Quick question on evolution

[PsychoSarah]

Elitism stifles an open mind. For instance, hebrew has three terms for the word 'day', one can mean 'age'. Thus, the world made in seven 'ages'. That in itself blows a hole in your theory that a well studied creationist cannot be intelligent, and that such a model of creationism that takes this linguistic factor into account cannot coincide with evolution. Obviously you've not even considered the idea of creation, yet by the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so let me ask you, where did all the energy in the universe come from?

And whose to say that these seven 'ages' do not allow aqequate time for physics to play their proverbial part in shaping the universe we live in? If God did indeed create the universe, he MUST have created the laws by which the universe is governed, thus to say God created the universe, but evolution is false, is to assume God did not create the universe with the laws of physics that exists today. THAT notion would be ignorant of science, however my assertions are not.

Don't be so quick to give merit to your own intelligence.

Actually, energy can be created through matter. The conservation of matter and energy doesn't exclude one from being converted into the other. Also, many theories exist as to how the energy and matter of the universe originated, although unfortunately chances are we will never know for sure.

Also, you said only one of those three words for day can mean age, so was the one in Genesis that one of the three? If not your point doesn't exactly work.

 

[In situ]

Anyways ... it's all very interesting but none of it explains this:

'How could we exist, if we never existed?'

What about "I assert things about things I know nothing about'?

How about 0 = 1 -1 ... which implies 1 = 1. How about that?


Did you even understand what I just wrote? I wrote: 'Nothing equals something'.

So, do know what 'nothing' means or do you just make up your own story about it? Physics do know, and they can precisely define what nothing is, because you talk about the physical reality now and that is what physicists investigate - investigating how reality works is their job and they are not armchair philosophers, like you an me, but experimentalists and base their opinions on facts and they says 'Nothing equals something'.

 

[[serious]]

A similar word salad about cube having squared surfaces is: "the fact that cubes fits into squared holes as predicted by topological hypothesis and confirmed by measuring them with rulers"

Don't you think it is mush easier, and clearer, to say "it is an observed fact that cubes have squared surfaces"?

Those aren't the same. Universal common descent is not a fact, it's an explanation of the facts and currently the ONLY reasonable explanation of the facts. But, unlike the face of a cube, we cannot observe universal common descent directly, only verify that everything we can see aligns with what universal common descent looks like. (well, except known mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer)

Secondly, a hypothesis is a theory which has not been confirmed (or refuted) by observations. But we have observation for common decent so it not a hypothesis. Is this statement unclear or ambiguous in any way for you, or do you need ALL of biology explained before you understand or accept this?

Not really sure where all this is coming from. In general terms, yes, common descent is a theory, not a hypothesis. However, if there is ongoing testing, it is a hypothesis during that testing, a working hypothesis. Every time a new species is sequenced, it is a test of the theory, thus making our current model the working hypothesis.

Thirdly, why DNA analysis would be relevant to what I said I do not know, because I never mentioned it. But since you did care to mention it, it suggest you put a special importance to it, why is that?

DNA analsis is the single most robust test of the theory possible. We have an established model with the tree well defined by phenotype. Then, after the model is complete, we have the ability to build a completely independent model based on non coding regions of the DNA and get the exact same tree. It's the single biggest slam dunk in the history of science. Why would you NOT want to talk about it?

4th, what do you mean with a " parallel nested hierarchy" ? By the way, I am not talking about hierarchies, but sets... even thou they are the "same" things they are not equal to each others, but isomorphic structures.

It is possible to build the tree of life based on morphological differences, as it was originally assembled. It is also possible to build a nested hierarchy using genetic analysis via things like endogenous retrovirus (ERVs) Now there is nothing that would directly link ERVs and morphology, but both would be passed on through regular old reproduction. The fact that both of these fit into nice neat nested hierarchies and those those two hierarchies are the same as each other suggests that both the phylogeny based tree and the genetic based tree are part of a single phylogenetic tree that describes the underlying descent of organisms.

 

[Mediate]

Actually, energy can be created through matter. The conservation of matter and energy doesn't exclude one from being converted into the other. Also, many theories exist as to how the energy and matter of the universe originated, although unfortunately chances are we will never know for sure.

Also, you said only one of those three words for day can mean age, so was the one in Genesis that one of the three? If not your point doesn't exactly work.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be changed in form. Energy can NEVER be created or destroyed.

1st Law of Thermodynamics. Read up.

 

[In situ]

Actually, energy can be created through matter.

No, that would violate the law of energy conservation.

The conservation of matter and energy doesn't exclude one from being converted into the other.

Correct, but then do not say that energy can be created by matter because that will only confuse people.

 

[Mediate]

What about "I assert things about things I know nothing about'?

How about 0 = 1 -1 ... which implies 1 = 1. How about that?


Did you even understand what I just wrote? I wrote: 'Nothing equals something'.

So, do know what 'nothing' means or do you just make up your own story about it? Physics do know, and they can precisely define what nothing is, because you talk about the physical reality now and that is what physicists investigate - investigating how reality works is their job and they are not armchair philosophers, like you an me, but experimentalists and base their opinions on facts and they says 'Nothing equals something'.

Nothing does not equal a finite something, ever. 1 equals 1. 1 - 1 equals nothing.

0 can equal infinity, and in terms of time, it's to do with momentary experience.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, that would violate the law of energy conservation.



Correct, but then do not say that energy can be created by matter because that will only confuse people.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse people. First law of thermodynamics is that matter and energy are conserved together, this does not actually exclude energy from being generated through matter being converted into it. Happens in chemistry enough to be notable.

 

[Mediate]

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse people. First law of thermodynamics is that matter and energy are conserved together, this does not actually exclude energy from being generated through matter being converted into it. Happens in chemistry enough to be notable.

Inside matter, there is contained a certain amount of energy. That is basically what matter is, clusters of energy. The electromagnetic force holds the atom together. When that atom is 'destroyed', the energy within it is released. If the particles of energy are smashed together, the energy can change into matter. That's the basic explanation.

Nothing is ever 'created', it's only changed in form.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Inside matter, there is contained a certain amount of energy. That is basically what matter is, clusters of energy. The electromagnetic force holds the atom together. When that atom is 'destroyed', the energy within it is released. If the particles of energy are smashed together, the energy can change into matter. That's the basic explanation.

Nothing is ever 'created', it's only changed in form.

Yes, I know, I worded it poorly.

 

[[serious]]

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be changed in form. Energy can NEVER be created or destroyed.

1st Law of Thermodynamics. Read up.

She seems to be addressing some of the more complex aspects. One can see a violation of the 1st law, in at least the common understanding of it, with things like virtual particles. They quite literally create themselves out of nothing and destroy themselves into nothing. however, they can exert a measurable force such as with the Casimir effect. If you aren't familiar with the Casimir effect, it's worth looking up. It's pretty darn cool. I used to know of a really awesome explanation of it, but I lost the link.

 

[Mediate]

She seems to be addressing some of the more complex aspects. One can see a violation of the 1st law, in at least the common understanding of it, with things like virtual particles. They quite literally create themselves out of nothing and destroy themselves into nothing. however, they can exert a measurable force such as with the Casimir effect. If you aren't familiar with the Casimir effect, it's worth looking up. It's pretty darn cool. I used to know of a really awesome explanation of it, but I lost the link.

Particle physics make me queazy lol. Electrons only existing when they are being viewed in momentary experience, a particle turning into two particles when shot through a pane of lead with two holes .. it's madness.

I'll have a look.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Particle physics make me queazy lol. Electrons only existing when they are being viewed in momentary experience, a particle turning into two particles when shot through a pane of lead with two holes .. it's madness.

I'll have a look.

No, they continue to exist, certain properties of electrons become progressively less observable as you observe other properties of them. Yes, it is maddening.

 

[Mediate]

No, they continue to exist, certain properties of electrons become progressively less observable as you observe other properties of them. Yes, it is maddening.

I've been reading about dark matter, dark energy and how it relates to relativity and I think I might have clicked on something. Physicists are speculating as to why the outer edges of galaxies seem to move so quickly compared to the inner parts. They pose dark energy as part of the reason for it, alongside the universe's expansion. But if we take an absolutely relative approach to this ...

Wouldn't it make sense under Einstein's theory of relativity that the outer edges of galaxies, where there are less large masses, have clocks running at a higher speed than the inner parts of a galaxy? And so therein lies the relative explanation for the phenomenon?

There's a scientist here called David Wiltshire who is studying the conflicts between relativity and particle physics and is trying to push for dark matter to be thrown out in favour of building an entirely relative model of the universe.

I think the dark matter idea is a case of scientists assuming something exists to fit their current indoctrinations. I should have been a physicist. I find myself so interested in this stuff in the last few years. In school I hated it.

 

[In situ]

Those aren't the same. Universal common descent is not a fact, it's an explanation of the facts and currently the ONLY reasonable explanation of the facts.

Creationism nonsense and semantics games. Common ancestor is a fact.

All scientific statements are explanations. Common ancestor is an implied fact. Implied facts are facts. A fact is not an explanation, it is a fact! Do you understand this or does it need to be explained any further?

If you understand that, then let me ask this; is it a fact or an explanation that Pluto rotates around the sun?

(Notice nobody has seen Pluto do a full orbit around the sun because its orbit takes, I think it was, about 2-300 years while Pluto been known to exists only for less than 100 years).

The answer is; it is both a fact and an explanation (that means it is two things at the same time). The same is true with a common ancestor, it is both a fact and an explanation; it is two things. And that is where the creationistic semantic word games and cherry picking comes in; creationist ignores that common ancestor is a fact and focus only on it as being an explanation because they are conformation biased and creationists will ignore anything that contradicts what they want to believe in.


NOTE: I do not talk about a universal common ancestor; my answer to that is: I don't know if such exists, I am not fully convinced based on what I know. But based on what I know, if I was to believe the consensus among biologist then I should believe that there exists one universal common ancestor. But I do not know, and I admit that I don't know this. The argument for a universal (1) common ancestor is that the genetic code is unlikely to have evolved the same twice. I don't know the validity of this postulate, but if I accept it then it follows that I accept an universal common ancestor. But as I said, based on what I know, I am not fully convinced and cannot say I know this as a fact. However, it is a fact that grandpa was a fish....

 

[Mediate]

Creationism nonsense and semantics games. Common ancestor is a fact.

All scientific statements are explanations. Common ancestor is an implied fact. Implied facts are facts. A fact is not an explanation, it is a fact! Do you understand this or does it need to be explained any further?

If you understand that, then let me ask this; is it a fact or an explanation that Pluto rotates around the sun?

(Notice nobody has seen Pluto do a full orbit around the sun because its orbit takes, I think it was, about 2-300 years while Pluto been known to exists only for less than 100 years).

The answer is; it is both a fact and an explanation (that means it is two things at the same time). The same is true with a common ancestor, it is both a fact and an explanation; it is two things. And that is where the creationistic semantic word games and cherry picking comes in; creationist ignores that common ancestor is a fact and focus only on it as being an explanation because they are conformation biased and creationists will ignore anything that contradicts what they want to believe in.

Dude ... relax.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've been reading about dark matter, dark energy and how it relates to relativity and I think I might have clicked on something. Physicists are speculating as to why the outer edges of galaxies seem to move so quickly compared to the inner parts. They pose dark energy as part of the reason for it, alongside the universe's expansion. But if we take an absolutely relative approach to this ...

Wouldn't it make sense under Einstein's theory of relativity that the outer edges of galaxies, where there are less large masses, have clocks running at a higher speed than the inner parts of a galaxy? And so therein lies the relative explanation for the phenomenon?

There's a scientist here called David Wiltshire who is studying the conflicts between relativity and particle physics and is trying to push for dark matter to be thrown out in favour of building an entirely relative model of the universe.

I think the dark matter idea is a case of scientists assuming something exists to fit their current indoctrinations. I should have been a physicist. I find myself so interested in this stuff in the last few years. In school I hated it.

Uh, most of Einstein's theories have been altered or disproven to certain extents. Such is how science is. Dark matter is observable in telescopes, as it bends light, so I don't find its existence so questionable. Dark energy is a bit more iffy, but really, it does make sense. However, biology is my niche, not physics, so my knowledge of it is limited.

 

[In situ]

Dude ... relax.

How do you know my mental state? Or is it maybe that the hammer of truth hits that hard instead?

 

[In situ]

Uh, most of Einstein's theories have been altered or disproven to certain extents.

Name one, please.

 

[In situ]

certain properties of electrons become progressively less observable as you observe other properties of them.

No offense intended, but you are talking so vague about this that I almost get the impression you are not fully sure what you are talking about your self. Do you refer to the uncertainty principle? If so, 'accurate' is the word you are looking for not 'observable'. On the other hand when a measure of one thing get less accurate then other observables, connected via the uncertainty principle, has become more accurate, and physics knows this so they do no try to measure both at the same time with extreme precision. But there is nothing mystical or "mind boggling" with this (as some people sometimes try to make it). It is well understood why it happens, just in the same way that there is nothing mystical why things does not stay still in the air when we let go of them but falls to the ground; that is just how things are and we can explain it.

 

[In situ]

But honestly, time is just another dimension

Would you care to elaborate on that statement a bit?

For instance are you suggesting that time is a spacial dimension, or in what respect is it a dimension, and why is time negative in distance measurement when all the spatial coordinate are positive if time is "just another" dimension"?

In other words, what do you mean?