|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:37 am
This is a branch from the "Pet Peeves" topic.
If anyone has any questions regarding evolution, I'll try and answer them, just don't pile them up too much smile
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:37 am
From the Pet Peeves topic:xxEternallyBluexx Says you. There's scientists who say that if gravity were different in the slightest, either only roaches could survive, or everything would be too light to form. The same goes with something like 23 other variables. I'll look it up when my desktop starts working, and I can quit using my sister's laptop. >.< (stupid virus) I don't find those variable values compelling at all. Because gravity is not different, it's as it is. Sure, in different conditions life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean life wouldn't exist at all. xxEternallyBluexx Platypuses don't fit into an animal kingdom like mammal, and they're just so random. I mean, why would a mammal like duck evolve? Plus they amuse me. whee Platypus is in fact classified as a mammal. The main cause for them being so different (for example, they lay eggs), is because they split off from other mammals relatively early in the mammalian evolution. You could say they are a more "primitive" form of mammals (thought to be strictly correct, they are just a different branch). The evolution of the platypus is not that well documented, but fossils of toothed platypuses have been found. The beak is not the same as the beak of a duck, though it looks similar. Just like the beak of a squid is not the same as the beak of a parrot. Note that the structures of a duck bill and a platypus bill are quite different:  Why did it evolve? I'm not sure, I'd guess it benefits it in feeding, since it digs out worms and crayfish. The trunk of an elephant is weird too, but that doesn't really make a case for a creator. Evolution is bound to produce a lot weird stuff, since it's a semi-random process. xxEternallyBluexx And my knowledge is one-sided. I try to be fair, but I'll be the first to admit I'm biased. If you don't like that, then we don't have to debate, or we could debate about what's wrong with being biased. Whatever you like. biggrin I have no problem with people being biased, everyone is biased to some degree. I just think that you should learn more about the subject before forming such a strong opinion about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:05 am
Artto From the Pet Peeves topic:xxEternallyBluexx Says you. There's scientists who say that if gravity were different in the slightest, either only roaches could survive, or everything would be too light to form. The same goes with something like 23 other variables. I'll look it up when my desktop starts working, and I can quit using my sister's laptop. >.< (stupid virus) I don't find those variable values compelling at all. Because gravity is not different, it's as it is. Sure, in different conditions life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean life wouldn't exist at all. Well, thats technically wrong, it has been proven that the events that led to us having life, could have been a series of mistakes in the creation of the universe. It also brings out the option that we don't really have free will. This is what brings many to say that god exists, because there is no way that a series of such events could happen so randomly and turn out with life. Though the better proven theory is that we just happen to be in the parallel world that life started on Earth, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:42 am
RurouniZakku Well, thats technically wrong, it has been proven that the events that led to us having life, could have been a series of mistakes in the creation of the universe. I don't really get what you're talking about here. RurouniZakku It also brings out the option that we don't really have free will. This is what brings many to say that god exists, because there is no way that a series of such events could happen so randomly and turn out with life. There is no way? Well it obviously happened, so I guess there is a way. Calculating probability for something like evolution doesn't say much at all. You can look at a simple stone you find on the ground. You know how small the probability of that stone being exactly like that is? A rock has to form, then it has to brake off from that rock, then a river may shape it into a smooth form, maybe it falls from a hight and gets a crack, etc., etc. It's also a series of coincidences, but would you say that stone was impossible, and god must have made it that way / guided the process? RurouniZakku Though the better proven theory is that we just happen to be in the parallel world that life started on Earth, nothing more. Are you talking about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? How exactly has that been proven?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:20 am
I was watching a thing on the Big Bang theory... They said a lot that made sense, but the one thing that does not make sense is that they said matter started to collide with anti matter and there was the same amount of each. So if anti matter and matter collided, then how did anything form? Doesn't anti matter cancel matter and vice versa?
And the whole always was and always will be thing never worked for me. How can something always be there? It has to form from something else. Nothing can't give birth to something. Like the rock example that Arrto used. The rocks form into something larger, small particles, atoms, elements, form into say a mountain. Then a piece breaks off into a stream where it erodes and becomes a gem or mineral, maybe not, but it changes. This is rock evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:31 am
Sure is getting cosmological in here, but ok smile Aakosir I was watching a thing on the Big Bang theory... They said a lot that made sense, but the one thing that does not make sense is that they said matter started to collide with anti matter and there was the same amount of each. So if anti matter and matter collided, then how did anything form? Doesn't anti matter cancel matter and vice versa? I think it's still a mystery how matter became more prevalent than anti-matter. Quote: And the whole always was and always will be thing never worked for me. How can something always be there? It has to form from something else. Nothing can't give birth to something. Like the rock example that Arrto used. The rocks form into something larger, small particles, atoms, elements, form into say a mountain. Then a piece breaks off into a stream where it erodes and becomes a gem or mineral, maybe not, but it changes. This is rock evolution. I was giving the rock analogy to represent that a long series of coincidences doesn't make something impossible. Well, theists would argue that god was always there. But why can't we save a step and say that the universe was always there? It could be cyclical (big bang -> big crunch -> big bang -> and so on). For all we know, the universe that we can observe might be a part of something much larger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:57 pm
I can't say I'm an expert in Cosmology, seeing as I just started reading and studying it, but the theories I mentioned are taken very seriously. While we can't offer experimental proof that any of it is true. It's taken more seriously be theologians and scientists than the general public over whether they are possible solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:35 pm
Artto From the Pet Peeves topic:xxEternallyBluexx Says you. There's scientists who say that if gravity were different in the slightest, either only roaches could survive, or everything would be too light to form. The same goes with something like 23 other variables. I'll look it up when my desktop starts working, and I can quit using my sister's laptop. >.< (stupid virus) I don't find those variable values compelling at all. Because gravity is not different, it's as it is. Sure, in different conditions life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean life wouldn't exist at all. xxEternallyBluexx Platypuses don't fit into an animal kingdom like mammal, and they're just so random. I mean, why would a mammal like duck evolve? Plus they amuse me. whee Platypus is in fact classified as a mammal. The main cause for them being so different (for example, they lay eggs), is because they split off from other mammals relatively early in the mammalian evolution. You could say they are a more "primitive" form of mammals (thought to be strictly correct, they are just a different branch). The evolution of the platypus is not that well documented, but fossils of toothed platypuses have been found. The beak is not the same as the beak of a duck, though it looks similar. Just like the beak of a squid is not the same as the beak of a parrot. Note that the structures of a duck bill and a platypus bill are quite different: Why did it evolve? I'm not sure, I'd guess it benefits it in feeding, since it digs out worms and crayfish. The trunk of an elephant is weird too, but that doesn't really make a case for a creator. Evolution is bound to produce a lot weird stuff, since it's a semi-random process. xxEternallyBluexx And my knowledge is one-sided. I try to be fair, but I'll be the first to admit I'm biased. If you don't like that, then we don't have to debate, or we could debate about what's wrong with being biased. Whatever you like. biggrin I have no problem with people being biased, everyone is biased to some degree. I just think that you should learn more about the subject before forming such a strong opinion about it. It's hard explain, and I can't find the argument, but it was basically that if you changed something like the attraction of protons and electrons the tiniest bit, nothing could exist except hydrogen, and there's a lot more variables like that. The site below is the only one I found that even mentions it, though it goes through the odds argument really well. You could also find it in Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator. http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/06/odds-against-evolution-beginnings.html XD I wasn't relying on the platypus much anyway. I think the randomness of things like the platypus, the jellyfish, the giraffe, the elephant, etc. just shows God's creativity, and that He wanted to give us a lot of things we would enjoy. I think it's one of those perception things though. XD stare I like the subject, and I'm not going to abstain from having an opinion about it until I'm an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:55 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Artto From the Pet Peeves topic:xxEternallyBluexx Says you. There's scientists who say that if gravity were different in the slightest, either only roaches could survive, or everything would be too light to form. The same goes with something like 23 other variables. I'll look it up when my desktop starts working, and I can quit using my sister's laptop. >.< (stupid virus) I don't find those variable values compelling at all. Because gravity is not different, it's as it is. Sure, in different conditions life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean life wouldn't exist at all. xxEternallyBluexx Platypuses don't fit into an animal kingdom like mammal, and they're just so random. I mean, why would a mammal like duck evolve? Plus they amuse me. whee Platypus is in fact classified as a mammal. The main cause for them being so different (for example, they lay eggs), is because they split off from other mammals relatively early in the mammalian evolution. You could say they are a more "primitive" form of mammals (thought to be strictly correct, they are just a different branch). The evolution of the platypus is not that well documented, but fossils of toothed platypuses have been found. The beak is not the same as the beak of a duck, though it looks similar. Just like the beak of a squid is not the same as the beak of a parrot. Note that the structures of a duck bill and a platypus bill are quite different: Why did it evolve? I'm not sure, I'd guess it benefits it in feeding, since it digs out worms and crayfish. The trunk of an elephant is weird too, but that doesn't really make a case for a creator. Evolution is bound to produce a lot weird stuff, since it's a semi-random process. xxEternallyBluexx And my knowledge is one-sided. I try to be fair, but I'll be the first to admit I'm biased. If you don't like that, then we don't have to debate, or we could debate about what's wrong with being biased. Whatever you like. biggrin I have no problem with people being biased, everyone is biased to some degree. I just think that you should learn more about the subject before forming such a strong opinion about it. It's hard explain, and I can't find the argument, but it was basically that if you changed something like the attraction of protons and electrons the tiniest bit, nothing could exist except hydrogen, and there's a lot more variables like that. The site below is the only one I found that even mentions it, though it goes through the odds argument really well. You could also find it in Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator. http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/06/odds-against-evolution-beginnings.html XD I wasn't relying on the platypus much anyway. I think the randomness of things like the platypus, the jellyfish, the giraffe, the elephant, etc. just shows God's creativity, and that He wanted to give us a lot of things we would enjoy. I think it's one of those perception things though. XD stare I like the subject, and I'm not going to abstain from having an opinion about it until I'm an expert. How are these things any more random than say a goldfish or a cat? Elephants didn't just appear. There are many elephantine precursers found in the fossile record. http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html And what about one of thier closest genetic relatives, the manatee. While they may have a shorter snout then thier cousins, manatees still use it in much the same way, as a sort of flexible "hand". They also have completely useless toenails on thier flippers, despite lacking toes. the thought is that they evolved from a land dwelling ancestor shared with modern elephants. And what about the human apendix? An organ that has no real function in a modern human but would have been needful to a purly herbivorous evolutionary ancestor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:36 am
xxEternallyBluexx It's hard explain, and I can't find the argument, but it was basically that if you changed something like the attraction of protons and electrons the tiniest bit, nothing could exist except hydrogen, and there's a lot more variables like that. There is probably a good reason for the physical constants having those specific values, just as there is a good reason that the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter is exactly Pi. I wouldn't say that it's amazing, because if Pi was any different circles wouldn't exist. Quote: The site below is the only one I found that even mentions it, though it goes through the odds argument really well. You could also find it in Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator. http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/06/odds-against-evolution-beginnings.html Replace every animal mentioned in this article with "a stone", and you can claim stones are impossible (apparently, to these guys any product of a long process with a random component is impossible). Though I must admit, It was a very elaborate attempt to make the odds seem significant. The writer is making the same mistake of the subjective value of something (in this case, our existence) making the thing seem more incredible. From the article Here is the answer: Throw the five decks of cards up in the air until they fall to earth in one neat stack, sorted by suit and consecutively by value. Then we can talk And here it is. The odds of that happening are no larger* than the cards falling to the floor in any other specific jumbled mess. *mathematically, if we take in account the laws of physics, they are probably greater, but evolution doesn't brake the laws of physics either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:15 am
Yeah from a mathematics perspective the probability of an event that has already occurred is 1, because it occurred. It's a statical fallacy to say because such and such odds are so high it couldn't have happened since the event in question has already occurred. This fallacy is called Hoyle's fallacy. This high probability, if it is correct, though suggests that it's highly unlikely for it to happen a second time elsewhere but it doesn't account for other variations such as silicon based life-forms or rely on some other form of liquid medium such as ammonium but it still just as highly unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:32 pm
rmcdra Yeah from a mathematics perspective the probability of an event that has already occurred is 1, because it occurred. It's a statical fallacy to say because such and such odds are so high it couldn't have happened since the event in question has already occurred. This fallacy is called Hoyle's fallacy. This high probability, if it is correct, though suggests that it's highly unlikely for it to happen a second time elsewhere but it doesn't account for other variations such as silicon based life-forms or rely on some other form of liquid medium such as ammonium but it still just as highly unlikely. Thanks, didn't even know this was a fallacy with an actual name. smile The wiki article explains it quite nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:56 pm
Circles don't exist because of pi. Pi exists to explain circles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:58 pm
divineseraph Circles don't exist because of pi. Pi exists to explain circles. The specific constants of physics exist to explain the universe. EDIT: I'm being a bit stupid here. The point was, the constants probably have a mathematical reason for being as they are. If we don't yet know why they are as they are, that doesn't mean god set them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
