Evolution

[John Dibble]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

Theories can't be proven? Uh...what? I'm pretty sure they can be proven, perhaps not at the current time, due to lack of conditions or technology needed, but I'm sure they could be proven at some point in time, and become law rather than theory. Theories could be disproven as well. Of course, maybe you're a perfectionist - remember your calculus, eventually you get to a point where you can say 'close enough.

[Inverted Things]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

Theories can't be proven? Uh...what? I'm pretty sure they can be proven, perhaps not at the current time, due to lack of conditions or technology needed, but I'm sure they could be proven at some point in time, and become law rather than theory. Theories could be disproven as well. Of course, maybe you're a perfectionist - remember your calculus, eventually you get to a point where you can say 'close enough.

Any scientist 100 years ago would have proclaimed Newton's Laws as fact. Today we know that they are wrong.

Don't see what calculus has to do with being close enough.

[John Dibble]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

Theories can't be proven? Uh...what? I'm pretty sure they can be proven, perhaps not at the current time, due to lack of conditions or technology needed, but I'm sure they could be proven at some point in time, and become law rather than theory. Theories could be disproven as well. Of course, maybe you're a perfectionist - remember your calculus, eventually you get to a point where you can say 'close enough.

Any scientist 100 years ago would have proclaimed Newton's Laws as fact. Today we know that they are wrong.

Don't see what calculus has to do with being close enough.

Hey, like I said, theories can be disproven too. 'The world is flat' was a theory, disproven, and 'the world is round' was a theory, proven.

When graphing calculus equations, eventually a curve can come close enough to the axis to consider it to be touching the axis, even though it is a never actually does touch the axis - it just keeps getting closer and closer, indistinguishable to the human eye. If you calculated area while considering a 'close enough' approach, it would be a finite area, but area could technically be infinite if you considered that the curve never actully touches the axis - kind of like pi has no end to it, just infinite decimal places, so for general purposes we consider pi=3.16. Sorry if that's a sucky explanation, I'm good at math just not good at explaining it.

[angus]

yez should take a look at some of thearly methods of finding the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter.  some old italian guy tossed a needle on a floor like about a million times and looked at the angle at which it landed, etc.  He came up with like 3.1416.  Not too shabby.

There are, of course, better ways.  Some computer simulations can yield like a hundred thousand digits  3.1415926967273815953...

Oh, and actually it was nearly a hundred years ago (1905) that Einstein showed his photoelectric effect, and way more than a hundred years ago that Blackbody radiation and the "ultraviolet catastrophe" were noted.  Still, your point is taken.  But then, that's what we said all along, science is *tentative* and testable.  Nothing wrong with trying to disprove Darwin's theories.  In fact, Science not only encourages it, but demands it!  (still, there's no reason, other than sheer prosyletizing, to offer up mythology as literalism)

[ATFFL]

Evolution flies in the face of the basic scientific principle that all the universe moves from complex forms to simpler forms. 

This principle is false. Which is more complex, a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule? The hydrogen molecule is more complex, yet if you take two hydrogen atoms there is no way to keep them from forming a molecule.

Which is more complex, a single amino acid or a protein molecule? The protein molecule, of course. When scientists make their best guess as to what the world was like 4 billion years ago, and simulate the conditions, proteins form out of amino acids with incredible ease.

That is because the natural state for hydrogen is as a moelcule.  The same proves true for some biological components, protiens among them.

The problem comes from getting these simple forms to form more complex forms.  Soem chemical reactions do occur naturally.  They are rare and usually non-sustainable.  Eventually the energy for them will dry up and we will no longer get the chemical reaction allowing for complex structures to be formed.

There is also no case where something goes from the equivalent of an amino acid to somethign as complex as a human being without masive outside influence.  Silicon does not form computer chips on its own. 

Evolution is the only scientific theory that says something as basic as amino acids can develop into something as complex as even our relatively simple circulatory system without an outside influence.

Unless, of course, you accept that there is an outside influence.

[Bono]

it puts me in mind of the famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, when early primitive earth (crica 3 billion BC) was simulated.  A closed vessel containing reduced compounds such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water was set up.  Electrodes supplied an occassional spark ("lightning") and after a week or so, the clear solution in the vessel changed color.  Subsequent analysis showed that the solution contained amino acids!  The beginnings of contemporary life-type molecules were spontaneously organized in a vessel containing reduced inorganic compounds, thus lending support to theories.  At first glance this seems to be both spontaneous and creating negative entropy (?!)  Was Shiva asleep that day?  We need not turn to metaphysics for an answer:  it is simply that the electrodes which supplied the energy for "lightening" borrowed some order (or disorder) from the local power company (the surroundings).  The same thing happens on a universal scale.  Also, the second law deals with equilibrium thermodynamics.  The complex molecules of living organisms are in constant non-equilibrium.  I think the current hypothesis is that life, as a purely energetic event, is a continuity only narrowly tied to the evolution of space-time from the singularity at which the entropy of the universe was zero.  (Really zero!  Not "third law" zero.)  About 15x10^9 years ago, or about 10^-37 seconds after the big bang, original entropy was generated in a phase transition of the entire universe, which, at the time, was about the size of an atomic nucleus (and *very* dense).  At least that's one commonly accepted theory.

As for amino acids *easily* becoming proteins:  hogwash.  No biochemist or biophysisist or molecular biologist I know ever claimed it was easy.  In fact, many moles of glucose must be oxidized in order for the system to acquire enough energy to build proteins from amino acids, and that's even with enzymes lowering the reactive barriers by a few kilocalories per mole!

If you think it dificult for aminoacids to become proteins, try getting proteins to combine into DNA. And then try to get that DNA to form a cell.

[Inverted Things]

it puts me in mind of the famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, when early primitive earth (crica 3 billion BC) was simulated.  A closed vessel containing reduced compounds such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water was set up.  Electrodes supplied an occassional spark ("lightning") and after a week or so, the clear solution in the vessel changed color.  Subsequent analysis showed that the solution contained amino acids!  The beginnings of contemporary life-type molecules were spontaneously organized in a vessel containing reduced inorganic compounds, thus lending support to theories.  At first glance this seems to be both spontaneous and creating negative entropy (?!)  Was Shiva asleep that day?  We need not turn to metaphysics for an answer:  it is simply that the electrodes which supplied the energy for "lightening" borrowed some order (or disorder) from the local power company (the surroundings).  The same thing happens on a universal scale.  Also, the second law deals with equilibrium thermodynamics.  The complex molecules of living organisms are in constant non-equilibrium.  I think the current hypothesis is that life, as a purely energetic event, is a continuity only narrowly tied to the evolution of space-time from the singularity at which the entropy of the universe was zero.  (Really zero!  Not "third law" zero.)  About 15x10^9 years ago, or about 10^-37 seconds after the big bang, original entropy was generated in a phase transition of the entire universe, which, at the time, was about the size of an atomic nucleus (and *very* dense).  At least that's one commonly accepted theory.

As for amino acids *easily* becoming proteins:  hogwash.  No biochemist or biophysisist or molecular biologist I know ever claimed it was easy.  In fact, many moles of glucose must be oxidized in order for the system to acquire enough energy to build proteins from amino acids, and that's even with enzymes lowering the reactive barriers by a few kilocalories per mole!

If you think it dificult for aminoacids to become proteins, try getting proteins to combine into DNA. And then try to get that DNA to form a cell.

You don't need DNA to form a cell. They can make cells in laboratories just by simulating the energy of earth of 4 billion years ago. All they are is a sphere of proteins (a cell, if you will). They grow. They get so big that they split, and the 'children' grow again. That's perilously close to life, isn't it? In terms DNA, RNA, etc., in these simulation, RNA molecules of up to about a dozen nucleotides are made. We can simulate the beginnings of life in our laboratories.

[Inverted Things]

Evolution flies in the face of the basic scientific principle that all the universe moves from complex forms to simpler forms. 

This principle is false. Which is more complex, a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule? The hydrogen molecule is more complex, yet if you take two hydrogen atoms there is no way to keep them from forming a molecule.

Which is more complex, a single amino acid or a protein molecule? The protein molecule, of course. When scientists make their best guess as to what the world was like 4 billion years ago, and simulate the conditions, proteins form out of amino acids with incredible ease.

That is because the natural state for hydrogen is as a moelcule.  The same proves true for some biological components, protiens among them.

The problem comes from getting these simple forms to form more complex forms.  Soem chemical reactions do occur naturally.  They are rare and usually non-sustainable.  Eventually the energy for them will dry up and we will no longer get the chemical reaction allowing for complex structures to be formed.

There is also no case where something goes from the equivalent of an amino acid to somethign as complex as a human being without masive outside influence.  Silicon does not form computer chips on its own. 

Evolution is the only scientific theory that says something as basic as amino acids can develop into something as complex as even our relatively simple circulatory system without an outside influence.

Unless, of course, you accept that there is an outside influence.

You ignore the fact that the sun puts an incredible amount of energy on the earth each day. You also ignore all the energy stored in the earth's interior.

[opebo]

I can't believe we're still discussing 'creationism' in 2004.  America is such a benighted land.

[Redefeatbush04]

EXACTLY. Yet some people continue to insist that some mysterious thing which created itself took clay from an unknown source and created modern man as they are seen today.

Yet people insist that the Big Bang theory exists, and yet can't explain where the substance from which the bang happened came from.

Why, God, silly

That is just one of those questions that cannot be answered. Creationists cannot answer who created god. Evolutionists (<?) cannot answer how the big bang was created

[Bono]

it puts me in mind of the famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, when early primitive earth (crica 3 billion BC) was simulated.  A closed vessel containing reduced compounds such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water was set up.  Electrodes supplied an occassional spark ("lightning") and after a week or so, the clear solution in the vessel changed color.  Subsequent analysis showed that the solution contained amino acids!  The beginnings of contemporary life-type molecules were spontaneously organized in a vessel containing reduced inorganic compounds, thus lending support to theories.  At first glance this seems to be both spontaneous and creating negative entropy (?!)  Was Shiva asleep that day?  We need not turn to metaphysics for an answer:  it is simply that the electrodes which supplied the energy for "lightening" borrowed some order (or disorder) from the local power company (the surroundings).  The same thing happens on a universal scale.  Also, the second law deals with equilibrium thermodynamics.  The complex molecules of living organisms are in constant non-equilibrium.  I think the current hypothesis is that life, as a purely energetic event, is a continuity only narrowly tied to the evolution of space-time from the singularity at which the entropy of the universe was zero.  (Really zero!  Not "third law" zero.)  About 15x10^9 years ago, or about 10^-37 seconds after the big bang, original entropy was generated in a phase transition of the entire universe, which, at the time, was about the size of an atomic nucleus (and *very* dense).  At least that's one commonly accepted theory.

As for amino acids *easily* becoming proteins:  hogwash.  No biochemist or biophysisist or molecular biologist I know ever claimed it was easy.  In fact, many moles of glucose must be oxidized in order for the system to acquire enough energy to build proteins from amino acids, and that's even with enzymes lowering the reactive barriers by a few kilocalories per mole!

If you think it dificult for aminoacids to become proteins, try getting proteins to combine into DNA. And then try to get that DNA to form a cell.

You don't need DNA to form a cell. They can make cells in laboratories just by simulating the energy of earth of 4 billion years ago. All they are is a sphere of proteins (a cell, if you will). They grow. They get so big that they split, and the 'children' grow again. That's perilously close to life, isn't it? In terms DNA, RNA, etc., in these simulation, RNA molecules of up to about a dozen nucleotides are made. We can simulate the beginnings of life in our laboratories.

Ok, I'll rephrase cell to a living cell.

[Redefeatbush04]

That is just one of those questions that cannot be answered. Creationists cannot answer who created god. Evolutionists (<?) cannot answer how the big bang was created

You were giving supposed evidence, and "scientists" believe that the Big Bang theory is fact, they have no supportive evidence.  I don't think any Christians ever said they knew who created God.  Point being they try to justify their theories using theories, and Christians never said they know everything about the Creation.  That's faith in God, and in his Prophets.

It is true that scientists cannot PROVE how the big bang occurred, but they can prove that evolution occured. I believe I read an article in Discover magazine about how the first life formed on earth, and how Titan is beginning to form that same chemical composition. I don't remember exactly, but I'm sure I will be able to find it, and when I do I will post what it says.

[John Dibble]

It is true that scientists cannot PROVE how the big bang occurred, but they can prove that evolution occured. I believe I read an article in Discover magazine about how the first life formed on earth, and how Titan is beginning to form that same chemical composition. I don't remember exactly, but I'm sure I will be able to find it, and when I do I will post what it says.

They cannot prove it existed at all, the Big Bang that is.

Indeed. They can speculate based on what evidence they have(mainly from movement of galaxies). But, by that token people can't proove their religious versions of universal origin, but that doesn't stop many of them from saying it's absolutely true.

[Redefeatbush04]

It is true that scientists cannot PROVE how the big bang occurred, but they can prove that evolution occured. I believe I read an article in Discover magazine about how the first life formed on earth, and how Titan is beginning to form that same chemical composition. I don't remember exactly, but I'm sure I will be able to find it, and when I do I will post what it says.

They cannot prove it existed at all, the Big Bang that is.

The CAN prove that it occured

They CANNOT prove how it occured

[A18]

I think the results of this poll go to show you that people will believe anything.

[John Dibble]

It is true that scientists cannot PROVE how the big bang occurred, but they can prove that evolution occured. I believe I read an article in Discover magazine about how the first life formed on earth, and how Titan is beginning to form that same chemical composition. I don't remember exactly, but I'm sure I will be able to find it, and when I do I will post what it says.

They cannot prove it existed at all, the Big Bang that is.

Indeed. They can speculate based on what evidence they have(mainly from movement of galaxies). But, by that token people can't proove their religious versions of universal origin, but that doesn't stop many of them from saying it's absolutely true.

That's true, but then again we never said we know for a fact that it's true.  We have something called faith.  Ya know, that belief in things that's not seen, but you know it's true thing.  My whole point in bringing this up was that Scientists and believers claim that Evolution and the Big Bang prove Creation never happened, and it's simply not true.  They can't prove anything through their theories.

Let's just say that by some remote chance the Big Bang theory was true, and proven as such.  The theory indicated a big ball of matter exploding and that's how the Universe is still expanding (very simplified version).  Even if that was true, you could still believe in Creation due to the fact that they couldn't explain where that mass came from.  Who created it?  As vern said earlier (mockingly mind you), God.

I never said YOU said creationism was a fact, but believe me, there are those who will say that it is a FACT, 100% true beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's not the same as your faith - it's blind faith, the worst kind of faith anyone could have. Scientists who blindly follow unproven/unproveable theories are just as bad, if not worse since they are supposed to be open-minded, thinking individuals.

And, being agnostic, I don't deny the possibility that the universe, at some point in time, was created or influenced by a higher being(s) or will, or something. Of course, it's most likely if the true answer of creation(and where the creator came from, ect.) was explained to a human that we'd go insane just thinking about it. Sometimes it is better not to think too much.

[Redefeatbush04]

It is true that scientists cannot PROVE how the big bang occurred, but they can prove that evolution occured. I believe I read an article in Discover magazine about how the first life formed on earth, and how Titan is beginning to form that same chemical composition. I don't remember exactly, but I'm sure I will be able to find it, and when I do I will post what it says.

They cannot prove it existed at all, the Big Bang that is.

The CAN prove that it occured

They CANNOT prove how it occured

Damn it now I have to find where I read about that one too........bastard Anyway, have you ever heard of the red shift?

[angus]

Sometimes it is better not to think too much.

 

[JohnFKennedy]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

There is one area where things can be definitively proven and that is maths. That is why the word theorem is only really applicable in maths.

[angus]

yep. 

"You say you want a revolution
Well you know
we all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright   Alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
we'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright   Alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
we all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright   Alright"


Alright!

[Gabu]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

Theories can't be proven? Uh...what? I'm pretty sure they can be proven, perhaps not at the current time, due to lack of conditions or technology needed, but I'm sure they could be proven at some point in time, and become law rather than theory. Theories could be disproven as well. Of course, maybe you're a perfectionist - remember your calculus, eventually you get to a point where you can say 'close enough.

Any scientist 100 years ago would have proclaimed Newton's Laws as fact. Today we know that they are wrong.

Don't see what calculus has to do with being close enough.

Hey, like I said, theories can be disproven too. 'The world is flat' was a theory, disproven, and 'the world is round' was a theory, proven.

When graphing calculus equations, eventually a curve can come close enough to the axis to consider it to be touching the axis, even though it is a never actually does touch the axis - it just keeps getting closer and closer, indistinguishable to the human eye. If you calculated area while considering a 'close enough' approach, it would be a finite area, but area could technically be infinite if you considered that the curve never actully touches the axis - kind of like pi has no end to it, just infinite decimal places, so for general purposes we consider pi=3.16. Sorry if that's a sucky explanation, I'm good at math just not good at explaining it.

His point about Newton's laws was basically to illustrate that what we may think is "proven" today may in fact be false, and that it only appears to be fact.  As I said before, it's absolutely impossible to prove something to be true beyond any possible formulatable doubt.  It's only possible to give enough evidence that appears to indicate its truth that there is no practical reason for why someone would question its validity.

As a complete random aside, curves that never touch the x-axis can actually have a finite area beneath them even though they have an infinite arc length, bizarrely enough.  The area beneath the curve y = 1/x^2, take from 1 to infinity, is exactly 1 unit.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I believe in the whole evolution guided by God deal.

How anyone can honestly believe the Earth was created in 7 24 hour periods (because we know that the period of 24 hours is relevant before the Earth existed and to someone who doesn't exist on it) about 6000 years with all creatures in existance on it at the time (I'm interested in where dinosaurs came from) is beyond me.

[Gabu]

As for the actual question at hand, I see no contradiction between creationism and either the big bang theory or evolution.  I believe that the universe was created by a supernatural being (we had to have been created by something, after all), and that this being set it into motion.  Then, after having done so, this being relinquished control and let it run its course through evolution.

Of course, this raises questions regarding where this being came from, and where its creator came from, and so on, questions that ultimately are neverending.

[A18]

I don't believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour periods, but I don't believe in evolution either. The Big Bang is much more sane, though I don't know much about it.

[muon2]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

There is one area where things can be definitively proven and that is maths. That is why the word theorem is only really applicable in maths.

There's a bit of English language that one must be careful of. Primarily, it changes oiver the centuries. Words that mean one thing in one century can and do change their meanings. Even scientists use the vernacular in their descriptions.

In Newton's day, learned men wrote in Latin. The neoclassical period featured a very deterministic view of nature. Newton's Principia was the embodiment of that view. Empirical results describing nature were called laws, whether or not they were proven. Not only were there Newton's laws, but also Ohm's law and Pascal's law just to name a couple.

In the 1800's the Romantic era was ushered in. Nature was seen was intentional and perfecting rather than merely deterministic. The mechanics of Lagrange compared to Newton are a perfect example - and they are mathematically equivalent while very different in motivation. Language changed to match the new world view. Instead of laws, scientific relationships were described as theories. This included atomic theory, electromagnetic theory, the theory opf relativity, and in biology the theory of evolution. Nothing was different in scientific practice, only that language had changed so that the choice of words was different.

Now in the last few decades a change in language to describe scientific findings is again taking place. There are still some theories (eg. string theory), but more often these scientific descriptions are called "models". Examples include the inflationary model of the universe and the standard model of particle physics. As before the practice didn't change, but our use of the language did.

It is a healthy and time-honored tradition to debate the accuracy of scientific descriptions of nature. But, when debating the merit of one analysis or another, it is important to place no weight on whether it is a "law", "theory", or "model". These terms reflect the history of our language and culture, not the underlying science.