogenesis in the lab have so far failed. Every time we combine the right molecules in the right condition, we roll the dice. We've already won the lottery once and doing so again is going to take many more attempts than we've had time to make (assuming, of course, that we are combining the right molecules in the right environment; primoridal conditions being what they were, it's very difficult to know this with any real certainty). This would also seem to lend credence to the rare Earth hypothesis, although now we're getting on quite a tangent and I think I'll leave it there.

As to irreducible complexity, that is from my understanding an argument from ignorance. The prime example I've seen is the human eye, but the argument fails to grasp that an eye wasn't always necessarily such; simple photoreceptors may have simply been a small cluster of light-sensitive cells (in turn possibly adapted from heat-sensitive cells). Once we have a starting point, however primitive, natural selection takes over and gives rise to organs and devices that seem inexplicably complex. It may help to point out that evolution can be a device that removes unnecessary components as well as adding necessary ones, which can lead to an end result that seems to be impossible to reach from a simple starting point (due to intermediate steps that arose and subsequently became redundant and atrophied).

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

KnifeMissile

Interestingly enough, even if there were no explanation for either "irriducible complexity" or abiogenesis, that still wouldn't counter either evolution or common ancestry. This might be hard for you to see, especially if you have an "evangelical backdrop" with which to contend...

Biological origins is a very difficult problem to solve and we haven't been working on it for very long. They have some compelling evidence of plausibility but no comprehensive theory or demonstration. However, this is entirely irrelevant. Evolution is about how life forms change over time and has nothing to do with biological origins. As such, this is a non sequitur and has no bearing on whether evolution happened; it did...

Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. Despite Dr. Michael Behe's protestations to the contrary (by the way, he accepts evolution as fact), there are no clear examples of irreducible complexity. That a theory cannot explain everything we'd like to know doesn't make a theory false. For instance, gravitational theory doesn't explain exactly how each of the planets formed. Does that mean gravity is not true? Does it even make sense to be agnostic about gravity?

Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity doesn't even falsify evolution, as can be evidenced by the theory's creator's own confession (Dr. Behe) that evolution is a biological fact. It would simply change the mechanism from strictly random mutation and natural selection to mostly mutation and selection with the help of a couple miracles. Common ancestry is still true...

abaya

Oh. I take it by your bolding of my quote that you are one of the "religious folk?"... is that why you heard it as being directed towards you? That would make sense, but I actually have very little idea about who is or isn't "religious" here on TFP... there are only 1-2 individuals that stand out to me, and you were nowhere on my radar, in that respect!! So yes, indeed, it was not intended towards you at all. Carry on!!

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

pig

I can say two things at present:

1. Knifemissile is not one of the religious folk. Ha!
2. I'm glad Knifemissile is back on the boards.

Aside from that, I'll have to review the information he has posted. Regardless, I agree with his basic position. Greetings to you sir - good to see you back. I trust you'll be as ascerbic as I recall?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Baraka_Guru

I'm often baffled at the application of evolutionary theory to human behaviour. Try this on:

How significant was the loss of estrous in humans in male/female relationships? Does this encourage pair bonding, or does it complicate it, thus jeopardizing the idea of monogamy?

Meh. Humans are confusing.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

MSD

I'd say that expanding sex to a full-time recreational activity encourages pair-bonding. Sexual compatibility is a major factor in keeping relationships together, and a couple that stays together is not only more likely to reproduce, but more likely to effectively socialize a child and bring him up in an environment that will increase his likelihood of being able to prosper in society and find someone to reproduce with, then do the same for his offspring that his parents did for him. If human reproduction were a fuck-and-forget affair, the family connections that lead to socialization would be weak and I doubt that we could have evolved as far as we have.

archetypal fool

While I'll agree that currently evolution and abiogenesis are two distinct things in the scientific community, they are both undoubtedly driven by the same mechanism... natural selection - and if that's the case, then perhaps the field of evolution can be broadened to include abiogenesis.

There are problems in all the hypotheses surrounding abiogenesis, but considering that the primordial seas were as much as 30% comprised of organic macromolecules/polymers, and you only need one self-replicating RNA strand to spark natural selection (in a sea of trillions upon trillions of RNA molecules, given 500 million years to brew), it's clear that at least the principles of evolution are inherent in abiogenesis. Wikipedia has a great entry on abiogenesis if anyone's really interested.

Here's an awesome and interesting article on just this subject which could turn the abiogenesis field on its head: Did Life Evolve in Ice?

(I'm a Bio major, though I haven't taken any classes on evolution yet... I have studied it independently to answer my own questions.)

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Yakk

Technically, the standard Theory of Evolution has more tools in it's box than Natural Selection.

You can demonstrate mathematically that features that are not selected for or against (ie, are neutrally selected) can be created or removed from a population over time. The same applies to features that are weakly selected for/against.

If you have two separate populations undergoing identical selection pressure, but kept separate, one should some features of the two populations to diverge. This could cause specification without any distinctive selective pressure on the two populations.

And given a low selective pressure, this kind of thing could even happen without division. Imagine a mutation that led to sexual arousal only from seeing blue eyes: with low enough selective pressure, this mutation (which could even be mildly mal adaptive!) could split a population into two sub-species.


Note that work into pre-"life" evolution of amino acids is proceeding apace. Environments that produce self-assembly of random long amino acid chains on one end, and created shorter, "damaged" enzymes based off of our current ones and finding situations in which they function reasonably well on the other.

If you can find a short enough amino acid chain that duplicates itself, and is somewhat robust to variation, and then demonstrate that random assembly of amino acids in a pre-life environment is likely to produce such a chain, you have a step along the "formation of life" ladder candidate.

Ie: it might be possible to show that molecular life is mathematically expected, given the early earth environment. And then it might be possible to show that more complex life arising from it is expected. Etc etc. This would push back the requirement for divine intervention one step: to creating the environment in which life is expected to take hold.

Note that evolution is, in a sense, a mathematical property of certain types of systems. So you can talk about evolution when talking about things that aren't lifeforms.

Well, they haven't produced full-fledged cells from the basic building blocks of life. But that isn't expected to happen: the cells of even primitive life forms seem to be the result of many evolutionary steps. And each of those steps might have taken millions of years to pull off in the wild...

So what one has to do to "replicate" it in the lab is guess what each step is, and then work out method of getting from one step to the next.

Lots of work has been done on this subject, some of it very promising.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Shauk

I have a question, Let it be known that I didn't read all the links posted, I'm easily distracted between monitoring some important things and work and these forums and so on... anyway, question...


A few really.

So lets say that Evolution is a fact, everyone wants to look backwards at where it started, thats where people wonder about creation in the since that "poof" you're in existance cuz I said so -Big G vs. "you used to be a monkey" - Evolution.

so, both theories fail hard in my mind when people are completely OK with not answer the question (when aimed at religion) "Where did god come from, who made god? and if something made him, what made that? and so on, how does SOMETHING form from NOTHING?

likewise, lets say we started ala "Spore" as a sea amoeba or something of the sort. The climates, the dirts, the gasses, the water, all of it that it took to make a coctail of "hey look, I made a fish on accident!" - Natural Causes.

Where did space come from? where did matter come from?
be it water, air, dirt, gasses.

theres no SOURCE to any of this that anyone can determine, nor seemingly ever will be able to determine.

it's pretty easy to realize that Science can't provide all the answers, but then again, Religion can't tell me where their god(s) came from, so neither of them work for me.

Yakk

Shauk, the Theory of Evolution doesn't explain the existence of space/time.

That's not the traditional domain of biology.

As noted, this isn't a "is there a god" thread. That thread *points two threads to the right*.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

archetypal fool

But there's the fundamental different between religion and science: Science is trying to answer these questions, while religion claims they are already answered through transcendental means. The fact that science hasn't answered these questions yet doesn't mean it won't... Be it technological, financial or some other difficulty, something always stands in the way of scientific advancement.

If anyone were so inclined, they could research the Membrane Theory hypothesis, a subset of the String Theory hypothesis, which proposes a means for the creation of the universe, and the creation of matter and such. As mentioned, research into these hypotheses is difficult because they are untestable using our current technology, and nothing short of a galaxy-sized particle collider could help start to test them. And even then, Membrane theory also has its own paradoxes. The answer to this question is still way out of reach.

All of this is regardless, though, because we're discussing evolution, not elementary physics.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Martian

This is getting heavy into cosmology and doesn't have a whole lot to do with evolution specifically except in the larger 'everything connected to everything else' sense. Still, I'll answer as best I'm able and hope the answer makes sense to you.

Basically, it goes like this. We know that the Universe came into being at some point. There are several different ways we have of intuiting this, and I'm not going to get into them, but basically there was nothing and then there was. This was about 14 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million. We're actually almost entirely certain of this; the Universe started out as an infinitely small, dense point that contained all of existence, which subsequently exploded. Where we go from there depends on who you talk to. What's interesting, however, is that the concept of time is tied into our Universe; specifically, leading theories hold that it may actually be tied into the Universe's expansion. Modern quantum theory states that the Universe may exist in as many as 10 dimensions, including both the three classical dimensions and time. What that means, then, is that if the Universe is compressed into one super-singularity, there is no time. See, we compress it to the point where the normal rules no longer apply. This is why we say it's infinitely small - it's literally so small that the dimensions of it are impossible to measure.

So what does that mean? Well, simply put, it means that there's no 'before' before the big bang.

I'm going to stop here for a second. I want you to read the above sentence again. Read it carefully. Then read it once more. Then take a second and really think about the implications. Go ahead, take as much time as you need, I'll wait.

....

Dig it? Good, let's move on.

So here's where we get to diverge a little bit. The theological answer to where everything comes from as it connects with the Big Bang theory goes a little like this:

Since time is a facet of our Universe and only exists when our Universe exists, there's no 'before' before the big bang. Given that, God doesn't need something to come before him. Existing outside of time, he can literally will himself into existence. There needs be no predecessor, since as soon as he's there he's always been there and always will be there.

Trippy, I know.

The secular answer? Basically a set of shrugged shoulders. Essentially, we are contained entirely within our Universe (I'm not going to go into why, so hopefully you'll trust me on that). What that means is that we have no way to observe anything outside of our own Universe. Since at the point of the Big Bang our entire Universe was contained within an infinitely small point, we have no way of observing what came before or what may have existed apart from our Universe and for that reason the question is meaningless and irrelevant.

Above I mentioned the little nooks in scientific theory that allow modern science and theology to be friends with each other. You, my friend, have found another one. We don't know what created the Universe. We can't know. Cosmic accident or all-powerful creator, believe whatever makes you happy.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Shauk

all the rest aside, as it is all hinging the entire theory on this point alone, how does one reach this conclusion besides making a model which "rewinds" the current timeline for where all the mass is and is traveling and makes a guesstimation that "well if we shrunk it all down and such it'd start a reverse toilet bowl swirl right back in to this infintely small dense point!" so is this "point" the origin of the everything as we know it? Does it have a name? or is this just some cracky theory that someone cooked up?

I have a hard time fathoming that this dense point didn't have an origin and timeline of it's own.

Martian

Dude, it's the Big Bang theory, which is the most widely accepted theory we have on the subject.

Of course, we can't go back in time to see this bad boy, which makes it difficult. But we can use the theory to make a few educated guesses on what the Universe was like and where it should be now. We know that the Universe is expanding. In theory, the momentum for the expansion has to have come from somewhere. If we take the concept of singularities vis-a-vis blackholes as fact now (which pretty much everyone does, these days), we have an established precedent that singularities can exist. We can also state there's there's no theoretical limit to the amount of matter and energy that may be contained within a singularity; once it passes a certain gravitational threshold, the gravity produced by the mass already contained within the black hole is sufficient to continue to cause it to compact itself into an infinitely small point. Given that, it's not unreasonable to assume that the Universe may have originated from a black hole containing all matter and energy which, for reasons unknown, exploded violently.

Furthermore, models of the young Universe allow us to make predictions in regards to things like matter and energy distribution; we can use early models to make rough estimates on how things should be now. As with any good scientific theory, we then make observations and look for correlation. If what we observe doesn't match up with what we predict, we know we need to revise the theory. So far predictions made regarding things like background radiation using the Big Bang model have been consistent with observations, lending it credence.

If you're looking for incontrovertible proof that this is the way things are, I'm afraid you're doomed to disappointment. Science doesn't work that way. All we have are hypotheses and observations.

See, this is why I tried to emphasize the concept that time is a component of our Universe so strongly; it's exceedingly difficult to grasp. The simple fact is that the concept of true timelessness is completely outside the human sphere of experience, to the point where we don't really have language to describe it. There's no 'before' before the big bang and there's no 'after.' There's no timeline because there's no time. Anything that existed prior to the Big Bang just existed (and, incidentally, was impossible for us to describe in any meaningful way, since it existed outside the dimensions we use as references).

You're trying to apply logic to all this and really, I can't fault you for it. It even works, to a point. What you're failing to take into account, however, is that the Universe is a more bizarre place than anyone really has the capacity to understand. We have to kind of look at it sideways, which most people just aren't accustomed to doing. Suffice to say, however, that if it sates your curiosity I can point you toward evidence that things spontaneously pop into and out of existence all the friggin' time. Check out Hawking radiation for a starting point.

Sorry, I didn't see this the first time around. Suffice to say that I am aware of all your points, and as a future note to all those folks who always try to one-up me in any science discussion - I'm simplifying the subject matter for the sake of casual conversation. I thought I implied this in my post itself.

You're correct that natural selection is not the only process involved in evolution - if it were, we wouldn't need two seperate terms. However, natural selection is the primary driving force, particularly when discussing how life on Earth went from individual molecules floating around to creatures like you and I. If you'd like a more in-depth discussion on the subject I'd be more than happy to oblige, but I was under the impression that this thread was intended more as a primer meant to address specific concerns of those who are unclear on the broad subject.

Of course, we may be able to mathematically prove the inevitability of molecular life, as you point out, however this doesn't eliminate the question of what came first, but merely displaces it. I firmly believe that we'll always have gaps in our scientific understanding and if people want to fill those with theism I say more power to them.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

KnifeMissile

Thank you, pig! It's always nice to be remembered. I recall you and your posts have always been constructive and thoughtful...

In general, I will be my usual caustic self. As you have astutely noted, vitriol is just my nature. However, considering the traffic and theme of this thread, I think I'm going to dawn my kid gloves... I'm actually going to try to educate people without beating them over the head with the logic stick... too hard...

Good God... Please correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're doing two things...

First, it sounds like you're conflating two issues: the Big Bang theory and the biological theory of Evolution. The two are sufficiently different that it's fair to say that they have nothing to do with each other, regardless of what Creationists would imply. Get that out of your head right now! The Big Bang Theory is the theory of the origin of the Universe while Evolution is the theory of how biological organisms change and speciate over time. Notice how unrelated they are? I can understand if you didn't read all the articles linked by the orignal posts but... did you read that post at all?

Secondly, it sounds like you're trying to assert that if we don't know how it all got here then there's no point in formulating theories about how things work. This is, of course, ludicrous. Even if we have no idea how all of space, time and matter came to be in this Universe, that doesn't prevent us from understanding how space, time and matter behave in this Universe. That's how we're able to manipulate space, time and (especially) matter to suit our needs in this modern, technological world. Similarly, not knowing the origin of the Universe, or even life, doesn't prevent us from seeing how life has evolved over time. These are separate issues...

This is a strange logical fallacy about the origin of the Universe. This is off topic to this thread but I will indulge, just a little bit. Time is one of the things created by the Big Bang. So, what does it mean for the "dense point" to have an "origin" or "timeline?" Time was a result of the Big Bang, so it makes no sense to talk about things happening "before" it since that is an expression of time. Accordingly, causation doesn't work the same way, either, because our colloquial undrestanding of it involves time as well. Therefore, your points dont really make any sense...

Shauk

look, it's simple.

everything has to have an origin, so the next time something leaves your mouth that sounds like "well it came from..." stop a second and think about where THAT came from, keep going backwards till you can go backwards no more, eventually, you do not have an answer. You can theorize something originated from a black hole, but you have to explain where the black hole came from, you have to explain where gravity comes from, you have to explain where space itself came from, where matter to fill that space came from.

I think big bang and evolution tie in just fine, for one has to lead to the other.
For life to have been created, the building blocks which created a habitat for sustainable life had to have been created.


so i guess this is the intent of my question, IF the big bang theory is presented as an "answer" to how the theory of evolution came in to existence , then what theory is there to explain how the big bang theory came in to existence?

there is a parent/child relationship for everything.


lets put it another way, lets say we slopped our way out of a lake, evolved from amoeba/fish/cavemen/monkey whatever to the point where we became self aware and inquisitive and needed to know "what is the point of this? why are we here? where did we come from?" and then look to the heavens for our answer only to realize it's a very very big place that has more questions than answers to provide to us.

Why do you think people are interested in space exploration and aliens or anything like that at ALL? people think the answer is out there behind everything.

So then.....

in the quest to understand space and IT'S origin (which again, had to lead to our origin) we come up with the big bang theory, fine, great, super, now, explain where all of the conditions that created space came from? because right now as educated as we come across as trying to be, we're really in our "earth is flat, and has edges" phase when it comes to understanding space.

because back then, the earth was the capacity of our extended awareness, now that we're aware of earth's place in space, then we figured out our galaxy's place in the universe (sorta) we need to figure out where our universe's place in the next, as of yet, undiscovered, unnamed, "container" is.

Martian

You seem to be under the impression that those who subscribe to the Big Bang theory haven't asked these questions. What I and Knifemissile have been attempting to explain is that these questions have been asked and it was determined that the questions are meaningless.

Saying "one has to lead to the other" is a fallacy, as we have no proof of that. However, one did lead to the other, so I can see your point.


I'm going to try to explain this one last time I will attempt to make it as clear as possible.

1) Time is a facet of our Universe, just as length, width and height are.

2) Anything that exists outside our Universe does not need to have any of these properties.

3) Before and after and cause and effect are methods of describing the time component of the Universe.

4) If the Universe is contained within an infinitely dense point, there is no time anywhere (since time is also contained within that same infinitely dense point).

5) If there is no time and the concept of before exists to describe time, asking what came before outside of time is a meaningless question. It's a bit like asking which way is east when one is in deep space; the object of discussion is outside the boundaries of the measurement used.

6) Therefore, asking what came before the big bang is also a meaningless question. There's no possible answer because it's impossible to satisfy the concept of before. And since any observations we make are necessarily contained with our Universe, it's a question that would be impossible to answer regardless. If you go beyond the Universe you also go beyond human experience. The answer you're looking for simply does not exist.

Did you know that elementary particles and anti-particles are constantly popping into and out of existence all around us? Did you know that black holes (which have a gravitational pull so strong that not even light can escape it) are capable of emitting radiation?

I'll say it again; the Universe is far more bizarre than you give it credit for. The rules only apply so long as our observations are consistent with them.


Well, scientific method being what it is, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know everything (and in reality probably know very little). The best we can give you is to explain the leading theories and how these theories came about. They do make sense, even if they're kind of hard to wrap your head around.

A 'container' is something that exists within the dimensions of our Universe. There needs be no container (and indeed, can't be in the sense you seem to be envisioning it) outside of the our Universe, because the dimensions we're familiar with don't apply there.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Shauk

but you don't even know what "there" is, how can you assume this to be fact?

how can the origin of the universe disobey the laws of the universe?

to say the universe is an explosion, but to say that this explosion was born of an act stemming from an as of yet undiscovered, impossible to understand dimension with no measurable qualities within or without. I mean so.. what happens 11 billion generations from now, and some how we come across the technology and means to have colonized space and moved in to the universe, or maybe even go so far as to be able to manipulate how the universe works to our advantage, what happens if we go to the center, or the birth point of this explosion, would there be an answer present there? or more questions?

C:\>Universe\Galaxy\Solar System\Earth\North America\Seattle\Shauk

thats all there is to my existence then.

Infinite_Loser

Let's see... Couple of questions here.

1.) Assuming all life on Earth can be traced back to single-celled organisms, how did gender evolve (As asexual reproduction produces offspring which are identical to the parents)? We could assume it's a mutation, but this would only explain how one gender came to be. Both genders would have had to evolve simultaneously, but I don't see how this would be possible without assuming that two separate populations-- One which evolved into male and the other into female-- Came in contact with each other. But this is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Meh...

2.) Furthermore, which came first-- Male or female?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

roachboy

i'm just going to skip over infinite loser's post. sorry.

a couple side notes to the above (martian and knife missle):

there need not "be" time for us to experience temporality---if we are basically electrical systems, it's likely that our experience of the fact of time is a projection based upon our experience of the characteristics of the systems that we are--dynamics or rhythms of wave forms, say, or an echo of them on a different scale. that we collectively project time and mark it in particular ways means for sure that our particular modality of experience is temporal, but not that there*is* time. i dont think time is an object that impacts on us. i dont think the big bang "created" it.

in a similar way, i suspect that the only reason we imagine there is a single system "universe" is because we think it through the category "universe" and so find what we are looking for in a sense because the category groups/organizes data.

a container (last point in martian's post above)==>transposition of plato's notion of the chora. the empty wax space upon which existence imprints itself more or less. of course there does not need to be one. the idea of it is metaphysical. so's the desire to think in terms of a discrete origin.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Martian

That's a very good question. Furthermore, I'm going to one-up it. Sexual reproduction is dangerous, and it's a lot of effing work. Think of the countless species that use mating displays; peacocks are a startling example, but even fireflies and crickets serve the purpose. These mating displays are designed specifically (as the name implies) to attract a mate, but they can just as easily attract predators. Furthermore, sex actually makes it less likely for any one individual to pass on their genes due to sexual competition. Look at us, humans; how much time and energy do we put into sex? Think about it; almost everything we do is designed to project an image of success and prosperity, which in turn is meant to attract a better mate. How much easier would life be without sex?

As it turns out, not very. There are a multitude of hypotheses about why sexual reproduction came about, but they all essentially boil down to one thing; sexual reproduction allows us to improve our genetic structure more quickly and efficiently. When asexual organisms reproduce, the offspring are always exact genetic copies. Asexual reproduction, then, relies on damage to the genetic code in order to evolve. They're basically waiting around for a happy accident. To be fair, sexual organisms do essentially the same thing, but we have a way of stacking the odds in our favour. By creating each offspring from two distinct sets of genetic material we double our chances of mutation occurring (which, in effect, doubles our chances of a beneficial mutation occurring). When taken from the standpoint of a population rather than individuals, this tends to create a more robust organism that's better able to survive the hazards of existence. Furthermore, sex grants us a degree of control over how we evolve as a population through the mechanism of sexual selection. We can choose a mate whose genetic material will give our offspring the best possible chance.

Of course, answering the why doesn't do much to answer the how. The truth is that although we have several hypotheses on the matter, we don't really know how sex came about. We simply don't have enough information about early sexual organisms to really be sure of this. Recent evidence, however, suggests that sex actually evolved first in prokaryotic organisms, which are the earliest cellular organisms to exist. We're not talking about populations of fully formed multi-cellular organisms here; we're talking single cells that are so primitive they predate mitochondria and nuclei. The best hypothesis on the subject that I've come across is that sex originated as a form of predation, with one organism consuming another and then incorporating it's genetic code. In fact, it's likely that it was originally a result of cannibalism, since that creates a stronger possibility of compatible genetic code. This isn't as far-fetched as it sounds when one keeps in mind that prokaryotes don't keep their dna in a nucleus, cordoned off from the rest of the cell; since the dna is just floating in the cytoplasm, it's entirely possible that during a replication cycle a leftover strand from a prey organism could hi-jack the process. Once we've got organisms using two distinct sets of genetic code and benefiting from it, natural selection takes over. It's probable that the first sexual organism started out as one homogeneous population, and once sexual production began it then evolved into two separate strains, one to consume and the other to be consumed. From there we can imagine the two strains becoming gradually more distinct until you end up with two different subsets of the same organism that are dependent on each other for reproduction - in other words, two genders.

So in summary, sex is beneficial because it allows us to evolve more rapidly to keep ahead of predators and parasites, and it's most likely that male and female evolved simultaneously. One doesn't necessarily need to pre-date the other and that occurring is, as you rightly point out, much less likely.

I'd actually like to move on from this threadjack if possible, but in the interest of answering you, I'd like to point out that we are talking about existence here, and not experience. Setting aside the fact that it's impossible for us not to experience temporality (I'm not sure that's a word by the way, but if it's not it should be), observed evidence does strongly imply both that time is a component of the Universe (which, for the purpose of our discussion here should be defined as the body containing all the stars and galaxies and other phenomena that form part of our existence, observed and unobserved) and that the Big Bang was the origin of our Universe. If we assume these two statements to be true, then it's logical to conclude that if time is part of the Universe and the Big Bang created the Universe, the Big Bang also created time. Taking that as a given, we can further conclude that since 'before,' 'after,' 'cause,' and 'effect' are all words that describe our experience of temporality, said words become meaningless in the absence of time.

Time is not an object. It would be more correct to say that time is a measure; it's a dimension of our Universe, just the same as length, width and height are. And just as we have words and measures to describe length, width and height we also have words and measures to describe time.

Time does not come from us. It's not something that we create. Rather, it's something we exist in. It's part of the chora, if you prefer. Of course, all of this is looking at it strictly from a scientific perspective; if one chooses to approach it from a philosophical perspective, one can be more liberal with definitions and hypotheses.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

KnifeMissile

What is "it" referring to in the sentence "look, it's simple?"

The topic of this thread is simple but you're trying very hard to make it complicated. Biological evolution happened. That we don't know how life started and that we're not sure of how the Universe began is off topic and irrelevant.

Do you even doubt that evolution took place? If so then why would that be?

Martian answered your question very well. I will simply add that asexual reproduction does not necessarily produce offspring which are identical to the parents. Random mutations can and will occur that will make the child genetically different from the parent. This is how evolution occurs...

Martian

I thank you for this, but personally the part that I'm most pleased with is that I managed to spell 'prokaryotic' correctly.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

KnifeMissile

Let me bring this up again 'cause I think it's an important point in undestanding both science and reality.

How is this question, at all, relevant?

Willravel

Abiogenesis and the creation of the universe aren't parts of biological and stellar evolution, respectively.