Printable View
There are more than just the big bang theory in physics, not going into detail as everyone will get very bored very quickly. But if the space and time is the universe so nothing can have existed before the big bang or however the universe came into being.
Philip, a 100kg robot appearing from nowhere is not impossible, just very unlikely, it would require a very large black hole, quantum mechanics and lots of maths!
100kg robot? aint that the iron giant from outta space? *giggles*
and just what is Darwinism? is that like the darwin award, sorta unfortunate idiots? I cant be bothered to read all the posts, cos it got really nasty, bringing religon in, whats that about? tut...
quote:
and just what is Darwinism?
Possibly some plot thing created by Frank :P. Eh, you never know nowadays...
evolution is all about mutation though (or so I was led to believe). A member of a species is born or develops a mutation. A lot of the time these will be blips that will cause the individual to die off rather quickly however once every so often, the mutation makes the individual stronger than the rest of the species or better equiped and so through breeding (survival of the fittest) the mutation becomes the norm.
So if my understanding of it all is correct then we are all just mutants :)
Essentially Gary, but evolution is spurred on by changes in environment, and is not just blindly random.
With regards to your post Philip, I suggest that some things may not mutate while others do due to their environmental conditions. If they remain the same for prolonged periods of time, any mutations will not become widespread within a population as the existing traits of the animal will be more advantageous given their existing background environment.
All will become clear on my next post.
Interesting post Gary, but the only place Ive heard that before was in the X-Men:proud:
Frank, that was my inspiration :)
But that is all that evolution really is, mutations that worked out. Whether they worked out due to biology or favourable environmental conditions is irrelevant. We all mutated originally from bacteria.
A species may not mutate as it is already perfectly adapted to its surroundings. Sharks and crocodiles are perfect examples of this.
Gary, I agree that that is what Darwin proposed. The reason Darwins theory never became Darwins law is that after people searching for proof of evolution from one species to another species for all of this time is that we have no unimpeachable proof to backup this theory. The only scientifically proven facts we have are we keep finding fossil records that show animals that have not evolved.
You can always say that you guess that life evolved from bacteria, but you should not state that sort of thing as if it has been proved. You would need to have thousands and thousands of missing links for Darwin€™s theory to have a remote chance of being correct. There would have to be some sort of fossil evidence if there were thousands and thousands of missing links.
Frank is right. It all sounds a bit like a Hollywood script. Mutants taking over the world. Gamma radiation makes me strong. Oh no, I have just been bitten by a radioactive spider. Maybe if I just throw myself into this toxic waste.
Ed, are you saying that you can disprove the law of conservation of energy?
Another belief system that likes the Darwin€™s theory is a racist belief system. The thought that monkeys evolved into black men and black men evolved into white men suits some peoples ideas of the world. Would this have been the other way around if Darwin was black or Asian? I am sure that roboteers are not racist. I have heard people putting down other races by saying that they have barely climbed down from the trees. Sadly, we, in Australia, used this notion to pay aboriginal workers half the pay of a white man and to deny them the vote and to deny them educational opportunities. Black men were treated as half human.
I think youve struck bottom at this point Philip. Not a scientific fact, just a small hope.
I think that you are really touching on other subjects there philip completely seperate from the discussion.
Yes it may well sound like a hollywood script and yes it may never be proven that the evolution theory is the end all law that governs life on this planet but from the evidence that has been presented so far by the scientific community, the big swing has to be for evolution.
science is about looking at the facts and finding a theory that fits them ALL, when a new fact comes along, that theory is changed to suit, simple. So for the moment, until we have proper proof that states otherwise then the evolution theory is correct for the time being.
Scientists have tried to prove the theory of evolution by performing mutations on animals. Ive just read a book about it, Mutants. On the Form, Varieties and Errors of the Human Body by Armand Leroi, very interesting, because the author stated that we are all mutants anyway. According to him every human gets born with at least 300 mutations that differr her from her parents. Some of these mutations are (and some are quite persistent in families): leading to people with only two fingers on each hand/two toes on each foot, or with too many toes and fingers, people with their legs grown together, very hairy people, Siamese twins, people with all kinds of health problems, but also people who grow bigger and longer than normal or just wont grow at all. Fascinating enough, and scientists have managed to tinker with unborn animals so as to find what gene or other thingy made certain changes happening. In theory they could genetically engineer an animal foetus as to become exactly that which was our earliest ancestor or close to that.
These changes happen and have been proven, and can be traced backwards when observing the growth from fertilised egg to embryo to babe.
The proplem with Intelligent Design is that they cant prove sudden new beings happened. We have lots of missing links in the fossile record, but we do have older fossiles and younger fossiles that look a bit like the older. And certain of these fossiles are human... so, where does the created human come in ?
Most mutations arent even visible in the bone structure of a skeleton, or even in the fossilized remains.
Where does the green , blue, gray or brown eyes come from? If the Inteligent Designer would have started with 1 male, Adam, and 1 female ,Eve, then we would have only 1 eyecolor, as the other would be bred out.
quote:
Where does the green , blue, gray or brown eyes come from? If the Inteligent Designer would have started with 1 male, Adam, and 1 female ,Eve, then we would have only 1 eyecolor, as the other would be bred out.
Not so. Say if Adam had blue eyes, and Eve had brown eyes, then there could be three different choices, and then more mixing, and more eye colours, and so on. You do raise an interesting point, though. If there were only blue eyes and brown eyes, where do green eyes come from? Because you get green when mixing blue and yellow, not blue and brown. Mixing blue and brown would give you black. :P
If eveybody just came from adam and eve , are we all committing insest ? Eww !
I think youve struck bottom at this point Philip. Not a scientific fact, just a small hope.
Which point are you reffering to, Nick?
The point Im referring to starts with this. Another belief system that likes the Darwin€™s theory is a racist belief system.
I cant imagine how you think it this helps the debate, consider me astonished.
(Message edited by Nick on April 01, 2006)
I was referring to the previous discussion where we talked about different issues that may prejudice people€™s interpretation of scientific facts. I am sure that you would have heard some racist people referring to other races as less than human. Racist people would not like to think that they are related to other races.
I believe this fits into the debate as we have been talking about how bias and belief systems can modify the way that people formulate theories. Nick, you can choose to disagree with me if you like.
As much as some people would like to ignore it, but the evolution theory was indeed seized upon by racists (and some evolutionary scientists were indeed racists...) because it nicely fitted their prejudices. What science has taught us so far is that mankind is indeed consisting of several races, each developed in a certain natural environment and well-adapted to it. There are differences between the skeletons of people according to race. Any forensic pathologist can immediately discern the bones of a white person as different from the bones of a black person for instance. The point is that during the 19th and early 20th century we had people claiming that the white race was superior to the other ones, and they were looking for things like skull dimensions, protruding brow-ridges, and so on. Never mind that the Inuit are superior to white people when it comes to surviving in the arctic regions.:proud: Or that any white person mixing with other races will have children who are never white. Quite dominant eyh ?
We got rid of those scientists during the second half of the 20th century (even though there are still some bad apples in the basket even now), but at the same time the research into the differences between several human types became a more or less big no-no and I regret that. We need the facts. We need the research in order to better understand our species.
Interestingly enough the Intelligent Design people seem to be mostly WASPS. I wonder how the !Kung and the San figure in their world-view, not to mention the Inuit and the Australian Aboriginals, since they are so different from the white people. How can they explain the myriad different races of dogs that we have now, was that variety really intended by their Creator ? How can they explain why more and more people seem to be needing glasses and are becoming allergic to whatever ? There are so many deficiencies in our genetic make-up that it baffles the mind would this all have been intended by the Creator.
Darwinism explain that mutations happen but that only the best for survival will create progeny and all others will die out. The ID-people try to point out that we are now having an obesity epidemic in the richer countries, that people are born with all kinds of problems and modern science allows them to live and procreate, one example are the Cleppie Bells in Scotland who usually have only 2 fingers and 2 toes on each hand and foot. They can trace their ancestry back for several centuries. Is that a succesful mutation ?
But the ID people overlook the fact that in the long run the bad mutations will eventually die out. Obese children have a lower life-expectancy, in the end they may die before having children. People who grow too long in size may have back problems, quite seriously so. And the question from the Darwinists is then: did your Creator want this ?
Philip, if we are to take this as useful for this debate and more than just the observation that evolution and racism are compatible beliefs there are somewhat logical conclusions that I cannot help but reach.
You consistently say that the fossil evidence doesnt support Darwinian gradualism, but punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is usually interpreted outside of ID more or less as Darwinism with very non-uniform rates of observable change (a constant rate was not implied). But the impression you create is not at all reconcilable with Darwinian evolution, since The many and varied theories of evolution have always contradicted the law of entropy IMO. etc. so you appear to be interpreting it as evidence for ID. Im still left wondering what you actually believe.
You also consistently argue that peoples interpretations given evidence are determined by their beliefs. If those scientists today, most highly aware of the evidence believe or support evolution, then how does that change the problem that The many and varied theories of evolution have always contradicted the law of entropy IMO. which you persist with?
Im wondering if in your view, in order to believe in evolution those scientists must either be completely ignorant, otherwise it might be because Someone who is an atheist will interpret the evidence with their own religious belief. but if they are not atheist perhaps its because Another belief system that likes the Darwin€™s theory is a racist belief system. and so they only support it because they are racists. Those are the two options that have been offered so far. Did I make a big jump there? Its the one that creationist propaganda made decades ago.
If for example had you simply said belief in evolution causes racism, then it would have no bearing on this debate where we only want to know if evolution or ID is either scientific or correct. The only kind of important statement I feel could be made is if you were to say racism allows a belief of evolution, and only then if our beliefs ultimately stemmed from racism and not scientific facts. Saying that €œI am sure that roboteers are not racist.€ only implies that our beliefs are influenced indirectly. If you don€™t think they have been influenced in such a way this entire matter was irrelevant to the audience of this debate. I could go on, but if this isnt what you meant and it is still important to this debate, then I have obviously not grasped what you were really thinking.
It is not fair to only disagree with you :-) For instance it has been said that ID is not science because it cant be proven true, where instead the most fundamental reason it is not science is because it can not be proven false. There are other objections to postulating an infinite universe in order to explain everything that happens...
To clarify my own opinion, I believe in natural selection only in the sense that it is subordinate to everything obeying physical rules. I dont think that without this it allows any particularly significant insight since it cannot exist in the absence of mechanisms. I dont think evolution need say anything about a God who works through its creations. If the creator in ID is God, ID would imply that Gods universe was essentially stillborn.
I do agree entirely that pre-existing beliefs can influence interpretation of evidence, but also think that Creationism is the poster child for the practice.
Racist people would not like to think that they are related to other races. Is this an explanation of why racist people believe in evolution or dont believe in evolution? Do they believe in it while being ignorant of it?
Robot/Bolt appearing. - Neither of these would make the big bang seem more probable, since that supposes different prevailing conditions and a entirely different outcomes. Such appearances may do wonders for the credibility of teleportation, time travel or even ID. But this to our knowledge hasnt happened. I know that evolution is fully compatible with entropy since unlike Henry Morris did I have some idea what entropy is. I have no idea if divine intervention is or would need to be compatible with it.
Big bang - The big bang isnt a fundamental explanation for existance the universe. It currently applies only to the style of its creation.
+1>The Basics
As promised, heres a summary of the views expressed by either side of this debate:
(thank you old friend mr wikipedia for some of this information)
Darwinian Evolution / Natural Selection
This theory was established as a key pillar of science in the 1800s by Charles Darwin, who came up with the idea after his travels to the Galapagos Islands on a ship named the H.M.S. Beagle (perhaps the name may ring some bells for some of you?). His travels led him to discover animals from the same origin (species) that varied across Islands in ways that suggested mutation which is selective of the environment in which the animal lived in. From his discoveries, Darwin was able to construct the idea behind Natural Selection.
Charles was known for being a seclusive man, and he did not take well to the idea of opposing the Churches views on animal life and development. He knew all too well how badly some people were treated after being accused of heracy (opposition to the Church) and so he kept his ideas within a close ring of friends for a long period of time. Eventually, faced with the worry that another scientist could have come to a similar theory, Darwin published a book in 1859 named The Origin of Species which released to the world his controversial concept of Natural Selection. Many debates between the supporters of Natural Selection and supporters of the Church followed.
Well what exactly is this theory of Evolution / Natural selection? Well, put simply, It can help explain how life could rise from small single cell lifeforms billions of years ago into what we can see in the fossil record leading right up to todays animals and lifeforms. How various chemical combinations could form the complex structures such as life-important amino-acids is not explained by the evolutionary theory, and is much beyond this debate - Darwins followers do like to think that the chance of such chemical structures forming was there, and afterall, where there is a chance, anything can happen. This is one of the many chance occasions which the proponents of Intelligent Design like to cling to.
As new animals are born, as bacteria grows, or as cells divide, information (stored as DNA in a large number of lifeforms) is carried on from generation to generation. Over time though, inaccuracies in the information can occur, sometimes leading to mutations in the resultant lifeform. These mutations are more often than not a hinderance, and would therefore be less likely to be carried on for further generations, but sometimes they pose an advantage in the environment in which the lifeform is situated, and they will therefore be more likely to be carried on for future generations. This trend can form animals that are very well suited to one environment, but not to another. As the environment changes, the trend should produce mutations more suited to the new environment, but if the mutations cannot change rapidly enough, or if they produce unbeneficial effects the lifeform may become extinct in its unsuited environment.
The process of evolution has left behind numerous records which reveal the history of different species. While the best-known of these are fossils, fossils form only a small part of the overall physical record of evolution. By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, biologists can reconstruct the lineages of those species with some accuracy. Using fossil evidence, for instance, the connection between dinosaurs and birds has been established by way of so-called transitional species such as Archaeopteryx.
The development of genetics has allowed biologists to study the genetic record of evolution as well. Although we cannot obtain the DNA sequences of most extinct species, the degree of similarity and difference among modern species allows geneticists to reconstruct lineages with greater accuracy. It is from genetic comparisons that claims such as the 95% similarity between humans and chimpanzees come from, for instance.
Other evidence used to demonstrate evolutionary lineages includes the geographical distribution of species. For instance, monotremes and most marsupials are found only in Australia, showing that their common ancestor with placental mammals lived before the submerging of the ancient land bridge between Australia and Asia.
Scientists correlate all of the above evidence - drawn from paleontology, anatomy, genetics, and geography - with other information about the history of the earth. For instance, paleoclimatology attests to periodic ice ages during which the climate was much cooler; and these are found to match up with the spread of species such as the woolly mammoth which are better-equipped to deal with cold.
In modern times, Darwinian Evolution is the most widely adopted explaination for the formation and changes that happen in life. It is taught in schools worldwide, but is coming under a new threat from the Church, especially in America, through the teaching of
Intelligent Design (ID)
This is a new idea supported by a great number of evangelical Christians, particularly American ones. It has been likened by many as the come-back of creationism that was brutally killed off at the end of the 20th century.
This theory suggests that basically some things on earth, including life, are far to complicated to have arisen by chance and therefore they required the helping hand of an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer would have created life either many millions of years ago, thus an explaination for fossil records of ancient animal species, or more recently and then would have added fossils and such evidence simply as an afterthought. The second idea is obviously much more closely bordering on creationism
The intelligent designer is quite obviously God in many ID supporters minds.
Of course not all Christians support intelligent design, but it is very much a Christian backed idea.
Some Christians have pushed for the teaching of Intelligent Design in school science lessons, but this has been met with strong opposition (noteably by several groups of parents with children at American schools). Some schools in America are teaching intelligent design in biology lessons with the same importance as Natural Selection.
The vast majority of scientists see ID as another shot by some evangelical Christians against natural selection as the theory of natural selection is not at all covered by the bible. They see that ID is not a real science and never will be, while ID supporters back up their justification for the teaching of ID with arguements stating to the effect of theres not enough probability for this to have happened so God mustve done it.
ID is a big religious movement that threatens to break some of the key foundations of Science. Backed by such powerful figures as George Bush, it has the potential to cause great damage to the separation of church and state in America and beyond.
The Debate
Well the debate has started. The first vote brought in the below results:
For Intelligent Design - 7 votes
For Natural Selection - 14 votes
Other - 4 votes
Abstain - 2 votes
Please let the debate run on. The support and opposition for intelligent design seem to have flared up now, so may it continue.
A very well-done analysis Ewan !
A few quotes ......
+1>intelligent design
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 000000>to the power of 40,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like God was always there, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say DNA was always there, or Life was always there, and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
... rarity by itself shouldnt necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences
(Message edited by woody on April 03, 2006)
Well to make everyone happy God made the big Bang and the Big Bang made god.
Why dont you make a Big Bang and implode yerself outta here, instead of causing another argument, which is bound to happen now.
Why dont you go and snog your mom batty.
Let the argument begin :lame:
No, no I dont want to start another petty argument about me saying something to show how both of you are right then get moaned at.
That was the most immature comment i have ever heard!
quote:
No, no I dont want to start another petty argument about me saying something to show how both of you are right then get moaned at.
Naff off. Just naff off, alright? Nothing you said showed how they were right; you were just saying something completely retarded and stupid. And Im not moaning at you because of what you said; Im moaning at you because youre still on this forum. :lame:
Sorry everyone, but this needed to be said. Now, where were we?
Ah, yes, evolution. Very nice, Ewan :)
The comment Im looking for is in your housebot rebellion 1st post on the second page so just nyah to you.
Please could a mod step in around now?
Its my point of view that this timothy chap should have gone a long time ago but we cant all have what we want now can we?
Thank god some of us think alike.... weve been saying that Ewan for ages now!
Isnt it ushually down to me and James baker to start arguments?
This thread was bound to have an argument sooner or later. EVERYONE i know has a differnt view on how the world came to be. But not everyone can express there views in a polite way.
The Big Bang. I can explain it. As I was, and ate a can of baked beans. A few hours later we got a really big BANG.
So mario, Uranus is the centre of the universe? :)
Terrible joke I know but I couldnt resist.
This thread has certainly created some interesting discussion though.
Whilst discussion is fine, again its a shame that some people on this forum dont seem mentally equipped to discuss without the need for insults.
FRA Forum Admin Team
http://www.fightingrobots.co.ukhttp://www.fightingrobots.co.uk
I remember now why i havent looked at this thread since the very first post.
Was always gonna get arguments in place of inteligent discussions.
Nevermind. :)
This thread seems very interesting, although im not suprised people are getting annoyed by now (reading all these really long posts have been giving me the biggest headache ever). I can see by reading bits(i think) that most of you know what you beleive, but trying to put it on a forum is a little tricky, especially when your trying not to offend other people.
Thats one thing wierd about the human mind, you an have your mind knowing exactly what you want to say, but when you put your view down, you always think it sounds insulting and so mellow it down abit to stop any aguments, but you actually end up contradicting yourself and starting an argument lol.
This probably sounds wierd so i will lave it at that, but if you read the posts properly, i think most of you actually think eactly the same thing ( i think lol)
Is timothy an actual roboteer? or just someone trying to cause a fuss?
no Gary, Mario is god he created the universe, you could say he pulled the universe out of his ar......... lol
Tut-tut... Mario has been assimilated by a strange non-Terran organism long ago. Its the stringy stuff that grows on his head and it has turned an otherwise perfectly good boy into a technical maniac.
Anyways, I dont necessarily believe in what I have been writing during this discussion. I prefer to think of the world and our existence in general as something eternally changing. Remember my earlier quote about free-thinking ?
Since the world around me is constantly changing, and I am constantly changing as well, what seemed like a perfectly good working hypothesis yesterday would be contradicted by facts I discovered today. Everything is changing all the time, so every theory is subject to change.
The problem is that the Creationists dont want to change their beliefs, and I must say that equally some Darwinists or Evolutionists dont want to change their pet theories either. But the majority of scientists, the real good ones, agree that from time to time new facts present themselves and you have to correct your hypothesis. An example: Stephen Hawking (if I remember correctly, please let me know when Im wrong) agreed to changing some of his theories when new facts didnt make his work add up. That is admirable.
So my best choice is Evolutionism, although I have taken notice of Creationism in order to widen my world-view. You cant discard it entirely, for the sake of knowledge, but I feel it hampers complete free thought.
And besides... I just love to watch scientists bicker over what place their newly discovered fossils take in our family tree. See what happened recently with the Hobbits... :mrgreen: