Star Formation and why evolution is not true

[True_Blue]

Yet it isnt applicable to the first cell. Chemistry doesnt work that way. Your saying that gaseous H2 and O2 cant form water ice because the randomly moving gas particles dont instantaneously stop moving, break up and recombine to H2O with the angle subteneded by the hydrogen atoms to be perfectly 104 degrees*, and then have the water molecules to align itself into a hexagonal pattern to form ice crystals.

To draw on a different analogy, random 1s and 0s in sequence make bits and bytes. But random 1s and 0s don't make [semi]-functional computer programs (like Microsoft Windows), and they don't make sentient computer beings. The water molecules are akin to bytes, Microsoft Windows is akin to DNA, and the sentient "Commander Data"-like computer program is a living cell. Even the most generous assumptions about natural selection couldn't begin to take effect in a purported evolutionary process until you get to at least DNA/Microsoft Windows, and chance/chemistry doesn't allow you to get that far.

 

[pgp_protector]

To draw on a different analogy, random 1s and 0s in sequence make bits and bytes. But random 1s and 0s don't make [semi]-functional computer programs (like Microsoft Windows), and they don't make sentient computer beings. The water molecules are akin to bytes, Microsoft Windows is akin to DNA, and the sentient "Commander Data"-like computer program is a living cell. Even the most generous assumptions about natural selection couldn't begin to take effect in a purported evolutionary process until you get to at least DNA/Microsoft Windows, and chance/chemistry doesn't allow you to get that far.

Pleas I beg of you, don't go into software development.
DNA / Microsoft Windows are Nothing alike.

 

[Vene]

Pleas I beg of you, don't go into software development.
DNA / Microsoft Windows are Nothing alike.

Yeah, DNA actually works. And I really don't feel like digging up the numerous references in your abiogenesis thread about the formation of DNA through entirely natural (read chemical) means. So I'll give you a new one, synthetic DNA.

 

[Chalnoth]

To draw on a different analogy, random 1s and 0s in sequence make bits and bytes. But random 1s and 0s don't make [semi]-functional computer programs (like Microsoft Windows), and they don't make sentient computer beings. The water molecules are akin to bytes, Microsoft Windows is akin to DNA, and the sentient "Commander Data"-like computer program is a living cell. Even the most generous assumptions about natural selection couldn't begin to take effect in a purported evolutionary process until you get to at least DNA/Microsoft Windows, and chance/chemistry doesn't allow you to get that far.

But you can develop computer programs that are fully capable of evolution. You just need to program in the aspects that real evolving organisms have: replication with various rules for mutation and some sort of selection process. This sort of algorithm is called a genetic algorithm, and they've proved wildly successful at solving a variety of interesting problems, often a few times better than human engineers spending many man-years on the problem.

Genetic algorithms are essentially the best choice when you have:
1. A very large-dimensional parameter space.
2. No analytical solution to the problem.
3. A fitness function that is very difficult to explore (e.g. lots of local minima).

They're often used, for example, in training neural nets for various tasks.

 

[True_Blue]

Yeah, DNA actually works. And I really don't feel like digging up the numerous references in your abiogenesis thread about the formation of DNA through entirely natural (read chemical) means. So I'll give you a new one, synthetic DNA.

I've been following the work of similar companies for a while. Anyways, here is an interesting quote from the article: "To assemble the largest pieces of DNA, they inserted them into yeast cells and exploited a natural process called "homologous recombination"..."

 

[True_Blue]

But you can develop computer programs that are fully capable of evolution. You just need to program in the aspects that real evolving organisms have: replication with various rules for mutation and some sort of selection process. This sort of algorithm is called a genetic algorithm, and they've proved wildly successful at solving a variety of interesting problems, often a few times better than human engineers spending many man-years on the problem.

Genetic algorithms are essentially the best choice when you have:
1. A very large-dimensional parameter space.
2. No analytical solution to the problem.
3. A fitness function that is very difficult to explore (e.g. lots of local minima).

They're often used, for example, in training neural nets for various tasks.

This is all well and good, but no one develops functional software by telling the computer to spit out random 1s and 0s. I had a hard enough time making software work, and my admittedly feeble brain is vastly superior to chance.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

This is the part that I'm having trouble with, CL. quote]

It seems to me that you are having trouble with a lot of science; as far as this forum is concerned, it is not here to educate you to the level needed for a complete understanding of any scientific field.

If you really want to learn more than snap shots of a subject, may I suggest part time education?

As far as star formation goes, there are ten’s of thousands of people working in field and even though there is lots to be learned, there is nothing to date found by these people that needs magical mysticism to explain it.

Also; all the evidence, which is substantial points to a ~14 billion year old universe.

 

[True_Blue]

This is the part that I'm having trouble with, CL. quote]

It seems to me that you are having trouble with a lot of science; as far as this forum is concerned, it is not here to educate you to the level needed for a complete understanding of any scientific field.

If you really want to learn more than snap shots of a subject, may I suggest part time education?

As far as star formation goes, there are ten’s of thousands of people working in field and even though there is lots to be learned, there is nothing to date found by these people that needs magical mysticism to explain it.

Also; all the evidence, which is substantial points to a ~14 billion year old universe.

At the moment, CL, it seems to me that you're not making substantive posts. Anyone can appeal to authority, CL, and anyone can insult True_Blue's intelligence and education. I'm more interested in your thoughts and your thought process.

 

[Blayz]

At the moment, CL, it seems to me that you're not making substantive posts. Anyone can appeal to authority, CL, and anyone can insult True_Blue's intelligence and education. I'm more interested in your thoughts and your thought process.

I've been busy getting ready for ISMB, and wont have time to read back to find the answer to my question, so could someone tell blayz when true_blue started to refer to himself in the third person?

 

[True_Blue]

I've been busy getting ready for ISMB, and wont have time to read back to find the answer to my question, so could someone tell blayz when true_blue started to refer to himself in the third person?

Are you presenting a paper or presentation?

 

[tanzanos]

Are you presenting a paper or presentation?

TRUE BLUE you have to understand that science is in the details; which you seem to refuse to accept. Also the shock waves from a supernova explosion in the vicinity of a gas cloud are enough to compress the cloud into accretion. Supernovas create these clouds and also shock them into forming new stellar entities. This is preety much understood by science. What science does not know is what caused the unstable condition leading to the big bang.
Science in an ongoing affair; unlike religions which are based on a static belief. Actually any scientist dreams of proving a theory wrong even if that theory is his own. Of course such a thing would be anathema to the proponents of a religion.
May the scent of freshly cooked pasta be bestowed on you by the almighty FSM and thus allow you to see the true light of the big bang

 

[True_Blue]

TRUE BLUE you have to understand that science is in the details; which you seem to refuse to accept. Also the shock waves from a supernova explosion in the vicinity of a gas cloud are enough to compress the cloud into accretion. Supernovas create these clouds and also shock them into forming new stellar entities. This is preety much understood by science. What science does not know is what caused the unstable condition leading to the big bang.
Science in an ongoing affair; unlike religions which are based on a static belief. Actually any scientist dreams of proving a theory wrong even if that theory is his own. Of course such a thing would be anathema to the proponents of a religion.
May the scent of freshly cooked pasta be bestowed on you by the almighty FSM and thus allow you to see the true light of the big bang

Well...you've accurately restated a widely held theory, albeit one that myself and at least one other atheist on this thread find highly dubious. To restate earlier points, a shock wave expanding on three dimensions would do nothing more than disperse any preexisting gas further out. Nuclear weapons and stars generate fusion reactions because of implosion focused inward on a particular point. This reasoning is so basic that I'm truly surprised anyone would take the supernova theory seriously. I know there is precisely zero observational evidence, given only seven supernovas have been observed in the last 600 years. Second, the more kinetic energy molecules have, the greater the barrier to compression, especially the supercompression needed for star formation. Third, supernovas are nothing more than massive bombs. New bombs don't arise from old bombs, save insignificant second-order effects. Supernovas and gas clouds are an extremely poor explanation for the stars we observe.

I am interested in your analysis or rebuttal of these points.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well...you've accurately restated a widely held theory, albeit one that myself and at least one other atheist on this thread find highly dubious. To restate earlier points, a shock wave expanding on three dimensions would do nothing more than disperse any preexisting gas further out.

Only if the gas is spherically-symmetric about the exploding star. This is, indeed, what happens to the remains of the star in question, as well as any bits of gas that the star had previously thrown out. But if there exist any gas clouds that are separated from the star, the blast wave can easily cause them to compress.

Nuclear weapons and stars generate fusion reactions because of implosion focused inward on a particular point. This reasoning is so basic that I'm truly surprised anyone would take the supernova theory seriously.

The blast wave itself does nothing whatsoever to directly cause a nuclear reaction to form. What does this is gravitational collapse. If supernovae have any effect, it is to very slightly perturb the density of gas clouds so that they begin to collapse under their own weight.

I know there is precisely zero observational evidence, given only seven supernovas have been observed in the last 600 years.

Dude, we're observing hundreds of supernovae every year now. Seven supernovas my foot.

Second, the more kinetic energy molecules have, the greater the barrier to compression, especially the supercompression needed for star formation.

All you need is for the collapse to begin. Once that happens, radiative cooling will cause it to slowly collapse in under its own weight, until there is enough pressure for fusion to begin. The process requires zero "compression", just collapse.

Third, supernovas are nothing more than massive bombs. New bombs don't arise from old bombs, save insignificant second-order effects. Supernovas and gas clouds are an extremely poor explanation for the stars we observe.

Supernovas, as I have mentioned, are not going to be an explanation for most stars. At best, they are a minor effect in star formation. Most stars are going to be explained by simple radiative cooling of gas clouds. Radiative cooling will happen the moment the gas cloud just begins to collapse due to a slight overdensity, leading to runaway collapse until the fusion reaction begins.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

At the moment, CL, it seems to me that you're not making substantive posts. Anyone can appeal to authority, CL, and anyone can insult True_Blue's intelligence and education. I'm more interested in your thoughts and your thought process.

True Blue Wrote:

At the moment, CL, it seems to me that you're not making substantive posts.

I have made many substantive points, albeit through the use of other people’s research.

Anyone can appeal to authority, CL,

Absolutely; this is how science works, my work has been referenced many times.


and anyone can insult True_Blue's intelligence and education.

It is not an insult; if you want to understand any field of science you need to do more than just throw questions at people in chat forums.


I'm more interested in your thoughts and your thought process.

Really; I though we were discussing star formation. If all you are interested in is peoples thoughts and thought processes the conversation becomes one of philosophy, but of course YECs would love that, because we would be on a level playing field so to speak, but we are not on a level playing field, science provides evidence to back up its claims, whereas YECs just stumble around in the dark, crying this can not be right.

Well get over it, science is right.

 

[True_Blue]

Dude, we're observing hundreds of supernovae every year now. Seven supernovas my foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation. I have no idea whether Wikipedia is accurate or not. However, if we're observing hundreds of supernova every year, one would expect to see at least one instance of runaway gas cloud compression. My prediction, based on the underlying rationale in Post #1, is that mankind will never ever witness such a phenomena.

 

[Chalnoth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation. I have no idea whether Wikipedia is accurate or not. However, if we're observing hundreds of supernova every year, one would expect to see at least one instance of runaway gas cloud compression. My prediction, based on the underlying rationale in Post #1, is that mankind will never ever witness such a phenomena.

The reason why we're observing hundreds of supernovae today is that our telescopes are looking much, much further. Most of the supernovae we're observing today are billions of light years away, so it would be fantastically difficult to detect any subsequent star formation that occurs. Furthermore, any star formation that results from supernova explosions isn't likely to happen instantly, as the gas expelled from the supernova first has to reach the nearby gas clouds, and that travel time can take anywhere from thousands to millions of years (it's a big universe).

Given that supernovae only occur at a rate of about one every hundred years per galaxy, it's unlikely that we'll be able to obtain the statistical weight required to make any strong observational statements as to whether or not supernovae cause star formation. Either way, though, it's certain to not be a primary cause of star formation, so I honestly don't know why you continue to talk about it. Worry about the primary causes, not the minor ones.

 

[True_Blue]

The reason why we're observing hundreds of supernovae today is that our telescopes are looking much, much further. Most of the supernovae we're observing today are billions of light years away, so it would be fantastically difficult to detect any subsequent star formation that occurs. Furthermore, any star formation that results from supernova explosions isn't likely to happen instantly, as the gas expelled from the supernova first has to reach the nearby gas clouds, and that travel time can take anywhere from thousands to millions of years (it's a big universe).

Given that supernovae only occur at a rate of about one every hundred years per galaxy, it's unlikely that we'll be able to obtain the statistical weight required to make any strong observational statements as to whether or not supernovae cause star formation. Either way, though, it's certain to not be a primary cause of star formation, so I honestly don't know why you continue to talk about it. Worry about the primary causes, not the minor ones.

What do you think is the primary cause of star formation? My theory is that stars form from the remnants of explosions from larger stars, which themselves were ejected from the super-massive ball of hot matter that compressed from The Deep on Day 1. Check out this illustration of the sun next to Canis Majoris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sun_and_VY_Canis_Majoris.svg. The explosion of a beast the size of Canis Majoris would spawn an incredible number of smaller stars, hence all the younger stars spotted in the midst of nebulae.

A simplistic explanation, but I gotta tell you that the simpler theories tend to prove out over exotic ones.

 

[Chalnoth]

What do you think is the primary cause of star formation? My theory is that stars form from the remnants of explosions from larger stars, which themselves were ejected from the super-massive ball of hot matter that compressed from The Deep on Day 1. Check out this illustration of the sun next to Canis Majoris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sun_and_VY_Canis_Majoris.svg. The explosion of a beast the size of Canis Majoris would spawn an incredible number of smaller stars, hence all the younger stars spotted in the midst of nebulae.

A simplistic explanation, but I gotta tell you that the simpler theories tend to prove out over exotic ones.

The primary problem with this is that stars weren't always around. And while the remanants of previous stellar explosions do make up a significant amount of matter, most of the gas in the universe has never collapsed into a star.

Basically the primary drive of star formation, as I have said, is simple collapse from radiative cooling. There exists lots of gas in galaxies, and as long as that gas is allowed to cool, it will collapse in on itself, forming stars in the overdense areas.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Hey hey, I guess we are observing star formation after all. Four thousand times per year, in fact.[link]

 

[True_Blue]

Hey hey, I guess we are observing star formation after all. Four thousand times per year, in fact.[link]

This article is written for lay people, and the reporter wrote the article in such a way that it is heavy on conclusion, but light on analysis and data.