Did you evolve?

[Supracentral]

I recently noted this used as a sig:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
- Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species

Wow. That's pretty shocking, Darwin stating something like that!

But then we go read the remainder of the paragraph that was taken from:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
- Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species

Wow - very different meaning when you quote the authors full context, isn't it?

So is an ommision of context with the goal of misleading people a lie? You make your own judgement.

 

[Allan_MA70]

"Mr Supercenteral you GET FUCKED!"












vs

"You're so handsome Mr Supercenteral you GET FUCKED! EVERY-TIME you walk through a shopping center"

I seem to get in trouble when I "quote people"

 

[Nick M]

The reason I don't lose online debates is I don't back things that do not have any fact. The fossil record is a fact.

The quote from Darwin in my sig is his chapter titled problems with the theory. Right after he points out how retarded it is, he theorizes how it could be, but offers no evidence to say how.

Will nobody refute the first post? It isnt a flame war. Just offer something that says how life began, or what we witness in science. I showed overwhelming evidence that life began abruptly, not needed further devolpement.

The Law of Biogenisis states that life only comes from other life. This is verifiable and recordable. It is a scientific law.

Back to the sig. After Darwin says it could have happened, but fails to offer any EVIDENCE, he points out

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

And that is exactly what has happened. Since you can successfully say, we don't scientifically know what happened at the begining, as were not that and did not document it, you can say we don't know, and that would be acceptable in a public school. To present evolution as fact or hard evidence is intellectually dishonest. And it should not be done.

I am still waiting for evidence of macro evolution.

 

[SupraDerk]

On the scientific side of the argument, one still has to ask, where did the universe come from? How did it all start, was it just always there? Isn't that impossible? There are some things, that even the most brilliant scientists cannot explain.

On the contrary, theoretical physics has made a lot of progress in the last hundred years. Einstein proved in his theory of general relativity that the universe is indeed expanding or shrinking...but it is not a constant size. Well he proved it and thought it to be impossible because he couldn't let go of the idea of what he thought nature was due to what we observe through the naked eye, so he changed his math a little and came up with a constant that would, in his math, keep the universe's size constant.

Then some 12 years later Edwin Hubble (an American, WoOt) proved that the universe is expanding. And even before Hubble a Russian used Einstein's equations to prove that the universe is expanding. Einstein called this the "biggest blunder of my life."

Now take this idea of the universe expanding and run it backwards and then you have the universe shrinking. As you run it all going backwards, you have galaxies and stars being compressed together and the termperature and the density of the plasma that is made increase dramatically! The farther back in time you go the more everything is squeezed to higher temperatures and densities until you get to just one point...then an explosion happens, but instead of spewing matter out over space like everyone imagines...the "big bang" is actually propelling SPACE, matter, energy, time...everything out.

Special relativity allows this to happen, because of the formula generated from it, E=mc^2 ...matter can come from energy and energy can come from matter.

Also, Stephen Hawking has done all KINDS of work with blackholes and a black hole kind of mirrors what the big bang is all about. A point in space that is infintely massive and dense, a singularity. Then you have the event horizon of a black hole that is directly proportional to the mass of the singularity. Now you have matter and anti-matter, created from what is called Hawking Radiation. It is created just outside the event horizon and uses the energy of the singularity (from special relativity formula above) to create matter and anti-matter. The matter and anti-matter are supposed to destroy each other, but sometimes the pairs just split. And sometimes the anti-matter particle will fall back into the event horizon and the matter particle will be able to escape the black hole, changing the mass of the singularity and reducing the size of the event horizon.

Have that play out an incredible amount of times and then eventually, you are left with one matter particle inside the singularity. Once that last one leaves the event horizon, a HUGE explosion is said to happen. Hence...a big bang. This has been observed by scientiest.

Quantum mechanics have a lot to do with what goes on in a black hole (I'm just learning about this stuff so I can't really go off an a tangent with regards to it) but quantum mechanics also allows for the mutations that we see in life to happen.

I don't know if you all know this or not, but nature really doesn't happen in the way that we instinctively think. time isn't constant, lenghts aren't constant, if the suprestring theory is correct than the shapes of matter aren't even rigid, but oscillating. And if you REALLY want something that blows your mind, take a look a Quantum mechanics.

One thing I recently learned about, quantum tunneling, which says that if you walk into a wall enough times you will eventually walk through the wall. You just need enough time to be able to try enough times (which is currently slated as being longer than the universe has existed) but they have observed electrons doing this.

Knowledge and curiosity are the keys to knowing everything I think. That's what really bothers me the most about religion is the unwillingness to question or wonder.

-Derek

 

[thesandymancan]

I recently noted this used as a sig:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
- Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species

darwin was actualy verry religous for most of his life. he stoped being religous was when his daughter died.

 

[Joel W.]

Nick: Please pick your definition of macroevolution from the list so I can try..

http://www.google.com/search?num=10...result&cd=1&q=define:+macroevolution.&spell=1

I don't think I can no matter what definition is used because MOST evolution occurs with small changes over long periods of time.

Edit:

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

More words.... There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Edit2: Butterfly hybrids made in a lab (new species)

DNA analysis of the butterfly revealed it to be genetically distinct from its two parent species

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/7184.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-butterfly.html

Edit3:
Info on warm and cold blooded animals and why..
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/image_galleries/ir_zoo/coldwarm.html

 

[Nick M]

Nick: Please pick your definition of macroevolution from the list so I can try..

I didn't look at the list. I confess. Macro evolution is an increase in complexity, as opposed to micro evolution, which is a reshuffling of genes. Macro evolution is new genes. This is another scientific law, Mendels law.

Evolutionists look at micro evolution and say that with time, complexity increases. In other words micro evolution + time = macro evolution.

In the way that a weight lifter gains muscle mass, but the offspring never will. Evolutionists say eventually it will happen, even though the fossil evidence and what we see says different.

 

[Nick M]

Now we are getting somewhere....

On the contrary, theoretical physics has made a lot of progress in the last hundred years. Einstein proved in his theory of general relativity that the universe is indeed expanding or shrinking...but it is not a constant size. Well he proved it and thought it to be impossible because he couldn't let go of the idea of what he thought nature was due to what we observe through the naked eye, so he changed his math a little and came up with a constant that would, in his math, keep the universe's size constant.

Then some 12 years later Edwin Hubble (an American, WoOt) proved that the universe is expanding. And even before Hubble a Russian used Einstein's equations to prove that the universe is expanding. Einstein called this the "biggest blunder of my life."

Now take this idea of the universe expanding and run it backwards and then you have the universe shrinking. As you run it all going backwards, you have galaxies and stars being compressed together and the termperature and the density of the plasma that is made increase dramatically! The farther back in time you go the more everything is squeezed to higher temperatures and densities until you get to just one point...then an explosion happens, but instead of spewing matter out over space like everyone imagines...the "big bang" is actually propelling SPACE, matter, energy, time...everything out.

Special relativity allows this to happen, because of the formula generated from it, E=mc^2 ...matter can come from energy and energy can come from matter.

This exapansion and contraction is based on three things. Starting with redshift. This is interpreted as the Doppler effect. If this is expansion is so, the total potential and kinetic energy of stars and galaxies, and other matter increases with no corresponding loss of energy elswehere. Thus, the Big Bang violtates the LAW of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific laws.

If distant galaxies are receding from us, gravity should be decelerating them for the same reason gravity deccelerates a ball thrown up in the air. Measurements show the opposite. Distant galaxies appear to be accelerating.

Observations only recently make possible by improvments in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the universe(the big bang) under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980's about the shape and history of the universe have now been abandoned-and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy whose origin is not at all understood.

The End of the Old Model UniverseNaturevol 393, 25June1998 p 741

Why is this coming up? One of the main things evolutionists need is a very old earth and universe. There words, not mine. They need the old universe for micro + time=evolution. Without time, their hypothesis would be invalid. Of course, even with time, it is shown invalid. But stubborn people that make observations refuse to follow where science and study leads. Instead they want to form an opinion then try and prove it, make the evidence fit. Much like the Boulder polices failed investigation of JoneBenet Ramseys murder. They formed an opinion, then tried to make the evidence fit the theory. Evolutions do the same thing. And when it doesn't work, they create things like dark matter and dark energy. These are entities claimed to exist, yet can net be seen mearsured or observed. But to get the theory to work, this missing variables get invented. How insane of logic is this.

Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles and drifted into the bizzare; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no "science" is recieving more self criticism, chest beating, and self doubt: none other seems so lost and misdirected; trappedin debilitating dogma.

Astronomy on Trial:A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang FiascoNew York: University Press of America 1999.

You will find as you resarch evolution, the violation of scientific law over and over to make this "theory" work.

 

[CTsupra]

so, when are we all going to become X-Men?

 

[Nick M]

so, when are we all going to become X-Men?

When you are exposed to things that will force a mutation. Mutations are real and are observed. However they are almost never benificial, and usually are fatal. This goes against evolution.

 

[Joel W.]

so, when are we all going to become X-Men?

Be hold... Brainman!!!...AKA Daniel Tammet
As a small child he suffered a number of severe seizures which were later diagnosed as epilepsy. Ever since this time he has been able to see the patterns in numbers. (kinda like that sick monkey)


While this is rare, there are other cases where individuals have suffered injury to the brain only to emerge with a similar startling talent. Orlando Serrill was just 10 years old when he was hit, hard, on the side of the head by a baseball. Since when, he has been able to recall the day, date and weather of every day since the accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/danieltammet.html

There was a good show on the Discovery channel about him...

 

[SupraDerk]

If distant galaxies are receding from us, gravity should be decelerating them for the same reason gravity deccelerates a ball thrown up in the air. Measurements show the opposite. Distant galaxies appear to be accelerating.

General relativity shows that the farther you get away from a massive body the less effect it's "gravity" has on you, so for galaxies to not be decelerating due to gravity makes perfect sense as they're moving away from each other...

If this is expansion is so, the total potential and kinetic energy of stars and galaxies, and other matter increases with no corresponding loss of energy elswehere.

How do you figure? Why do you assume so? You kind of give an answer with no kind of fact or observation to back it up.

You come off as not really knowing what you're talking about there. By the conservation of energy, if Kinetic energy increases then Potential energy should decrease. If something is moving then yes...it's potential energy should decrease and kinetic energy increase as PE is the energy conserved at rest and KE is the energy of motion. Both can't be increasing.

Also Redshift is the observation of visible light having a lower frequency than it actually does. Thus the frequency is higher and yes you get an energy level that is higher than what you first observed, but remember that the redshifted observed energy level isn't the right level. And that's what redshift correction is for.

I'm not even gonna touch the evolution stuff as I really don't care about it and don't care to debate it.


-Derek

 

[Joel W.]

I think of space and all that it is made up of, sort of like an endless loaf of bread that is rising faster and faster due to the air pockets (space or dark matter/energy), the stuff in between the dense matter (universe, galaxies and stars. the bread) expanding evenly together. The vacuum effect of space increases as the space in between the bread expands and this puts less gravity perhaps between the solid bits causing acceleration away from each other (expanding or rising)..

It's just an idea...Think about this, if it is true, some day there may be no stars in the sky (other than our sun) because they are too far away to see. Won't that just suck...:cry:

 

[SupraDerk]

Then we'll just have to attach a flux capacitor to the Earth and travel back to a time with stars in the sky!!!

-Derek

 

[Nick M]

General relativity shows that the farther you get away from a massive body the less effect it's "gravity" has on you, so for galaxies to not be decelerating due to gravity makes perfect sense as they're moving away from each other...

So is the universe expanding or shrinking?

We can resume here.

By the conservation of energy, if Kinetic energy increases then Potential energy should decrease. If something is moving then yes...it's potential energy should decrease and kinetic energy increase as PE is the energy conserved at rest and KE is the energy of motion. Both can't be increasing.

So how should this effect the Big Bang hypothesis?

Also Redshift is the observation of visible light having a lower frequency than it actually does. Thus the frequency is higher and yes you get an energy level that is higher than what you first observed, but remember that the redshifted observed energy level isn't the right level. And that's what redshift correction is for.

Does this correction factor account for contradictions? Meaning what we think we should see, versus what is observed?

-Derek[/QUOTE]

 

[Joel W.]

SD: Personally I don't think we will have to worry about it. It will take some time yet....

I have heard it was expanding faster and faster. I can't say for sure myself.. :dunno: NASA says it is... They got better tools..

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/expanding.html

 

[lagged]

what about tesla's theories? tesla rejected einsteins idea of a field which is affected by masses, thus causing gravity.

tesla believed that space was just that, empty nothingness. gravity was more like electromagnetic waves put out by ( or something ) objects in space.

... or so is my understanding of it.

 

[SupraDerk]

This debate is retarded...you offer no kinds of information other than quotes and then you ask pointless questions...

The universe is expanding...as seen directly in front of your eyes said up there...^...twice. You brought up the idea of Redshift which in itself is saying that you're observing visible light from something moving past you...and if things are moving away from each other that would entail expansion...

Alright I'm done here...this thread is seriously gonna go nowhere.

-Derek

 

[SupraDerk]

Einstein throught of gravity as curved spacetime. Space time being 4 dimensions...x,y,z planes and time. Think of a sheet or a padded mat or something. Drop a bowling ball on it and you have an indentation of the "space" effected by the mass. This is the effect that planets, galaxies...anything with mass is said to have on space, but in 3 demensions and this is given through Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

General Relativity has yet to be disproven and Quantum Mechanics would not agree with Tesla's theory. Take a look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

-Derek

 

[lagged]

Einstein throught of gravity as curved spacetime. Space time being 4 dimensions...x,y,z planes and time. Think of a sheet or a padded mat or something. Drop a bowling ball on it and you have an indentation of the "space" effected by the mass. This is the effect that planets, galaxies...anything with mass is said to have on space, but in 3 demensions and this is given through Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

General Relativity has yet to be disproven and Quantum Mechanics would not agree with Tesla's theory. Take a look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

-Derek

right, that is why i have found tesla's theories interesting. tesla refused to believe that there was a spacetime "mat". this is intriguing to me because thinking of gravity as some type of wave makes it more tangible than "spacetime" which we have no way to observe or test for its existance, other than the fact that gravity exists.

we can control radio waves and electromagnetic waves. imagine if gravity is something of this sort?

i personally believe that anything is possible, and i love reading about any well thought out theory, even string theory which is barely a theory at all.