The Cambrian problem

[Loudmouth]

So far, all I see is the same arguments being presented and nobody dealing
with the objections I raised, other than to dismiss them.

We did deal with them. We showed you the equations and measurements that prove you wrong.

I gave you the plate replica paper by the Lederbergs and a genetics paper which disprove your claims about antibiotic resistance. You ignored it.

 

[ecco]

The fairly simple formula for Jeans' Length (Sir James Jeans) shows what is necessary for stellar formation. A gas cloud must be within a critical radius in order to collapse by gravity (Jeans' Length). Jeans' Length (JL) is equal to the Gravitational constant (G) times the mass (M) of the cloud squared, divided by two times the number of moles of gas, times the Gas Constant (R), times the Temperature (T) in kelvins (see Table below). {5} There are other ways to calculate the physical parameters for star formation, but similar problems develop. Leo Blitz says that about 99 percent of the mass of a Giant Molecular Cloud (where stars are thought to form) is molecular hydrogen, H2. {6} I used this fact to calculate the minimum number of moles (n) of hydrogen that would have formed the core of the sun and solved for T. The temperature that the sun's equivalent cloud mass would have to be in order for it to contract under the force of gravity, considering the mass of the Sun, expanding its radius to the distance of one light year, and plugging in the values for the constants. The result was 1.69 degrees K (- 456.68 degrees F. Absolute Zero, 0 degrees K = - 459.67 degrees F), one degree less than the temperature of the 2.726 degrees K cosmic background radiation, according to the latest COBE satellite measurements. {7} The universe is too hot for star formation!

5. DeYoung, Donald B. and John C. Whitcomb, "The Origin of the Universe," Design and Origins in Astronomy, George Mulfinger editor, Creation Research Society, 1983. p. 17

6. Blitz, Leo, "Giant Molecular-Cloud Complexes in the Galaxy," Scientific American, Apr. 1982, p. 86

7. Cown, Ron, "COBE: A Match Made in Heaven," Science News, 143 (1993), p. 43.

http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html

I often follow links just to see where information comes from. Then I did a little more digging. Here are a few parts pat34lee omitted from his quotes:

• Stars cannot form naturally. They must be created directly by God.
• The Bible says that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation.
• I suspect that God, in His wisdom, formed the universe in the order given in Genesis because there is no way that the wisdom of men could explain it naturally.

I also looked up the author with information provided in the linked article:
by Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)
He holds a:
U.S. Certification - American Society for Clinical Pathology

From their website...

http://www.ascp.org/pdf/boc-pdfs/procedures/examination-procedures.pdf​

...we find a number of certifications that it awards. It does not list MT(ASCP). The closest is Medical Laboratory Technician, MLT(ASCP) for which the application fee is $215.

​

He is also listed as a Young Earth Creationist and writes for Christian Ministries.


This should provide a context for the veracity of the information provided in the linked article.

​

 

[Loudmouth]

When someone tells you that X is wrong because John Doe says,
is that a refutation worth responding to?

When pat34lee says that gas can't collapse into a star because pat34lee says so, is that an argument worth responding to?

 

[In situ]

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classe

The question is rather why some people continue to assert untrue statements such as this despite it has been shown, over and over again, to be wrong?

 

[Astrophile]

The fairly simple formula for Jeans' Length (Sir James Jeans) shows what is necessary for stellar formation. A gas cloud must be within a critical radius in order to collapse by gravity (Jeans' Length). Jeans' Length (JL) is equal to the Gravitational constant (G) times the mass (M) of the cloud squared, divided by two times the number of moles of gas, times the Gas Constant (R), times the Temperature (T) in kelvins (see Table below). {5} There are other ways to calculate the physical parameters for star formation, but similar problems develop. Leo Blitz says that about 99 percent of the mass of a Giant Molecular Cloud (where stars are thought to form) is molecular hydrogen, H2. {6} I used this fact to calculate the minimum number of moles (n) of hydrogen that would have formed the core of the sun and solved for T. The temperature that the sun's equivalent cloud mass would have to be in order for it to contract under the force of gravity, considering the mass of the Sun, expanding its radius to the distance of one light year, and plugging in the values for the constants. The result was 1.69 degrees K (- 456.68 degrees F. Absolute Zero, 0 degrees K = - 459.67 degrees F), one degree less than the temperature of the 2.726 degrees K cosmic background radiation, according to the latest COBE satellite measurements. {7} The universe is too hot for star formation!

5. DeYoung, Donald B. and John C. Whitcomb, "The Origin of the Universe," Design and Origins in Astronomy, George Mulfinger editor, Creation Research Society, 1983. p. 17

6. Blitz, Leo, "Giant Molecular-Cloud Complexes in the Galaxy," Scientific American, Apr. 1982, p. 86

7. Cown, Ron, "COBE: A Match Made in Heaven," Science News, 143 (1993), p. 43.

http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html

So far as it goes, your calculation is correct, although nobody who knew what they were doing would set the calculation up like this. Given your initial conditions, the Jeans mass for T = 10 K is M(J) ~ 4.15 solar masses. Since the actual mass of the cloud is 1 solar mass, the cloud would not contract. (The Jeans radius for the cloud is about 0.64 parsecs, or 2.1 light-years, more than the postulated radius of the solar-mass cloud.)

However, you can see immediately that the problem has been set up wrongly. A bright A-level pupil would realise that since stars are born in clusters, rather than as single stars, one should start with cloud masses of hundreds or thousands of solar masses, not the 1 solar mass used by Dolphin. A more sensible way of setting the problem up is to use the temperatures and the particle densities of observed interstellar clouds, and calculate their Jeans masses, that is, the masses of the objects that will contract under their own gravitation. For the observed parameters of cold dense clouds (T ~ 10-30 K; n ~ 100 to one million particles/cm³), the Jeans masses are those of stars or star clusters.

To revert to my example of the Coalsack, the Jeans length (for T = 30 K) is about 1 parsec (3.2 light-years). Since this is less than the radius of the Coalsack (about 9 parsecs or 30 light-years), the cloud will contract.

These results tend to confirm that star clusters and individual stars are born from the gravitational collapse of interstellar clouds.

 

[In situ]

Over a period of 56 million years is hardly sudden.

People like the OP seams to be utterly ignorant about what is known about the fossil record. For instance, before the first true mammals there was at least a 100 million years of time span during which unique mammalian traits slowly evolved and took form. Same goes with birds - we now know that dinosaurs had feather at least a 100 million years before even the first birds evolved. We know dinosaurs had the same type of lungs as modern bird. No characteristic modern organisms has are unique and none of it did "suddenly" appear. Every trait we know of has a long evolutionary history which can be traced in the fossil record or seen in embryology, or seen written all over every organisms genome itself...

 

[pat34lee]

How do you explain this invariable association of these young stars and young stars clusters with interstellar clouds if the stars are not born from the clouds?

Again, you use language stating certainty when there is only theory.

Young Stars
Young Star Clusters

There is no proof of either.

 

[pat34lee]

So far as it goes, your calculation is correct, although nobody who knew what they were doing would set the calculation up like this.

Not mine. Credit goes to the link which is posted with it.

However, you can see immediately that the problem has been set up wrongly. A bright A-level pupil would realise that since stars are born in clusters, rather than as single stars, one should start with cloud masses of hundreds or thousands of solar masses, not the 1 solar mass used by Dolphin. A more sensible way of setting the problem up is to use the temperatures and the particle densities of observed interstellar clouds, and calculate their Jeans masses, that is, the masses of the objects that will contract under their own gravitation. For the observed parameters of cold dense clouds (T ~ 10-30 K; n ~ 100 to one million particles/cm³), the Jeans masses are those of stars or star clusters.

To revert to my example of the Coalsack, the Jeans length (for T = 30 K) is about 1 parsec (3.2 light-years). Since this is less than the radius of the Coalsack (about 9 parsecs or 30 light-years), the cloud will contract.

These results tend to confirm that star clusters and individual stars are born from the gravitational collapse of interstellar clouds.

Still theoretical. No matter where you start, once you try to collapse, the heat goes up,
and the kinetic energy of the gas atoms will cause them to disperse.

It reminds me of the old joke,"Catch that and paint it green."

 

[pat34lee]

I often follow links just to see where information comes from. Then I did a little more digging. Here are a few parts pat34lee omitted from his quotes:

• Stars cannot form naturally. They must be created directly by God.
• The Bible says that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation.
• I suspect that God, in His wisdom, formed the universe in the order given in Genesis because there is no way that the wisdom of men could explain it naturally.

I also looked up the author with information provided in the linked article:
by Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)
He holds a:
U.S. Certification - American Society for Clinical Pathology

From their website...

http://www.ascp.org/pdf/boc-pdfs/procedures/examination-procedures.pdf​

...we find a number of certifications that it awards. It does not list MT(ASCP). The closest is Medical Laboratory Technician, MLT(ASCP) for which the application fee is $215.

​

He is also listed as a Young Earth Creationist and writes for Christian Ministries.

This should provide a context for the veracity of the information provided in the linked article.

Given that the information on his site that I posted here was an equation, none of this has bearing.
Either the equation is correct or it is not. Trying to discredit his credentials is not discrediting his math.

 

[pat34lee]

When pat34lee says that gas can't collapse into a star because pat34lee says so, is that an argument worth responding to?

If my only argument was "I think whatever", then no. At least no more than anyone
with an opinion on a forum.

 

[Astrophile]

Again, you use language stating certainty when there is only theory.

Young Stars
Young Star Clusters

There is no proof of either.

As I have already explained, the O and early B-type stars that are found in star clusters associated with bright nebulae and interstellar molecular clouds are extremely luminous, and are therefore using up their resources of nuclear fuel very rapidly. They have short life-spans, of only a few million years, and therefore must be younger than most other stars.

The T Tauri stars are surrounded by circumstellar discs, which are unstable and again have life-spans of at most tens of millions of years. Thus the star clusters that contain T Tauri stars and massive OB-type stars must be young, with ages of less than about 20 million years.

Since these clusters are associated with interstellar clouds, it is reasonable to hypothesise that they were born from these clouds.

If you deny this, you ought at least to explain why O and early B stars and T Tauri stars occur in clusters that are associated with interstellar clouds, and are not found in the general field of the Milky Way. You ought also to present some calculations to show that OB-stars and T Tauri stars are not necessarily young.

 

[Astrophile]

Still theoretical. No matter where you start, once you try to collapse, the heat goes up,
and the kinetic energy of the gas atoms will cause them to disperse.

It reminds me of the old joke,"Catch that and paint it green."

I have done some more research using the Open University S381 course (The Life and Death of Stars), and have found that we are both wrong. It turns out that the contraction of interstellar clouds is not adiabatic. Instead, interstellar clouds cool or heat up faster than they contract or expand.

In a temperature-density diagram, an interstellar cloud will cool or heat up at nearly constant density until it reaches a line where the cooling and heating time-scales are the same. If at this stage the cloud is at a point on the temperature-density diagram where its mass is below the Jeans mass, it will expand at nearly constant temperature. If its mass is above the Jeans mass, it will contract, also at nearly constant temperature (T ~ 20 K), since the cooling time is less than the contraction time. It turns out that the cloud will contract for number densities greater than about 100 per cubic centimetre (>10^8)/m³ and T < 20-30 K.

It also appears that a dense cloud that is too hot to contract will cool fast enough to lower its temperature to the point where it will contract. This happens because the cooling time is shorter than the expansion time. This means that a cloud is more likely to contract to form stars than it would be if its expansion and contraction were adiabatic. One might almost suspect that interstellar clouds were designed to contract to form stars in clusters.

I hope that you can follow my explanation. It took me some time to work it out, even with the Open University course in front of me. If you can't understand it, I will try again to explain it. However, the essential point is that the contraction of an interstellar cloud is non-adiabatic, and the cloud cools fast enough to remain at the same temperature during its contraction.

 

[pat34lee]

As I have already explained, the O and early B-type stars that are found in star clusters associated with bright nebulae and interstellar molecular clouds are extremely luminous, and are therefore using up their resources of nuclear fuel very rapidly. They have short life-spans, of only a few million years, and therefore must be younger than most other stars.

Theory. The whole life-spans of stars are theory. There is nothing inherent
to stars that proves they are older than about 6000 years.

 

[pat34lee]

I have done some more research using the Open University S381 course (The Life and Death of Stars), and have found that we are both wrong. It turns out that the contraction of interstellar clouds is not adiabatic. Instead, interstellar clouds cool or heat up faster than they contract or expand.

In a temperature-density diagram, an interstellar cloud will cool or heat up at nearly constant density until it reaches a line where the cooling and heating time-scales are the same. If at this stage the cloud is at a point on the temperature-density diagram where its mass is below the Jeans mass, it will expand at nearly constant temperature. If its mass is above the Jeans mass, it will contract, also at nearly constant temperature (T ~ 20 K), since the cooling time is less than the contraction time. It turns out that the cloud will contract for number densities greater than about 100 per cubic centimetre (>10^8)/m³ and T < 20-30 K.

It also appears that a dense cloud that is too hot to contract will cool fast enough to lower its temperature to the point where it will contract. This happens because the cooling time is shorter than the expansion time. This means that a cloud is more likely to contract to form stars than it would be if its expansion and contraction were adiabatic. One might almost suspect that interstellar clouds were designed to contract to form stars in clusters.

I hope that you can follow my explanation. It took me some time to work it out, even with the Open University course in front of me. If you can't understand it, I will try again to explain it. However, the essential point is that the contraction of an interstellar cloud is non-adiabatic, and the cloud cools fast enough to remain at the same temperature during its contraction.

I understand what you're trying to explain. I just can't agree.
There is nothing in space resembling even atmospheric pressure
to slow down the expansion of gases. With near infinite volume
to fill, there is no way to cause gas to compress faster than it
can disperse.

If the big bang theory were correct, we should have nothing in
space but widely dispersed gases and radiation. Just the opposite
of what we see, and even Nasa sees the problem, though they try
to use gravity as a reason also. Gravity bringing together hydrogen
atoms travelling away from each other at near light speed? Impossible.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/questions/lumpy.html

What other theory is there but God made it?

 

[Astrophile]

Theory. The whole life-spans of stars are theory. There is nothing inherent
to stars that proves they are older than about 6000 years.

So if stars are no more than 6000 years old, how were they formed? They must have come from pre-existing matter; nothing comes from nothing. The evidence that astronomers have collected over the last 60 years or so shows that stars have formed from the contraction of interstellar clouds.

Of course, the same argument goes for the so-called 'Cambrian explosion'. As we all know, spontaneous generation is impossible; all life comes from life of the same kind. Therefore the 'fully developed major phyla and classes of animals' that appear as fossils in the lowest Cambrian rocks must have come from Precambrian ancestors that belonged to similar kinds. The only difference is that these Precambrian ancestors were not fossilised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand what you're trying to explain. I just can't agree.
There is nothing in space resembling even atmospheric pressure
to slow down the expansion of gases. With near infinite volume
to fill, there is no way to cause gas to compress faster than it
can disperse.

Sure there it. There is gravity. You do realize that gravity is what causes the air pressure that you are feeling right now, don't you? All that is causing the air pressure that you are experiencing is gravity. Nothing else is stopping the air in the atmosphere from leaving the Earth.

If the big bang theory were correct, we should have nothing in
space but widely dispersed gases and radiation. Just the opposite
of what we see, and even Nasa sees the problem, though they try
to use gravity as a reason also. Gravity bringing together hydrogen
atoms travelling away from each other at near light speed? Impossible.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/questions/lumpy.html

What other theory is there but God made it?

You don't seem to realize that there is no intrinsic in the expansion caused by the Big Bang. The atoms are not traveling at "near light speed". It is obvious that you have no understanding of this topic. When that is the case the wise thing to do is to ask questions and not make obviously wrong statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Theory. The whole life-spans of stars are theory. There is nothing inherent
to stars that proves they are older than about 6000 years.

Sure there is. The distance of the stars away from us tells us that they are older than 6,000 years. Light cannot cross billions of light years in only 6,000 years.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

I often follow links just to see where information comes from. Then I did a little more digging. Here are a few parts pat34lee omitted from his quotes:

• Stars cannot form naturally. They must be created directly by God.
• The Bible says that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation.
• I suspect that God, in His wisdom, formed the universe in the order given in Genesis because there is no way that the wisdom of men could explain it naturally.

I also looked up the author with information provided in the linked article:
by Jon A. Covey, BA, MT(ASCP)
He holds a:
U.S. Certification - American Society for Clinical Pathology

From their website...
http://www.ascp.org/pdf/boc-pdfs/procedures/examination-procedures.pdf​

...we find a number of certifications that it awards. It does not list MT(ASCP). The closest is Medical Laboratory Technician, MLT(ASCP) for which the application fee is $215.

He is also listed as a Young Earth Creationist and writes for Christian Ministries.

This should provide a context for the veracity of the information provided in the linked article.​

Given that the information on his site that I posted here was an equation, none of this has bearing.
Either the equation is correct or it is not. Trying to discredit his credentials is not discrediting his math.

Others have already done that. I was just providing background on WHY the equations were wrong. His credentials show he has no real knowledge or training in science.

 

[pat34lee]

So if stars are no more than 6000 years old, how were they formed? They must have come from pre-existing matter; nothing comes from nothing. The evidence that astronomers have collected over the last 60 years or so shows that stars have formed from the contraction of interstellar clouds.

Of course, the same argument goes for the so-called 'Cambrian explosion'. As we all know, spontaneous generation is impossible; all life comes from life of the same kind. Therefore the 'fully developed major phyla and classes of animals' that appear as fossils in the lowest Cambrian rocks must have come from Precambrian ancestors that belonged to similar kinds. The only difference is that these Precambrian ancestors were not fossilised.

"nothing comes from nothing."

You just destroyed the big bang.

"spontaneous generation is impossible; all life comes from life of the same kind."

There goes the beginning of life on earth. Everything, from bacteria to galaxies was
created fully formed and optimized for existing in this universe. Life and consciousness
are here because they were made by a God both alive and conscious. Once created,
they continue to live and function and reproduce as they were created to do.

Look through Hubble photo galleries. Every galaxy out there in spiral form still has a
young spiral. Two or three spins (maybe only one) would destroy the classic shape.
Even if you could find a few that fit the description, there are not enough for a
universe billions of years old.
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/spiral/

 

[Hoghead1]

I hold that creation ex nihilo is a nonsensical idea, on that is not supported at all by the Genesis account. I do not see what this has to do with the Big Bang. The BB did not come out of nothing, but of all matter and space squeezed down into the point of singularity. Hardly then, is this point a nothing. Also, you say that life can come only from like life. What is your scientific evidence here? How do you explain the biblical account of Adam as being formed out of dust,not our of nothing or out of a like life form? Also, where is your scientific evidence that what you say about the age of the universe is necessarily true? how come science is all wring and you ended being right, being so much the more knowledgeable than all these brainy scientists, you lucky one, you?