Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

I thought sure that I read something on Hawking where he was discussing how the curvature of space affects time itself.

You cannot change one without the other because it's the same thing. You think of space as something separate from time, but in reality they are merged. Spacetime.

And spacetime is about as far from a static model as you can get.

 

[Soggy]

Couldn't have asked for better timing:
Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount: Page 1

An article that just hit my RSS feed about a study showing evolution working in the lab environment and the outright denialism and attacks it was met with for daring to advance knowledge. Some people are just determined to try keep their fellow man stuck in the dark ages.

Don't bother..all we'll get is "yeah, but they're still bacteria" from the peanut gallery.

 

[redacted]

Tell me more about this God that seeks to deceive his children and who honors ignorance over knowledge. He doesn't sound like a thing like Jesus to me.

Alex, the answer is, "What is "the lord works in mysterious ways?"

I think I'm beginning to get this now. It is perfectly logical. It just starts with a different set of axioms than most of us work with.

Axiom 1: God exists.
Axiom 2: God created the heavens and the earth.

yada yada yada

Therefore science is wrong and fossils are a deception.

 

[sheck33]

Where did you draw the corollary at? "Only to those who seek empirical evidence to prove God doesn't exist" doesn't necessarily equate to science or a scientist.

Does it matter if it equates to just scientists or not? I dont think it does. But wanting to have tangible evidence sure has a scientific ring to me.

 

[Warthaug]

Which begs the question of what happened to sharks that didn't have this beneficial adaptation to start with.

They went extinct, or evolved into something else. Skin doesn't fossilize well, so we don't know when that adaptation came about - although it would have to be old enough to be found in all major branches of sharks. The fundamental shape of sharks is much older than sharks themselves - the basic body shape of sharks can be found in some of the first fish - Agnathans - which evolved 50-100 million years before sharks did.

I'd love to hear your explanation of the Wombat and how the upside down pouch was beneficial to burrowing underground.

It's not that complex - there is a group of marsupials (which includes wombats and koalas) who have backwards-facing pouches. In the case of wombats this is a good thing, as dirt doesn't get in. In the case of Koala's it makes little sense; it actually increases the risk of the young falling from a tree.

The reason for the pouch orientation is simple - that's what their ancestors had, and when they diverged they kept that adaptation; even though in the case of the koala it is a mild disadvantage.

As for where the first "backwards" pouch came from, no one knows. Pouches don't fossilize well, so there isn't any fossil record. Off the top of my head, I can think of three biologically plausable explanations as to how this occured:

1) Wombats/Koalas are "backwards", and evolved from a "forwards" predecessor. I don't know much about the developmental biology of marsupials, but assuming they're like the rest of the mammals, and that their pouch forms via the same invagination process that forms all the other organs, moving the opening would require nothing more than a single mutation in a morphogen's receptor.

2) "Backwards" pouches have been the first pouches, and its the rest of the marsupials which have it backwards. As above, this only requires a single mutation in a morphogen receptor.

I would add at this point that #'s 1 & 2 are the least likely, based on how mammals evolve, as morphogens tend to be used in many locations, so a mutation in a morphogens receptor would probably royally screw up the animal. That said, marsupials may have a dedicated morphogen for their pouch, at which point the above possibilities actually become the most likely.

Any experts on the developmental biology of marsupials out there?

3) Most likely, the orientation of the pouches are a result of divergent evolution from the pre-pouch form. For example, modern pouches may have started off as a flap of skin, or small hollow. In this case evolution, occurring of many generations could have deepend and altered the predecessor structure to the two different forms we see today.

Actually I'm quite confident in my beliefs and have stated them here before. I believe in Genesis 1:1...other miracles that occurred after that wouldn't surprise me. For example, God making an Earth like you see it today, fossils and all. As a scientist, you would see exactly what God wants you to and nothing more. Trickery? Only to those who seek empirical evidence to make God irrelevant.

It's been a while since I went to church, but if memory serves me, satan is the father of lies...

Any how, what about those of us who:
a) don't give a damn about god, and are simply exploring the universe in which we live (that would be me, btw), or
b) are devoutly Christian, and use science as a way of exploring gods universe?

Of course, you've been ignoring the fact that most Christian denominations accept evolution, and that many scientists are also Christians. Of course, I'm sure you'll rationalize that through the usual they are not "real christians" as they don't follow the very narrow interpretations of my faith...

Ultimately, its His creation and He has the authority to do do with it what he wants..right?

But what keeps him from using evolution? Or, for that matter, dumbing things down for sheppard's who don't have the educational background (or even language) to understand and intelligently discuss complex things like quarks, atoms, space-time continuum, abiogenesis and evolution...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

I thought sure that I read something on Hawking where he was discussing how the curvature of space affects time itself.

Aww, now I see where you are coming from. Gravitational fields can and do bend space-time, resulting in the dilation of time. Around most objects this effect is minimal - AFAIK we cannot detect the dilation due to earths gravity. That said, extremely dense objects - black holes for example, can bend space-time sufficiently to have a notable warpage of time.

Doesn't radiometric dating assume a constant decay rate?

Yes. And that has been validated through millions of measurements. The rates of radiodecay are determined by some pretty basic forces in the universe. If these changed over time it would be blatantly obvious, as it would result in a fundamental change in the behavior of matter.

These sorts of changes would be obvious - for example, in the blackbody radiation of distant stars.

Isn't time considered a constant in these equations (ie not a reference point but a true constant)?

Yes it is. But that is also 100% correct. Time is always constant in a reference frame - and the earth is essentially one big reference frame. You only see time dilation relative to other reference frames - hence, why the theory is called "relativity".

So using time as a constant for radiodecay is perfectly valid. The only case where relativistic time dilation would effect the results would be if we were using some form of distant monitoring to track radiodecay on an object moving rapidly relative to the earth.

And don't forget - time dilation is a one way street; time slows down on objects moving relative to an observer. Meaning even if there was a relativistic effect somehow involved in all of this, we would be ***underestimating*** the age of the earth.

Bryan

 

[boulderjohn]

Its tantamount to denying gravity - except that we can explain why evolution occurs. Gravity is pretty much still a mystery.

Bryan

Perhaps this is a case where religion can help us with an explanation precisely as plausible and scientific as Intelligent Design:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[sheck33]

Perhaps this is a case where religion can help us with an explanation precisely as plausible and scientific as Intelligent Design:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

'Intelligent falling theory'................
'Intelligent design' = plausible & scientific.........
god pushes us all down.........



Thanks for the article, that was most entertaining.

 

[boulderjohn]

'Intelligent falling theory'................
'Intelligent design' = plausible & scientific.........
god pushes us all down.........



Thanks for the article, that was most entertaining.

OK, then. Here's another:
Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[boulderjohn]

The previous posts in which it is argued that because Darwin did not have it perfectly correct it must be wrong are classic examples of the logical fallacy Argument from Ignorance. For a quick explanation, you can check any of a variety of online explanations of logical fallacies. Wikipedia's leaps up first in a Google search:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a quote from that explanation:

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

• Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
• Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.