Macro-Evolution

ANITA

Typing in all-caps is generally considered to be yelling.

If you prefer typing in either just upper or just lower, could we talk you into just lower?

Thanx,
Tinker

Originally posted by Satoshi


You are quite incorrect in this case. Observed Instances of Speciation

Click to expand...

I found something even cooler:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

A bit of a ways down the page, there's a specific incident where a slight flaw in an experiment resulted in the formation of a multicellular life form based on a cooperative merge of two single-celled life forms.

There have been other cases where a bacterium can be observed to form "colonies" in specific forms to resist attacks by a predator.

Originally posted by ANITA
SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE. I PROPOSE THE TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS TEACH SCIENCE RATHER THAN RELIGION-HYPOTHOSIS. THERE IS SO MUCH REAL SCIENCE TO TEACH KIDS, ONE WOULD THINK THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TIME FOR ALL THE THEORIES THEY SPEND SO MUCH TIME SHOVING DOWN OUR KIDS THROATS.

Click to expand...

You seem to reduce knowledge (and science) to things we are 100% sure of. If you do so, you should throw all of science out of the window, since there is nothing 100% sure in science. Science has nothing but theories.

I'm curious as to what you would consider to be "real science" then. Certainly not Newton's law of motion, since it has been proven wrong in some cases (for very high speed), so no mechanics either, no chemistry or physics, no history either (after all, we were not there when NAZIs were supposedly (note that this is irony) killing millions of people in the gaz chambers, so how could we know), and so on...

If I understand you well, knowledge consists only in cogito ergo sum? Isn't it a little limited? Don't you think knowledge includes things that we are not 100% sure of but have very good reasons to believe (here I use the non-religious meaning of this term)?

"You seem to reduce knowledge (and science) to things we are 100% sure of. If you do so, you should throw all of science out of the window, since there is nothing 100% sure in science. Science has nothing but theories. "

*sigh* I really get tired of hearing this. Evoultionary theory is the only one I know of that uses time as a factor and says X happens when given large amounts of time. Just looking at weather patterns we can see that science is horrible with predicting any thing with large amounts of time envolved.

Originally posted by LouisBooth

*sigh* I really get tired of hearing this. Evoultionary theory is the only one I know of that uses time as a factor and says X happens when given large amounts of time. Just looking at weather patterns we can see that science is horrible with predicting any thing with large amounts of time envolved.

Click to expand...

The point of evolutionnary theories is not to predict what species will look like in a few million years (scientists know they can't), but to explain how these changes take (and took) place. There is a HUGE difference between telling what will happen in 1 million years and being able to tell what probably happened over the last million years, especially when you have a kind of record of what happened.

Now you totally missed my point, which was that no scientific theory is 100% sure contrary to what ANITA seemed to imply. I'd still be interested to read her (and your) answer to the question I asked: what would you consider to be "real science"?

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Evoultionary theory is the only one I know of that uses time as a factor and says X happens when given large amounts of time.

Click to expand...

Processes don't occur instantaneously. Just as it takes a relatively large amount of time for Pluto to orbit the Sun, it can take a relatively large amount of time for thousands of generations of organisms to be produced. Time is a big factor in all of the theories that I can think of off the bat.

Shalom Seebs,

You wrote>>>"But it's *not* statistically impossible. Furthermore, several major objections are raised at this point: Why did God create life forms with such a variety of faults? Why did He use only one of thousands of ways of organizing proteins to make life forms?"

My response>>>"This is the bad design argument used by many evolutionists who do not have a thorough understanding of the special theory of creation. This is a weak argument for several reasons. First, your judging of certain biological components or organisms as a bad design is largely subjective not factual because organisms are so complex that no biologist can claim to understand them completely. Second, all living systems have been experiencing a micro-devolutionary process since an original perfect creation by God. When God created all life forms there were no genetic mistakes, but after generations of being exposed to the Second Law of Thermodynamics woven in the entropy factor, all living systems would experience increasing genetic degradation following an original perfect creation by God.


Shalom Edgeo,

You wrote about evolution & religion>>>"Tell us then, how it ever arose. At one time we were all creationists, including Darwin, et al. Your post is ranging farther into the realm of uncertainty and therefore is not scientific by your own definition."

My response>>>The theory of evolution is a religious philosophy applied to science because its philosophical roots are inextricably woven together in the soils of Babylonian and Greek religious philosophy. First, the Babylonian religious document ENUMA ELISH introduced the evolutionary ideas, describing the world materializing from a primordial chaos which introduced primitive life forms, which eventually produce man. Expanding on these ideas, the Greeks carried the torch of evolution to lofty pinnacles of naturalistic speculation and synthesize these ideas into their primeval nature religions. Second, many evolutionary ideas originate from some of the corruptions of Greek philosophy. For example, the Greek philosopher ANAXIMANDER (611-547 BCE) taught that man was derived from aquatic, fishlike, mermen who emerged from the water after their bodies developed. The Greek philosopher EMPEDOCELS (490-430 BCE) taught spontaneous generation of life where animals came from. ARISTOTLE (384-322 BCE) believed that life emerged from naturalistic processes. Finally, controversial creation scientists Dr. Carl Baugh documents this data in his recent book called 'WHY DO MEN BELIEVE EVOLUTION AGAINST ALL ODDS? Although I question some of Dr. Baugh's conclusions, I consider him to be a brilliant, courageous, but controversial scientists.



Both Seebs and Edegeo do not really understand the fundamental difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue. Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes. Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change? Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking. A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution. In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No." Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

In conclusion, most honest men and women of science know the macro-evolution is based on faith alone. It takes more faith to believe in macro-evolution than the faith necessary for belief in the resurrection of Messiah Yashua. This is one of the primary reasons why Satan wants evolutionists to never see the FACT and THEORY of creation because evolutionists are men and women of great faith.

Originally posted by ELWAR

My response>>>"This is the bad design argument used by many evolutionists who do not have a thorough understanding of the special theory of creation. This is a weak argument for several reasons. First, your judging of certain biological components or organisms as a bad design is largely subjective not factual because organisms are so complex that no biologist can claim to understand them completely.

Click to expand...

What's that got to do with whether or not the human pelvis could easily be designed so as to break less often, and less easily?

My response>>>The theory of evolution is a religious philosophy applied to science because its philosophical roots are inextricably woven together in the soils of Babylonian and Greek religious philosophy.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You might as well say it's a religious philosophy to believe that humans appear to be the dominant life form on earth right now, because the Bible talks about lordship and dominion.

The theory of evolution is a theory used to explain certain observed phenomena. It doesn't matter if you can find a vaguely similar idea somewhere else; science isn't about who else did or didn't agree with you, but about evidence.

Finally, controversial creation scientists Dr. Carl Baugh documents this data in his recent book called 'WHY DO MEN BELIEVE EVOLUTION AGAINST ALL ODDS? Although I question some of Dr. Baugh's conclusions, I consider him to be a brilliant, courageous, but controversial scientists.

Click to expand...

I don't. I believe his research to be based on fundamental flaws. The "odds" simply aren't against the theory of evolution.

Both Seebs and Edegeo do not really understand the fundamental difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue. Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

Click to expand...

And the fossil record shows evidence of them, yes. It seems fairly clear that all vertebrates descended from invertebrates before them.

In conclusion, most honest men and women of science know the macro-evolution is based on faith alone. It takes more faith to believe in macro-evolution than the faith need to believe in the resurrection of Messiah Yashua. This is one of the primary reasons why Satan wants evolutionists to never see the FACT and THEORY of creation because evolutionists are men and women of great faith.

Click to expand...

This is simply silly. There is substantial evidence, which has been pointed to before, for macro-evolution. Is it "proven"? No, but neither are Newton's Laws, but we still use them as a working day-to-day hypothesis.

Shalom Seebs,

I believe that you are simply unfamiliar with a solid explanation of creation, which is the best answer to the metaphysical questions of existence. The Special Theory of Creation is both a FACT and a THEORY for several reasons.

First, creation is a fact because the weight of biblical and scientific evidence indicates that the universe, galaxies, planets, and all permanent, basic life forms originated many generations ago through directive acts of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator independent of the natural universe. Plants and animals were created separately with their full genetic potentiality provided by the Creator. Any physical variation, or speciation, which has occurred since the creation has been within the original prescribed genetic boundaries revealed through a micro-devolutionary history following an original perfect creation. Since plants and animals were created perfect without genetic mistakes, nature is able to predict the increasing degradation of living systems because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics woven in the ENTROPY FACTOR.

Second, the special theory of creation is also a theory because the precise timeframe of creation is being continually debated within the scientific community by creation scientists.


Finally, the theory of evolution has been proven to be an ancient Mesopotamian and Greek philosophy that has been revised and applied to modern science. This religious philosophy has never been able to scientifically prove the myth of macro-evolution.

Originally posted by ELWAR
Shalom Seebs,

I believe that you are simply unfamiliar with a solid explanation of creation, which is the best answer to the metaphysical questions of existence.

Click to expand...

What the theory of evolution adresses is not the "metaphysical questions of existence" (emphasis mine), but the scientific question of how species appeared.

Originally posted by ELWAR

First, creation is a fact because the weight of biblical and scientific evidence indicates that the universe, galaxies, planets, and all permanent, basic life forms originated many generations ago through directive acts of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator independent of the natural universe.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community would strongly disagree that the scientific evidence indicates points to this conclusion.

Could you tell us what kind of scientific evidence you had in mind?

Originally posted by ELWAR

Plants and animals were created separately with their full genetic potentiality provided by the Creator. Any physical variation, or speciation, which has occurred since the creation has been within the original prescribed genetic boundaries revealed through a micro-devolutionary history following an original perfect creation.

Click to expand...

And could you tell us what these "original prescribed genetic boundaries" are? Or give us evidence that such a boundary exists?

Originally posted by ELWAR

Finally, the theory of evolution has been proven to be an ancient Mesopotamian and Greek philosophy that has been revised and applied to modern science.

Click to expand...

So because some greek and babylonian philosophers thought that "man was derived from aquatic, fishlike, mermen" and that "the world materializ[ed] from a primordial chaos (...) which eventually produce man", it follows that "The theory of evolution is a religious philosophy applied to science".

So, if I follow your logic, I must conclude that since some greek philosopher thought that the earth was a sphere, all these modern theories which reach that very conclusion are also just "religious philosophy applied to science"?

Do you see the fallacy in your reasonning? Just because a branch of science reaches the same conclusion as a given "religious philosophy" does not imply that this particular branch of science is in fact just "a religious philosophy applied to science".

I addressed this in another thread, but you are using the second law of thermodynamic incorrectly, ELWAR. It applies to heat systems (thus thermo), not biological systems.
Perhaps increasing entropy could become a law of biodynamics... but there is no evidence of negative entropy increasing over time in biological systems. Positive entropy, however, is essentially what evolution is. Disorder from which arises order in new species, from whence more positive entropy occurs, stabilizing in new species, repeat, repeat.

Shalom Oliver,

What you fail to realize is that what a person believes about the subject of origins lays the metaphysical foundation for what they believe about everything else. The fact that evolution deals with the subject of origins places this philosophy in the arena of metaphysics. This is another reason why evolution is a religious philosophy applied to science.

Shalom brt28006,

The fundamental problem with your line of reasoning is that you have a very narrow definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Most evolutionists hate this law because it demonstrates the scientific and logical impossibility of any evolutionary process. There are three scientific thermodynamic applications, which are classical, statistical, and informational. All living systems are influenced by these thermodynamic applications.

Classical thermodynamics demonstrates that energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains, which is what the scientific community observes in living systems.

Statistical thermodynamics demonstrates that complexity (ORDER) of a structured systems tends to become disorganized and random (DISORDER). This fact has also been observed in living systems.

Informational thermodynamics demonstrates that the information woven within a chemical machine (living system) tends to become distorted and incomplete. This
fact is what biologists observe in genetic mutations because DNA and RNA are information systems within a living cell.

The physical development of a plant or an animal does not go against the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the development of a plant originates from genetic information in the seeds and development of an animal originates from the genetic information in the embryo; thus,this fact proves that there is only a continuation of pre-existing genetic information of all living systems. However, when changes do happen, we observe a genetic mutation in the living system, which is perfectly consistent with the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS WOVEN IN THE ENTROPY FACTOR.

In conclusion, most logical and rational scientists are clearly aware that The Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates the impossibility of chemical evolution. I could continue showing you more evidences against evolution, but this scientific lesson on the Second Law Thermodynamics is enough for now.

I still don't see, in many of your examples, why thermodynamics is a factor.
Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are related, but entropy can also stand alone. And it does, when it occurs in a system not associated with heat and heat energy.

Shalom brt28006,

You wrote>>> "I still don't see, in many of your examples, why thermodynamics is a factor. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are related, but entropy can also stand alone. And it does, when it occurs in a system not associated with heat and heat energy."

My previous posts could not have been more clear. The fact that you refuse to understand the scientific data reveals that you have a problem of the heart rather than a problem of the mind if you were educated in the sciences. It is obvious that there exists a scientific relationship between LIVING SYSTEMS and THERMODYNAMICS because you cannot have life without ENERGY and you cannot study thermodynamics without understanding energy. All of my examples have been supported by weight of hard scientific evidence. Therefore, to suggests that there is no connection between the study of thermodynamics and life is an unscientific form of intellectual dishonesty. Nevertheless, I will continue educating you by presenting evidences against the Religious philosophy of macro-evolution.

Originally posted by ELWAR
Shalom brt28006,
In conclusion, most logical and rational scientists are clearly aware that The Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates the impossibility of chemical evolution. I could continue showing you more evidences against evolution, but this scientific lesson on the Second Law Thermodynamics is enough for now.

Click to expand...

Well, it seems that at least a few scientists are still living in the dark ages of thermo.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/3491

In fact, there are some creationists who believe that this argument discredits the creationist viewpoint. I'll try to dig up the reference.

I do wish that creationists would come up with better arguments than merely rehash those that have been dispelled time and time again.

While it is true that the 2nd law of thermodynamics posits that a closed system always evolves from a state of order to a state of disorder and such a change may be quantified by measuring the change in entropy within the closed system, the biosphere, in which life developed and evolved is not a closed system. The work provided in counteracting the tendency towards disorder is produced by the Sun. Evolution is possible because the increase in order necessary for the development of complex biological structures is offset by an increase in disorder manifested by the continual burning of hydrogen fuel into heavier elements within the Sun's core.

Just imagine water freezing in an ice cube tray. If one were to observe the process without knowing that the environment in which this process was taking place was a freezer then one would come to the conclusion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was being violated as randomly moving water molecules would assume orderly crystalline structures. However, work is done to make this transition possible and the agent responsible for this work is the compressor-condenser which expels waste heat to the outside world. In order to increase the order of water molecules flowing within the ice cube tray, the expended heat increases the disorder of the outside world and there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The freezer environment is an open system just as the Earth's biosphere is. Now, can creationists finally put this foolish argument to rest?

Shalom Ronim,

You wrote>>>"While it is true that the 2nd law of thermodynamics posits that a closed system always evolves from a state of order to a state of disorder and such a change may be quantified by measuring the change in entropy within the closed system, the biosphere, in which life developed and evolved is not a closed system. The work provided in counteracting the tendency towards disorder is produced by the Sun. Evolution is possible because the increase in order necessary for the development of complex biological structures is offset by an increase in disorder manifested by the continual burning of hydrogen fuel into heavier elements within the Sun's core. "

My response>>>HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!your argument is one of the oldest evolutionary arguments in the book. Although your response may at first seem to be a reasonable argument, it has two fundamental flaws. First, it confuses quantity of energy with conversion of energy.Naturally there exists enough energy to fuel an imagine evolutionary process, but that was never the point. The point is how does the sun's energy sustain evolution.The mere availability of energy can't automatically insure the development of orderly structural growth. Some kind of directional program mechanism is necessary to transform energy into the energy required to reproduce increased organization from dead-matter into living-matter. For example, a pile of lumber, bricks, nails, and tools will not evolved into a building although it's receiving energy from the Sun. A building is less complex than a living cells decorated with genetic information. Second, there exist no such thing as a closed system. Thus, your argument has been proven to be meaningless since all other systems are also open. I suggest that you study more on the thermodynamic laws of nature because their has never been any weight in those old evolutionary arguments.

ELWAR writes:

First, it confuses quantity of energy with conversion of energy.Naturally there exists enough energy to fuel an imagine evolutionary process, but that was never the point. The point is how does the sun's energy sustain evolution.The mere availability of energy can't automatically insure the development of orderly structural growth. Some kind of directional program mechanism is necessary to transform energy into the energy required to reproduce increased organization from dead-matter into living-matter. For example, a pile of lumber, bricks, nails, and tools will not evolved into a building although it's receiving energy from the Sun. A building is less complex than a living cells decorated with genetic information. Second, there exist no such thing as a closed system. Thus, your argument has been proven to be meaningless since all other systems are also open. I suggest that you study more on the thermodynamic laws of nature because their has never been any weight in those old evolutionary arguments.

Click to expand...

Just a bit of advice. You should be aware of who you are discussing a point with instead of assuming a deficiency on the part of your opponent. I stopped having to prove my proficiency in physics after attaining my current position. The following references not only address the notion of "closed" thermodynamic systems (which may include the universe as a whole given certain contraints) but also skims the possibility of thermodynamic laws providing a motive "agent" for evolutionary processes.


EVOLUTION OF BASIC AND APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS
CHANU J
RECHERCHE AEROSPATIALE
(3): 165-172 1994

Classical thermodynamics cannot accurately describe natural processes.Investigation of the latter mush resort to a nonequilibrium theory.

Irrespective of reversibility or irreversibility, thermodynamics deals with material systems which consist of a very large number of elementary entities possessing
internal energy. According to the second law of thermodynamics, as expressed by Clausius, any isolated macroscopic system ceases to undergo change when the
entropy reaches its maximum. The system has then reached an equilibrium state corresponding to the state of maximum particulate disorder. However, real systems are not isolated systems; their boundaries let through energy (closed systems) or energy and matter (open systems). When the physical characteristics of the system and those of the environment are closely related, the changes are
reversible and are amenable to classical thermodynamics, but when these characteristics are very different the exchanges which take place are abrupt and irreversible; classical thermodynamics no longer applies. The system may, however be assumed to consist of a very large number of small subsystems in internal thermodynamic equilibrium, but not in equilibrium with each other. Entropy production (energy dissipation) depends on the transfer of heat, matter, quantity of motion and on the transfer due to chemical reactions.

Near equilibrium, in the linear domain, the progress of change depends on a potential whose minimum value acts as an attractor. The system has no historical ''dimension''. Away from equilibrium on the other hand, the progress of charge no longer depends on a potential. The history of the system has to be taken into account. Nonequilibrium stationary states can be stable or unstable, the limiting case being that of marginal stability (e.g. Poincare's boundary cycles). The study of the stability of solutions makes use of Lyapunov's functions. Internal fluctuations are of great importance in the vicinity of the instability regions. A distinction is made between the phase transitions at equilibrium which end in microstructures, and nonequilibrium phase transitions. In the latter the crossing of thresholds constitutes an abrupt transition, giving rise to the formation of heterogeneities which break the symmetries to form dissipative structures (Prigogine) which are macrostructures.

THERMODYNAMICS AND BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION - A MOTIVE
FORCE OF EVOLUTION
GLADYSHEV GP
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL PHYSICS
20 (1-4): 213-222 1994

The author of the present paper hopes that the thermodynamic nature of biological evolution will be perceived in the nearest future. He suggests a macrothermodynamic model that takes into account the fact that in the course of ontogenesis, philogenesis and the appropriate stages of the general biological evolution the biosystems are enriched by energy-intensive chemical substances,which force water out of these systems.

Entropy and cosmology
Zucker MH
PHYSICS ESSAYS
12 (1): 92-105 MAR 1999

This paper is a critical analysis and reassessment of entropic functioning as it applies to the question of whether the ultimate fate of the universe will be
determined in the future to be "open" (expanding forever to expire in a big chill), "closed" (collapsing to a big crunch), or "flat" (balanced forever between the two).

The second law of thermodynamics declares that entropy can only increase-and that this principle extends, inevitably, to the universe as a whole. This paper takes the position that this extension is an unwarranted projection based neither on experience nor fact-an extrapolation that ignores the powerful effect of gravitational force acting within a closed system.

Since it was originally presented by Clausius, the thermodynamic concept of entropy has been redefined in terms of "order" and "disorder"-order being equated
with a low degree of entropy and disorder with a high degree. This revised terminology, more subjective than precise, has generated considerable confusion in cosmology in several critical instances. For example-the chaotic fireball of the big bang, interpreted by Stephen Hawking as a state of disorder (high entropy), is infinitely hot and, thermally, represents zero entropy (order). Hawking, apparently focusing on the disorderly "chaotic" aspect, equated it with a high degree of entropy-overlooking the fact that the universe is a thermodynamic system and that the key factor in evaluating the big-bang phenomenon is the infinitely high temperature of the early universe, which can only be equated with zero entropy. This analysis resolves this confusion and reestablishes entropy as a cosmological function integrally linked to temperature.

The paper goes on to show that, while all subsystems contained within the universe require external sources of energization to have their temperatures raised, this requirement does not apply to the universe as a whole. The universe is the only system that, by itself can raise its own temperature and thus, by itself: reverse entropy. The vast encompassing gravitational forces that the universe has at its disposal, forces that dominate the phase of contraction, provide the compacting, compressive mechanism that regenerates heat in an expanded, cooled universe
and decreases entropy. And this phenomenon takes place without diminishing or depleting the finite amount of mass/energy with which the universe began.

The fact that the universe can reverse the entropic process leads to possibilities previously ignored when assessing which of the three models (open, closed, or
flat) most probably represents the future of the universe. After analyzing the models, the conclusion reached here is that the open model is only an expanded version of the closed model and therefore is not open, and the closed model will never collapse to a big crunch and, therefore, is not closed. Which leaves a modified flat model, oscillating forever between limited phases of expansion and
contraction (a universe in "dynamic equilibrium") as the only feasible choice.

"The point of evolutionnary theories is not to predict what species will look like in a few million years (scientists know they can't), but to explain how these changes take (and took) place. There is a HUGE difference between telling what will happen in 1 million years and being able to tell what probably happened over the last million years, especially when you have a kind of record of what happened.

Now you totally missed my point, which was that no scientific theory is 100% sure contrary to what ANITA seemed to imply. I'd still be interested to read her (and your) answer to the question I asked: what would you consider to be "real science"?"

...and you missed mine. This theory is the only one that predicts what times does to this degree. That's why it is wrong.