Better tell that then to the people who write books on the [so-called] evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Better tell that then to the people who write books on the [so-called] evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.If you read the entire paragraph it's a refutation of your use of the word evolution to mean EVERYTHING in sight. You guys use it to mean the evolution of stars, the universe, galaxies... everything. It only relates to SPECIES.
Better tell that then to the people who write books on the [so-called] evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.
Why would we need faith when we have evidence?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=29+evidences+for+evolution
The theory of evolution refers to biology.
Even I know that, but some insist on getting the word "evolution" into everything.
Better tell that then to the people who write books on the [so-called] evolution of stars and galaxies, etc.
Why would we need faith when we have evidence?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=29+evidences+for+evolution
I said that science believes in things that are invisible. You responded by trying to equate invisible with undetectable. Since that was not my argument, you are mischaracterizing my argument. Mischaracterization of an argument is the same as making a strawman argument.Please show I'm misrepresenting the issue.
Because of the problem of contrastive underdetermination.Why would we need faith when we have evidence?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=29+evidences+for+evolution
This merely shows that you misunderstand the meaning of the word evolution. Evolution is just change. It is not inappropriate to talk about the evolution of stars, the evolution of the automobile, or the evolution of words in the human language.I have never written a book on the evolution of stars or of galaxies, but I have read many books on stellar evolution and can claim to understand something about the subject. I agree that 'evolution' is a bad word to describe the 'life-history' of stars and galaxies. Only living things evolve in the biological sense, and stars and galaxies aren't alive.
Look at some of the differences. It is individual stars that change their internal structure, radius, temperature and luminosity, and even their mass, during their 'lives', whereas it is populations of living things that evolve, not individual organisms. Stars don't reproduce themselves, and they don't have anything corresponding to a genetic code that would enable them to pass on their characteristics to the next generation; these facts alone make it impossible for stars to 'evolve' in the biological sense.
What do you mean by the [so-called] evolution of stars? We know that stars generate energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, but the supply of hydrogen is not inexhaustible. Stars are not like living things; they do not take in nourishment from outside themselves. By understanding the physics of stellar energy generation and knowing the mass of hydrogen available for fusion into helium we can even calculate the time required to exhaust the supply of hydrogen; for the Sun it is about 10-12 billion years. It is obvious that when a star begins to run short of hydrogen, it must experience changes in its structure and luminosity, and it is the business of astronomers to elucidate these changes. Where do you think that Cepheid variables, red giant stars, supergiants, carbon stars, planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes come from if not from the changes in the structure of stars as they exhaust their nuclear fuels?
This brings me back to the original point. The changes that a star undergoes as it exhausts its supply of hydrogen (and other nuclear fuels) have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is a consequence of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable word for the former process. As a result we are stuck with the word 'evolution', which at least gives the idea of change occurring over long periods of time.
Do you claim that gravity can be seen? You seem to think that since it can be detected that that makes it visible. Plenty of invisible things can be detected. For your argument to succeed, you would need to prove that detection and seeing are the same thing.
This merely shows that you misunderstand the meaning of the word evolution. Evolution is just change. It is not inappropriate to talk about the evolution of stars, the evolution of the automobile, or the evolution of words in the human language.
The birds of today are related to the dinosaurs of yesterday. It has taken millions of years and hundreds of millions of generations but today's chicken has, as his great, great... great grandfather, a T-rex. This does not mean that one day a T-rex gave birth to a chicken. It means that over time, there were many, many interstitial species. Many of you ask, "then why don't we see all the fossils?" T-rex was around as a species for over 50 million years. We have seven complete fossils. 7. In 50 million years there must have been billions of individuals. Yet only seven fossilized. Why don't we have the fossils? Because they didn't fossilize. Fossils are rare. But we can be assured that since T-rex is no longer around and birds are that what once was T-rex is now a chicken. (Or something like it. I'm taking license here.)
I have never written a book on the evolution of stars or of galaxies, but I have read many books on stellar evolution and can claim to understand something about the subject. I agree that 'evolution' is a bad word to describe the 'life-history' of stars and galaxies. Only living things evolve in the biological sense, and stars and galaxies aren't alive.
Look at some of the differences. It is individual stars that change their internal structure, radius, temperature and luminosity, and even their mass, during their 'lives', whereas it is populations of living things that evolve, not individual organisms. Stars don't reproduce themselves, and they don't have anything corresponding to a genetic code that would enable them to pass on their characteristics to the next generation; these facts alone make it impossible for stars to 'evolve' in the biological sense.
What do you mean by the [so-called] evolution of stars? We know that stars generate energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, but the supply of hydrogen is not inexhaustible. Stars are not like living things; they do not take in nourishment from outside themselves. By understanding the physics of stellar energy generation and knowing the mass of hydrogen available for fusion into helium we can even calculate the time required to exhaust the supply of hydrogen; for the Sun it is about 10-12 billion years. It is obvious that when a star begins to run short of hydrogen, it must experience changes in its structure and luminosity, and it is the business of astronomers to elucidate these changes. Where do you think that Cepheid variables, red giant stars, supergiants, carbon stars, planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes come from if not from the changes in the structure of stars as they exhaust their nuclear fuels?
This brings me back to the original point. The changes that a star undergoes as it exhausts its supply of hydrogen (and other nuclear fuels) have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is a consequence of imperfect replication and differential reproductive success. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable word for the former process. As a result we are stuck with the word 'evolution', which at least gives the idea of change occurring over long periods of time.
The dinosaurs that are the best candidates for direct ancestors of birds are a little more obscure. Two such candidates are Eosinopteryx and Xiaotingia. Of course, we can never know for sure whether these dinosaurs were direct ancestors of the first birds, or close cousins of them. But they have the right anatomy to be direct ancestors, and they were alive at the right time.
"Why don't we have the fossils?" isn't a question we need to ask. We do have the fossils, and we've been steadily finding more and more of them for around 20 years.
Unless you care to accept the challenge and show me any bones from say the last 5,000 years in the process of undergoing fossilization?
You don't even know if they are actually dinosaurs or birds.
You mean their theoretical models that one and all failed to match reality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."
So all of your models based upon all of your other models failed to predict anything correctly - yet you want to use those same incorrect models those failed models were based on to believe you actually understand anything about the universe?
If you want to understand astronomy you had best start with plasma physics - since 99% of the universe is plasma - not solids, liquids and gasses. Which is why all those models failed at the end of the boundary for the solar system (solids, liquids and gasses).
Where do you think that Cepheid variables, red giant stars, supergiants, Wolf-Rayet stars, carbon stars, planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes come from if not from the changes in the structure of stars as they exhaust their nuclear fuels?
The other 98% is just incorrect classifications of the fossil record
Yes, it's true that many Darwinists here use evolution to mean descent with modification. However, a simple look atPerhaps you are right, at least in your first and last sentences. However, Sky Writing, Phred and Not by Chance were arguing about the correct application of the word 'evolution'. For most of the contributors to forums like this one, and, I suppose, for most non-scientists, 'evolution' means biological evolution, i.e. a process of descent with modification, and perhaps of progress from simple organisms to more complex ones. I was trying to show that stellar evolution does not have these essential elements in common with biological evolution, and was arguing that to use the same word for both processes is likely to lead to confusion and to misunderstanding of both biological and stellar evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?