Time and evolution

JohnR7 said:

Created? So evolution begins after creation?

Click to expand...

The creation of the first imperfect replicated, yes. Creation meaning: development. If you want to use created as in the literal created-by-a-god meaning, go ahead. There just happens to be no evidence for that.

JohnR7 said:

Created? So evolution begins after creation?

Click to expand...

Evolution presupposes nothing about the origin of the replicators. If the universe and said replicators were created by an external entity, then yes, I suppose you'd be right. But the odds of that are a tad slim (Occam's Razor, I love thee).

JohnR7 said:

I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there.

Click to expand...

Good. Now you have to understand it.

JohnR7 said:

I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there. I would venture to say that 99% of the people have never heard of founder effect, genetic drifting, the bottleneck effect and so on when it comes to genetics. I know of people with Phd's in Biology that do not know as much about population genetics as I know. Not that I know all that much, but just having read one book on it is more then most people have done.

If I "know nothing of evolution", then evolution has failed because that would mean that few to none are able to demonstrate that they know evolution to your satisfaction. So this all becomes a mute point, because you would be admiting that no one knows anything about evolution. Although it has been my experance that what you accuse others of, you are guilty of. So perhaps you are the one that knows nothing of evolution.

Click to expand...

You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of evolution. You can't even get the basics right. I've seen your claims to have studied it before - either they're false or you're just a terrible study, because you obviously know virtually nothing about the subject.

humbledbyhim said:

Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this. In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption.

Click to expand...

This kind of absurdist skepticism is really the last refuge of the defeated. Try as you might, you can't shoehorn the rafts of evidence for an ages-old Earth into a 10,000 year period. Thus, sayeth the impossibly single-minded Christianist, the very fabric of the cosmos must have been different not so long ago. Never mind that such thinking makes every bit of inductive knowledge not just unprovable but utterly worthless.

Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.

Click to expand...

Don't expect any intellectually honest religious authority to challenge it either. Most agree that in order to know something we have to be able to, y'know, know something.

JohnR7 said:

I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there.

Click to expand...

If you have a reasonable knowledge of evolution then you know the difference between evolution and the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

What was here before time began, or what was here before evolution began?
Evolutionist always say you have to have something to evolved, so where did that something come from?

Click to expand...

So, to complain about evolution not being able to explain these other origins while knowing that these are outside of the theory is to LIE about what evolution is. 10 Commandments ring a bell?
So which is it? ignorance or lying?

JohnR7 said:

I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there.

Click to expand...

Please. Your very first post in this thread shows an incredible lack of knowledge of evolution. Your very first post in this thread shows an incredible lack of knowledge of evolution.Your very first post in this thread shows an incredible lack of knowledge of evolution. Either you are incredibly good at making people think you know nothing of evolution, or you actually do know nothing evolution. Here's a hint: the first option doesn't make sense.

JohnR7 said:

I have studied evolution for over 3 years now. You can go back and read the posts. I know more about evolution then 99% of the people out there. I would venture to say that 99% of the people have never heard of founder effect, genetic drifting, the bottleneck effect and so on when it comes to genetics. I know of people with Phd's in Biology that do not know as much about population genetics as I know. Not that I know all that much, but just having read one book on it is more then most people have done.

If I "know nothing of evolution", then evolution has failed because that would mean that few to none are able to demonstrate that they know evolution to your satisfaction. So this all becomes a mute point, because you would be admiting that no one knows anything about evolution. Although it has been my experance that what you accuse others of, you are guilty of. So perhaps you are the one that knows nothing of evolution.

Click to expand...

And yet, we're not the ones trying to link Communism to Darwinism, are we?

Does this even relate to evolution? This seems more of a hard-core physics question.

humbledbyhim said:

Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this.

Click to expand...

"Do the impossible and I'll believe you!"

In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption. Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.

Click to expand...

It's not just a matter of careers. It's a matter of the knowledge of every single human being. Do you assume that the laws of physics operated differently yesterday, unless there is evidence to the contrary? What about 100 years ago? 10000?

If you drop this assumption you can no longer make any empirical claim. Everything you claim to know about the world is underpinned by an assumption that the universe operated the same yesterday as today, or if it didn't, it left evidence.

Perhaps you should meet dad, he seems to enjoy your brand of solipsism.

TeddyKGB said:

It doesn't matter. "Before" implicitly denotes time.

In any case, time is a fundamental part of the universe. It began "when" the universe began.

Click to expand...

It can also denote order. So, what was there before time?

FoeHammer.

It can also denote order. So, what was there before time?

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

Foehammer... Dude, you GOTTA study the physics...

There MAY have been a timelike analogue before the universe, there may not have been. Its impossible to know scientifically about what, if anything, existed before the universe. However, and this we are fairly sure about, anything detectable about our current timeline (yesterday->today->tommorrow->) began at the first instant of this universe. The conceopt of "before" this universe, as far as the concept of time as a mathematical co-ordinate, is essentially meaningless.

Hawkin suggests that time, infact, may originally have been a SPATIAL co-ordinate, that, as the universe expanded and spatial pressure decreased, began acting the way we know it today... so, theoretically, there may have been a "period" in the early hostory of the universe when there was no time, only direction.

Of course, given that our brains are developed to calculate the balistics of a thrown rock, and our speech centre developed for telling other members of the tribe where the good fruit is, some of this can be hard to describe and understand. Its certainly counter intuitive.

But please realise that counter-intuitve is not the same as "wrong". It just means you need to open your mind sometimes.

Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this. In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption. Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.

Click to expand...

Here is a graph of a Sine function; Y=Sine(X) for the values of -pi/2 to 5pi/2 (-.5pi to 2.5pi)

If you notice the output line is between one and negative one. Is there any reason at all to believe that at 1000000000pi the value will be greater than one or less than negative one?

Another thing that you may notice about the graph is that at (integer)pi, the value is alway zero. Is there a reason to believe that 3774387473pi will not equal zero?

If you have answered 'no' to either one of these questions, you are a Uniformitarianist.
If you have answered 'yes' to either one of these questions, you likely never got past algebra1A.

Does this even relate to evolution? This seems more of a hard-core physics question.

Click to expand...

Evolution is proved false by Big Bang theory. Because explosions don't create cells, we know that both of them never happened

Evolution began when the first imperfect replicators, AKA cells, where created. Thus there where no imperfect replicators prior to evolution.

Click to expand...

Lemmings, I disagree... TOE is not dependant on cells, ultra early evolutionary processes may have occured in prions and basic pre cursor proteins for millions of years before the advent of the lipid bubble necesary to consider something a cell

EnemyPartyII said:

Lemmings, I disagree... TOE is not dependant on cells, ultra early evolutionary processes may have occured in prions and basic pre cursor proteins for millions of years before the advent of the lipid bubble necesary to consider something a cell

Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]After seeing John’s thread mistaking Social Darwinism for Biological Evolution, I am trying to set boundaries between the various forces with ‘evolution’ in their name. While they are both subject to their own forms of natural selection and mutations, I consider the ability to reproduce the defining aspect between Chemical Evolution and Biological Evolution.[/FONT]

After seeing John’s thread mistaking Social Darwinism for Biological Evolution, I am trying to set boundaries between the various forces with ‘evolution’ in their name. While they are both subject to their own forms of natural selection and mutations, I consider the ability to reproduce the defining aspect between Chemical Evolution and Biological Evolution.

Click to expand...

prions reproduce acellularly!

However, lest the conversation get to indepth for members to follow, may i suggest we go back to watching the main event?

EnemyPartyII said:

Foehammer... Dude, you GOTTA study the physics...

There MAY have been a timelike analogue before the universe, there may not have been. Its impossible to know scientifically about what, if anything, existed before the universe. However, and this we are fairly sure about, anything detectable about our current timeline (yesterday->today->tommorrow->) began at the first instant of this universe. The conceopt of "before" this universe, as far as the concept of time as a mathematical co-ordinate, is essentially meaningless.

Hawkin suggests that time, infact, may originally have been a SPATIAL co-ordinate, that, as the universe expanded and spatial pressure decreased, began acting the way we know it today... so, theoretically, there may have been a "period" in the early history of the universe when there was no time, only direction.

Of course, given that our brains are developed to calculate the balistics of a thrown rock, and our speech centre developed for telling other members of the tribe where the good fruit is, some of this can be hard to describe and understand. Its certainly counter intuitive.

But please realise that counter-intuitve is not the same as "wrong". It just means you need to open your mind sometimes.

Click to expand...

EPII, Dudette, If this is the result of a study of the physics you can keep it. As for an ''open mind'' that is a comment best directed towards those who have closed theirs when they claim that the question of what was there before time is is a meaningless one.

FoeHammer.

FoeHammer said:

As for an ''open mind'' that is a comment best directed towards those who have closed theirs when they claim that the question of what was there before time is is a meaningless one.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

It is a meaningless one as far as evolution is concerned.