|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:34 pm
Does any animal have the second, third (especially) and the fourth? Why would they be passed along?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:37 pm
divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Blue, think of it like this- Breeding is like a copying machine. You're printing out a paper 10 million times a day. Every once in a while, a letter gets changed. One letter. A small glitch in the system. These papers are then put onto their own copiers and are copied millions of times each. Again, once in a while, there's a different letter. Given a year, you may expect 20 or so new words. Given ten million years, do you think you'll even recognize the paper anymore? Or do it with a song- Once out of every five million downloads, a song changes by one note by mistake. This song is copied and downloaded millions of times a day and is updated daily by the newer version. Given a few hundred years, will it be the same song? Are there that many copies being made though? Plus the piling up theory doesn't work because how do you develop something complex like an eye? Do you develop it cell by cell? You have to start somewhere and it has to help the organism survive within the first generation that develops it. Note: If anyone can go on and outline how an eye, or a heart or any other complex system develops, step-by-step, I'll be very impressed. :3 We see this in light-sensitive membranes. Many aquatic creatures have them- They detect light but little else. It takes only a little bit more development to get a refined eye, namely seeing shapes- then depth, and then color. Being able to sense light helps the creature detect motion around it, such as incoming predators. However, the idea that the change must benefit the organism is a fallacy- The change must simply survive. If it is a negative change, such as being born on fire, the creature obviously isn't going to pass it on. If it's a neutral change, like a slight variation in color, it could very well pass it on. If it's a beneficial change such as being able to detect light, it is most likely to be passed on, as the creature will survive to do so. It's not so much that the creatures change to survive, it's the opposite- Whatever survives makes up the change, as it survived to do so. Okay, I'm impressed...but does it work with other complex organs? What about stages inbetween where the mutations may be harmful? Do organisms exist that demonstrate the inbetween stages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:44 pm
RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx What created those universes? How do we know they exist? People have seen evidence of God through personal experience, but no one has ever seen these places. And what jump-started the Big Bang? The time before the big bang is believed to have had the four forces compressed together, when the pressure became to much, it went off. It wasn't really a "big bang", thats just a name, it actually happened rather slowly. As it went off went off the forces started to separate, and life was inhospitable. Thats the best I can describe it without quoting Hawkins, or Michio Kaku. I think I may go and try and take another swing at the Universe in a Nutshell (a book I have about it. I tried it in 8th grade, but it was a little heavy for me)....I need a bit more of an explanation... And what of the first two questions? Well, as for who created the universes, we can't prove that anyone created it, but we have theories on how they were created. as for the second question, every possibility exists in one parallel universe, no matter the odds against it. Its believed that the laws of physics could be different in any of these universes. Or you just know the guy who did it. ^_^ But why should other universes exist, who or what created them, and what proof do we have of them? The "proof' we have of parallel worlds, is that they have been proven true through the laws of physics. Though their is no way to experimentally prove that they exist, it's believed that we will within a few centuries. A reason for the sprouting of a new universe has been defined as when a different possibility occurred in anything that happens in our or any other universe. Though the chances of a creator are incalculable at this time, we have no proof that anything creates the universes, but that comes back to what brought about our universe. Anything possible makes a new universe? I've heard the idea before (Small Eternities), but it looked like the stuff of fantasy. I don't see why it should be that way, though it is an interesting idea. All that is material has a beginning. That goes for universes too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:45 pm
CalledTheRaven xxEternallyBluexx Itachi_Hare xxEternallyBluexx Artto Sure they do, and that's why they die out. The genetic material accumulates over periods time. Then why do we still have such a variety? Where does the new material come from? (Don't say mutations, because there's hardly enough of them for that to work, and you'd have to have them appear at key moment, like plant life showing up when animal life does, or male and female forming together within the same lifetime) Selective mating... for instance say there is a species of lizards that are preyed upon by a certain type of bird. the lizards come in three sizes, one thats bigger with longer legs that are better to run with and the smaller ones are batter at hiding so the medium sized ones are going to be more attractive to mate with because they combine the best of both world... There are other examples i learned about in biology And in reference to the other conversation I want to point out that if there is a different universe for every possibility than there is at least one in which every opinion that any one person believes in is true... which means there is one in which Eternally Blue is right..... I know that doesn't help us figure out which one this is but I thought it was an interesting point. That's micro-evolution, but I don't think anyone's shown how micro-evolution stacks up into macro-evolution. Nope. If God's in command He created everything, but if not, then everything is random chance and we really are nothing more then glowing dust specks. What's so bad about that. I kind of like the idea of being glowing dust specks. It is rather poetic, isn't it? xd But it's also depressing. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:52 pm
Oh, and thanks to anyone who did research, and who may do research later. I know I ask a lot of questions, so I do appreciate it when I get answers, even when I don't know how to answer back. ^^ I should also say I'm not gonna stop believing creationism even if I fail to defend it. We don't know enough as a race to make an absolute verdict, and I don't know enough to defend it like an expert could, so I'm still gonna believe as I like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:53 pm
xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx I think I may go and try and take another swing at the Universe in a Nutshell (a book I have about it. I tried it in 8th grade, but it was a little heavy for me)....I need a bit more of an explanation... And what of the first two questions? Well, as for who created the universes, we can't prove that anyone created it, but we have theories on how they were created. as for the second question, every possibility exists in one parallel universe, no matter the odds against it. Its believed that the laws of physics could be different in any of these universes. Or you just know the guy who did it. ^_^ But why should other universes exist, who or what created them, and what proof do we have of them? The "proof' we have of parallel worlds, is that they have been proven true through the laws of physics. Though their is no way to experimentally prove that they exist, it's believed that we will within a few centuries. A reason for the sprouting of a new universe has been defined as when a different possibility occurred in anything that happens in our or any other universe. Though the chances of a creator are incalculable at this time, we have no proof that anything creates the universes, but that comes back to what brought about our universe. Anything possible makes a new universe? I've heard the idea before (Small Eternities), but it looked like the stuff of fantasy. I don't see why it should be that way, though it is an interesting idea. All that is material has a beginning. That goes for universes too. Do parallel universes exist? In 1954, a young Princeton University doctoral candidate named Hugh Everett III came up with a radical idea: That there exist parallel universes, exactly like our universe. These universes are all related to ours; indeed, they branch off from ours, and our universe is branched off of others. Within these parallel universes, our wars have had different outcomes than the ones we know. Species that are extinct in our universe have evolved and adapted in others. In other universes, we humans may have become extinct. This thought boggles the mind and yet, it is still comprehensible. Notions of parallel universes or dimensions that resemble our own have appeared in works of science fiction and have been used as explanations for metaphysics. But why would a young up-and-coming physicist possibly risk his future career by posing a theory about parallel universes? With his Many-Worlds theory, Everett was attempting to answer a rather sticky question related to quantum physics: Why does quantum matter behave erratically? The quantum level is the smallest one science has detected so far. The study of quantum physics began in 1900, when the physicist Max Planck first introduced the concept to the scientific world. Planck's study of radiation yielded some unusual findings that contradicted classical physical laws. These findings suggested that there are other laws at work in the universe, operating on a deeper level than the one we know. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle In fairly short order, physicists studying the quantum level noticed some peculiar things about this tiny world. For one, the particles that exist on this level have a way of taking different forms arbitrarily. For example, scientists have observed photons -- tiny packets of light -- acting as particles and waves. Even a single photon exhibits this shape-shifting [source: Brown University]. Imagine if you looked and acted like a solid human being when a friend glanced at you, but when he looked back again, you'd taken a gaseous form. This has come to be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The physicist Werner Heisenberg suggested that just by observing quantum matter, we affect the behavior of that matter. Thus, we can never be fully certain of the nature of a quantum object or its attributes, like velocity and location. This idea is supported by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Posed by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this interpretation says that all quantum particles don't exist in one state or the other, but in all of its possible states at once. The sum total of possible states of a quantum object is called its wave function. The state of an object existing in all of its possible states at once is called its superposition. According to Bohr, when we observe a quantum object, we affect its behavior. Observation breaks an object's superposition and essentially forces the object to choose one state from its wave function. This theory accounts for why physicists have taken opposite measurements from the same quantum object: The object "chose" different states during different measurements. Bohr's interpretation was widely accepted, and still is by much of the quantum community. But lately, Everett's Many-Worlds theory has been getting some serious attention. Read the next page to find out how the Many-Worlds interpretation works. Many Worlds Theory Young Hugh Everett agreed with much of what the highly respected physicist Niels Bohr had suggested about the quantum world. He agreed with the idea of superposition, as well as with the notion of wave functions. But Everett disagreed with Bohr in one vital respect. To Everett, measuring a quantum object does not force it into one comprehensible state or another. Instead, a measurement taken of a quantum object causes an actual split in the universe. The universe is literally duplicated, splitting into one universe for each possible outcome from the measurement. For example, say an object's wave function is both a particle and a wave. When a physicist measures the particle, there are two possible outcomes: It will either be measured as a particle or a wave. This distinction makes Everett's Many-Worlds theory a competitor of the Copenhagen interpretation as an explanation for quantum mechanics. When a physicist measures the object, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes. So a scientist in one universe finds that the object has been measured in wave form. The same scientist in the other universe measures the object as a particle. This also explains how one particle can be measured in more than one state. As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action. This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing. Another disturbing aspect of the Many-Worlds interpretation is that it undermines our concept of time as linear. Imagine a time line showing the history of the Vietnam War. Rather than a straight line showing noteworthy events progressing onward, a time line based on the Many-Worlds interpretation would show each possible outcome of each action taken. From there, each possible outcome of the actions taken (as a result of the original outcome) would be further chronicled. But a person cannot be aware of his other selves -- or even his death -- that exist in parallel universes. So how could we ever know if the Many-Worlds theory is correct? Assurance that the interpretation is theoretically possible came in the late 1990s from a thought experiment -- an imagined experiment used to theoretically prove or disprove an idea -- called quantum suicide. (You can learn more about it in How Quantum Suicide Works.) This thought experiment renewed interest in Everett's theory, which was for many years considered rubbish. Since Many-Worlds was proven possible, physicists and mathematicians have aimed to investigate the implications of the theory in depth. But the Many-Worlds interpretation is not the only theory that seeks to explain the universe. Nor is it the only one that suggests there are universes parallel to our own. Read the next page to lean about string theory. These three three articles should help you understand the theory a bit more. Just because it needs a beginning doesn't mean that it needs a creator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:41 pm
xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Blue, think of it like this- Breeding is like a copying machine. You're printing out a paper 10 million times a day. Every once in a while, a letter gets changed. One letter. A small glitch in the system. These papers are then put onto their own copiers and are copied millions of times each. Again, once in a while, there's a different letter. Given a year, you may expect 20 or so new words. Given ten million years, do you think you'll even recognize the paper anymore? Or do it with a song- Once out of every five million downloads, a song changes by one note by mistake. This song is copied and downloaded millions of times a day and is updated daily by the newer version. Given a few hundred years, will it be the same song? Are there that many copies being made though? Plus the piling up theory doesn't work because how do you develop something complex like an eye? Do you develop it cell by cell? You have to start somewhere and it has to help the organism survive within the first generation that develops it. Note: If anyone can go on and outline how an eye, or a heart or any other complex system develops, step-by-step, I'll be very impressed. :3 We see this in light-sensitive membranes. Many aquatic creatures have them- They detect light but little else. It takes only a little bit more development to get a refined eye, namely seeing shapes- then depth, and then color. Being able to sense light helps the creature detect motion around it, such as incoming predators. However, the idea that the change must benefit the organism is a fallacy- The change must simply survive. If it is a negative change, such as being born on fire, the creature obviously isn't going to pass it on. If it's a neutral change, like a slight variation in color, it could very well pass it on. If it's a beneficial change such as being able to detect light, it is most likely to be passed on, as the creature will survive to do so. It's not so much that the creatures change to survive, it's the opposite- Whatever survives makes up the change, as it survived to do so. Okay, I'm impressed...but does it work with other complex organs? What about stages inbetween where the mutations may be harmful? Do organisms exist that demonstrate the inbetween stages? If it's harmful, the creature dies and the trait is not passed on. Likely. Keep in mind, under the right circumstances, such as a safe habitat, the creature COULD survive with harmful or pointless mutations. It's just less likely. Name an instance where this might be the case, though. As for other complex organs, it works in the same way- first scales and exoskeletons to protect the body, then mutations to bones on the inside for improved organ support, for example. Or small blood pumps growing more complex as they mutate in more efficient ways and becoming hearts. An example of a "negative" mutation in humans would be, as mentioned, tonsils, the appendix, and the knee. The knee is a very weak bone structure and is not well crafted- It's easy to dislocate and isn't held down well. Compared to other joints, it's a mutation "downwards", and in more dangerous conditions, or conditions where humans weren't smart enough to make weapons, we'd be more or less screwed because of it. As for in between stages, they have been mentioned here often- Whales have back leg bones but no back legs. Humans have appendixes, manatees apparently have toenails. The in-between for complex organs are creatures that see light and shape but not depth or color- I would guess aquatic creatures of some sort, likely deeper in the water as seeing depth is pointless when you only get a glimpse of light down there. Dogs and cats don't see in color either, so their eyes are between those fish and us and hawks. All vestigial organs are either half-way mutations that lost their purpose or ones that don't yet have a purpose. Again, mind you, when I say "purpose", they are not yet meant to. They are simply changes that haven't hurt the creature's ability to live enough to keep it from breeding and passing on the trait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:18 pm
Also, Quantum Mechanics is a load of horseshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:04 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:59 pm
It's overthinking simple problems, and attaching answers that don't necessarily mean what the results mean. Quantum Mechanics has the math, but forgets that the math is done in a vacuum and that math is not the same as reality. When we measure the location of a photon, we don't break any waves or change the universe- that's just absurd. We only go from uncertainty to certainty. It doesn't mean that, prior to our knowledge, that all of the possibilities were true. It simply means that we didn't know WHICH possibility was the case. The possibility is what is known as the wave-form, and the measurement "breaks" the wave of multiple possibilities because now we have nailed down which one. It's like saying that until we measure a tree, it has no height, or that until we check, a flipped coin must be both heads and tails. No, it doesn't. We just don't know which one it is yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:04 pm
divineseraph It's overthinking simple problems, and attaching answers that don't necessarily mean what the results mean. Quantum Mechanics has the math, but forgets that the math is done in a vacuum and that math is not the same as reality. When we measure the location of a photon, we don't break any waves or change the universe- that's just absurd. We only go from uncertainty to certainty. It doesn't mean that, prior to our knowledge, that all of the possibilities were true. It simply means that we didn't know WHICH possibility was the case. The possibility is what is known as the wave-form, and the measurement "breaks" the wave of multiple possibilities because now we have nailed down which one. It's like saying that until we measure a tree, it has no height, or that until we check, a flip coin must be both heads and tails. No, it doesn't. We just don't know which one it is yet. A photon actually exists in all possible states until measured. The double slit experiment, for example, demonstrates that, and so do a few others. Some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur-Vaidman_bomb-tester http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:18 pm
Those experiments don't lead me to that conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:26 pm
divineseraph Those experiments don't lead me to that conclusion. What's your explanation for the double slit experiment then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:11 pm
Artto divineseraph Those experiments don't lead me to that conclusion. What's your explanation for the double slit experiment then? I've heard of it before and I came to a different conclusion based on the results that didn't equate to us altering the fabric of the universe every time we look at something. However, I forgot the specifics of the experiment. If you could explain it again for me, I could remember and tell you what it meant to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:07 am
wouldn't you think global pollution, or such like problems, are evolvutional? Like, Glacier Ices are melting.. now it is turning into a sea..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
