Question on Evolution

[empirex]

"Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism"

Yeah, even spontaneous generation is a form of gradualism, just faster. Please, they wouldn't have named it punctuated equilibrium, and the founders thereof wouldn't have rejected phyletic gradualism if they didn't think it was different.
Wanna sell yourself another one?

"Public goods hypothesis doesn't invalid common descent.

Of course it doesn't, I never said it did.
This just goes to show you have no idea what you are debating, or if you do, you have shifted the goal posts from gradualism to common descent, two very different topics. Not unexpected.

Indeed we've know for quite some time that the base of the tree of life is more of a bush than a tree and that genes can, even today, be acquired "horizontally" as apposed to merely "vertically". Ironically it's some of these hitchhikers (ERV's) which are helping us to compare the traditional tree (based of physical analysis) with one based on DNA analysis."

Ok, so you agree gradualism is dead?
And so too is the tree of life dead, that which was founded on the concept of gradualism?

[empirex]

How can ID make valid scientific predictions... it isn't science. It is at it's fundamental level based on magic.

Let me try: How can neo-Darwinism make valid scientific predictions... it isn't science. It is at it's fundamental level based on preconceptions, long-falsified principles, assumptions and necessity based on an a priori emotional commitment to materialism.

Nah, not as much fun as debating the issues.

Could you give me an example of some of these predictions and how they were arrived at (you know... the methodology used). Keep in mind that subjective assumptions are about as valid as predictions obtained through tarot card reading.

Sure, junk DNA was predicted by Intelligent Design to be nothing of the sort, rather to have function; just as we are now uncovering layer upon spectacular layer of function.

[copacetic]

Fair enough, it's not scientific. I believe the Bible.

As long as you are happy to admit that this is has no meaning or import in the context of rational, science based discussion, no problem.

what evidence? It's thumb sucked and can't be replicated.

What do you mean it can't be replicated? I'm not saying it can't be, as I don't even know what you are referring to, or why.

You're welcome to explain it to me in your own words.

Not necessary, I am just absolutely floored, that for someone who claims that there are major issues with the notion of the big bang, which implies that you must have done some sort of research to reach that conclusion, you appear to have never heard of one of the biggest pieces of evidence we have for it. How in the blazes is that possible? It's like me rejecting Christianity, and then admitting I have no idea who Jesus is at some point in the argument.

Utter bull. There's no way scientists can know the singularity existed. We all know the universe expands, but to reverse it over time and get to a singularity is an assumption at best. The best possible explanation copacetic is not necessarily true

You've never watched a science based documentary, lecture, or read a book on astrophysics have you, that deals with this subject? If you have, can you tell me which it is? Frankly, I do not believe you any longer when you say you are approaching this from a position of knowledge, since your objections and statements such as 'It's thumb sucked' display an abject and frankly appalling lack thereof. Knowledge that is at your ****ing fingertips, which makes this all so sad to witness.

I must also point out that it blows my mind that you have a level of doubt and critical thinking that applies to science so strongly that you manage to somehow just... convince yourself that some of the most robust understandings about our world and universe are incorrect, beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet when it comes to the bible, your level of critical thinking devolves to that of a child's attitude towards Santa Clause or the tooth fairy.

[Nick333]

Let me try: How can neo-Darwinism make valid scientific predictions... it isn't science. It is at it's fundamental level based on preconceptions, long-falsified principles, assumptions and necessity based on an a priori emotional commitment to materialism.

Ok, so that premise accounts for atheists commitment to evolution but what about religious people who accept evolution? Are they just dupes of the atheist materialists?

[HapticSimian]

Unsurprising to see that the inanity has flowed incessantly in this thread during the lovely week I spent at the beach...

Let me try: How can neo-Darwinism make valid scientific predictions... it isn't science. It is at it's fundamental level based on preconceptions, long-falsified principles, assumptions and necessity based on an a priori emotional commitment to materialism.

Nah, not as much fun as debating the issues.

You aren't debating anything, you are rehashing old, debunked and wishful tenets of an unfounded hypothesis. Inherent in evolutionary theory's subject matter is a rather obvious difficulty in predicting the future direction of an organism's lineage. The time frames are too vast, and there is the sticky issue that evolution at its core relies on random mutations. One cannot predict random phenomena with any degree of certainty. What one could say, of course, is that any pathogen is likely to develop resistance to a widely used treatment because such treatments exert environmental pressure on the organism which in turn encourages evolution. This prediction is borne out time and again.

Of course predictions can also technically involve speculation on past events which are at the time not yet confirmed. As an example good ol' Charles Darwin himself predicted that, on the evidence of how he perceived the large African apes, humanity arose in Africa. This hypothesis has been corroborated in more recent times by both genetic and fossil data. Pretty cool, huh.

Sure, junk DNA was predicted by Intelligent Design to be nothing of the sort, rather to have function; just as we are now uncovering layer upon spectacular layer of function.

Much of so-called junk (or non-coding) DNA still seems to be exactly that - junk. That the boundaries were initially too widely drawn is no great surprise, given that new scientific knowledge is built on what was discovered before. As observational techniques become ever more refined and precise, these boundaries can be more clearly outlined. It is a pretty nifty example of how and why science works as a methodology - it becomes ever more right as time goes by.

ID, by contrast, can only be described as not even wrong.

[alloytoo]

Yeah, even spontaneous generation is a form of gradualism, just faster. Please, they wouldn't have named it punctuated equilibrium, and the founders thereof wouldn't have rejected phyletic gradualism if they didn't think it was different.
Wanna sell yourself another one?

Eldredge and Gould are often quotemined.

Punctuated equilibrium isn't a challenge to TOE, it is merely an illuminating addition.

It explains how some species remain apparently static for prolonged periods accumulating neutral mutations and then when subject to environment shifts either undergo rather rapid change or become extinct depending how said environment shifts redefine those mutations.

Of course it doesn't, I never said it did.
This just goes to show you have no idea what you are debating, or if you do, you have shifted the goal posts from gradualism to common descent, two very different topics. Not unexpected.
Ok, so you agree gradualism is dead?
And so too is the tree of life dead, that which was founded on the concept of gradualism?

Contradict yourself much?

The tree of life is founded on the notion of change over time leading to speciation. (Fundamentally vertical gene transfer)

The impact of HGT tends to make the tree bushy at the base. Though HGT gene transfer does happen to many species even today.

The problem lies not with the core principle of change over time, or even the rate of said change. The problem (as Gould and Dawkins amongst others have alluded to),is with our desire to label everything within these little boxes called species, which are useful, but sometimes misleading.

[Unhappy438]

Nah, not as much fun as debating the issues.

Sorry to break your delusional bubble but there is no debate to be had when it comes to evolution vs creationism.

[empirex]

The universe as we know it appears to have come into being due to the big bang event.

The origin of the singularity preceding the event is unknown.

Well the Big bang isn't settled science is it, that's our best guess so far.

You're then left with three choices.

1. The singularity (or at least the energy) always existed.

2. The singularity sprang spontaneously into existance.

3. The singularity was created.

Answers 1 & 2 however frustrating stand on their own.

Answer 3 leads down the path of infinite reduction: How did the creator originate?

See answers 1-3.

Creationists like to choose answers 1 & 2 at this point.

My question is, how are answers 1 & 2 any more acceptable when explaining the origin of a creator than when explaining the origin of the universe?

At this point the special pleading begins.

I certainly don't have all the answers, especially as to God's eternal nature, and the reality in which He exists (outside our natural world).

What I can say is this -- you and I exist right?
And we live in a reality governed by rules and laws. Now as we come to understand those laws, and they all continue to point to a creation event - Why physicists can't avoid a creation event - then that is where we as scientists must go. Follow the evidence.

Some people try to take the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem out of context though, WLC set's the record straight, as does Vilenkin himself at around 5:00 in the video.



As to a spontaneous creation event; well surely that is no better than magic right? And Hawkings and co.'s attempt at trying to redefine the term "nothing" is simply a case of professional dishonesty IMO.

Asserting that the "Quantum Vacuum" is 'nothing' is as ridiculous as saying that Nelson Mandela's inauguration speech heard on the radio was nothing.
Because that's what the quantum vacuum is, electromagnetic radiation.


What I'm saying is this, whatever created the universe came from outside our reality (supernatural) now whether that "first cause", or "alpha" was intelligent or not is another matter. However given the nature of the fine-tuning of the universe, I would go with an intelligent cause

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

-- Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176

"The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science."

-- William Lane Craig

[empirex]

Sorry to break your delusional bubble but there is no debate to be had when it comes to evolution vs creationism.

$hit

[alloytoo]

You aren't debating anything, you are rehashing old, debunked and wishful tenets of an unfounded hypothesis. Inherent in evolutionary theory's subject matter is a rather obvious difficulty in predicting the future direction of an organism's lineage. The time frames are too vast, and there is the sticky issue that evolution at its core relies on random mutations. One cannot predict random phenomena with any degree of certainty. What one could say, of course, is that any pathogen is likely to develop resistance to a widely used treatment because such treatments exert environmental pressure on the organism which in turn encourages evolution. This prediction is borne out time and again.

Of course predictions can also technically involve speculation on past events which are at the time not yet confirmed. As an example good ol' Charles Darwin himself predicted that, on the evidence of how he perceived the large African apes, humanity arose in Africa. This hypothesis has been corroborated in more recent times by both genetic and fossil data. Pretty cool, huh.

His stab at the origins of whales wasn't too far off the mark either.

Much of so-called junk (or non-coding) DNA still seems to be exactly that - junk. That the boundaries were initially too widely drawn is no great surprise, given that new scientific knowledge is built on what was discovered before. As observational techniques become ever more refined and precise, these boundaries can be more clearly outlined. It is a pretty nifty example of how and why science works as a methodology - it becomes ever more right as time goes by.

ID, by contrast, can only be described as not even wrong.

It's worth noting that it's the long suffering scientists who are discovering these things about so called junk DNA. Mostly because their predictions were grounded in reality.

[Elimentals]

What I do find very odd when it comes to this science is wrong type of debates is that the very same Christians that yell at the to of their voices that this is all bull**** will not think twice when they are in need for a doctor, hell they use the very same science they debate as flawed to send that message.

Quantum physics, I give you CAT scans
Evolution, I give you genetic crops and medicine that use that same evolutionary science.
Background radiation, I give you an X-ray machine and fiber optics for networks.

Think about that for a second if science has it so wrong then every thing around you is magic and you simply don't have to see a doctor next time you break a leg.

If you truly believe in a creator, does it not make sense that he created the physical by creating the laws that caused it, if there is truly a creator that only cares about the spiritual then all matter does in fact not matter. So maybe you doing it wrong as such a spiritual being would not mend bones or grow legs, but instead give you the courage and emotional support you need to overcome just that.

After all your very own creator told you that you now have power over everything, as in handing it over.

[alloytoo]

Well the Big bang isn't settled science is it, that's our best guess so far.

Hence the use of the phrase "appears to have come into being"

I certainly don't have all the answers, especially as to God's eternal nature, and the reality in which He exists (outside our natural world).

Fish or cut bait, either he exists in our reality or he doesn't (and might as well not exist at all). Make up your mind.

What I can say is this -- you and I exist right?
And we live in a reality governed by rules and laws. Now as we come to understand those laws, and they all continue to point to a creation event - Why physicists can't avoid a creation event - then that is where we as scientists must go. Follow the evidence.

Some people try to take the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem out of context though, WLC set's the record straight, as does Vilenkin himself at around 5:00 in the video.

WLC is a charlatan. If he touched any record it would be warped.

I then asked Vilenkin, “Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?”

He immediately replied,
"No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."

http://skeptic-mind.blogspot.co.nz/2...sm-part-2.html

In laymen's terms the beginning of this universe has to have a beginning.

As to a spontaneous creation event; well surely that is no better than magic right? And Hawkings and co.'s attempt at trying to redefine the term "nothing" is simply a case of professional dishonesty IMO.

Asserting that the "Quantum Vacuum" is 'nothing' is as ridiculous as saying that Nelson Mandela's inauguration speech heard on the radio was nothing.
Because that's what the quantum vacuum is, electromagnetic radiation.

What I'm saying is this, whatever created the universe came from outside our reality (supernatural) now whether that "first cause", or "alpha" was intelligent or not is another matter.

What is the origin of your postulated first cause? Why in the name of Occum's razer is it necessary?

However given the nature of the fine-tuning of the universe, I would go with an intelligent cause

The tune of our universe is unknown. It could be a VW Beatle, it could be a 911 Porsche. We don't know.

[HapticSimian]

/snip

What I'm saying is this, whatever created the universe came from outside our reality (supernatural) now whether that "first cause", or "alpha" was intelligent or not is another matter. However given the nature of the fine-tuning of the universe, I would go with an intelligent cause

As is his wont, William Lane Craig goes through a lot of philosophical handwaving without really saying much, and himself misapplying the basis of the BVG theorem in an attempt to buttress his own position. The BVG Theorem does not imply that the Universe itself necessarily had a beginning, but merely that the inflationary stage of the Universe's existence had to have had a beginning. It's right in the abstract of the paper:

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of
singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition,
that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete
in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble
parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics
other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

Or, stated differently in the conclusion of the paper:

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.

See that? "Some new physics is needed", not Goddidit™. As a bonus, here's Vilenkin himself in a paper submitted last year:

It has been recently shown that the spacetime of an inflationary universe is necessarily
past-incomplete, even though inflation may be eternal to the future. All past-directed
timelike and null geodesics, except maybe a set of measure zero, reach the boundary of the
inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).
This indicates that inflation must have had some sort of a beginning. One possibility is that
the universe could have spontaneously nucleated out of nothing.

William Lane Craig is a shifty, insincere tool - give this a watch and perhaps in future you'll be less cavalier in appealing to his non-arguments in support of your position:



(really worth a watch)

[porchrat]

Let me try: How can neo-Darwinism make valid scientific predictions... it isn't science. It is at it's fundamental level based on preconceptions, long-falsified principles, assumptions and necessity based on an a priori emotional commitment to materialism.

Not at all no. The Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory with supporting evidence. If you wish to claim that this theory has long ago been falsified then please provide the evidence and claim your Nobel prize.

That and PLENTY of Christians reconcile their faith and evolution. Hardly what I would call an "a priori emotional commitment to materialism. Now you are just flat out lying.

My magic point however still stands. ID isn't science. It is religion. It has absolutely fsck all to do with the scientific method.

Nah, not as much fun as debating the issues.

There are no issues when it comes to ID. Just magic.

Sure, junk DNA was predicted by Intelligent Design to be nothing of the sort, rather to have function; just as we are now uncovering layer upon spectacular layer of function.

Yeah but... how? How was this prediction arrived at? Show me the methodology.

[empirex]

The tune of our universe is unknown. It could be a VW Beatle, it could be a 911 Porsche. We don't know.

Houston we have a problem.

The force of gravity.
Imagine a ruler divided into one inch increments, stretched across the entire length of the universe, or 14 billion light years.

So if the ruler represents the possible range for gravity.
The setting for the strength of gravity just happens to be situated in the right place so that life is possible.

If you were to change the force of gravity by moving the setting just one inch compared to the entire width of the universe -- the effect on life would be catastrophic.

Fine-fine-fine-tuning.


Design is literally etched into the very building blocks and operation of the universe at the most fundamental level.
Your faith is certainly a lot stronger than mine if you contend that all these conditions happened into existence by chance all at the same time. Good luck with that.

Some more:
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes

initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-
essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars