Dover Penn ID trial - Page 15

Mojo · 17th November 2005, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

It is NO accident Satan and Science both start with 'S'!

And they both end in an "n" as well. If you assume that all words end after five letters. It is a sign, brothers!

Mercutio · 17th November 2005, 07:04 PM

Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper. Today's editorial cartoon?

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?

Melendwyr · 17th November 2005, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?

Write in and complain. Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance. It's the perfect setup, after all.

Mercutio · 17th November 2005, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Write in and complain. Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance. It's the perfect setup, after all.

I've already been looking online to do so. Looks like I actually have to put pen to parchment, though...but thanks for the Dawkins tip--I had gone a completely different direction.

hellaeon · 17th November 2005, 07:42 PM

These zealots sicken me. This is just ignorance. that link about the discovery institute makes me VERY angry. All the valid arguement goes out the window in the end and the final say is because of their belief. Belief based on assumptions. I do not like religions.

Welcome to the dark ages.

teacher · 17th November 2005, 08:53 PM

My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?

Bronze Dog · 17th November 2005, 08:57 PM

The one I tend to think is easiest is the "always there" for matter. Of course, the closer you get to t=0, the weirder t gets. As I understand it, the idea of creation ex nihilo having a place in science is a creation ex nihilo by religion.

Mercutio · 17th November 2005, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by teacher

My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?

Very Very quick response...the beginnings of the universe are not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

The formation of Stars & origin of heavy elements...is not something that is covered by natural selection.

The Origin of Life is not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term...

Teacher...each of these areas has scientific hypotheses attempting to explain them. They may be strongly supported, they may not. What they absolutely are not, is relevant whatsoever to Evolution by Natural Selection.

I don't know whether I addressed your question, but I thank you for letting me vent just a little bit more about mine...

teacher · 17th November 2005, 09:03 PM

Many thanks Bronzedog, that would make sense. Hope to join in a lot in future threads on various topics, and you seem to be a regular (2164 posts). Have some particular favourite topics, e.g. healing.

teacher · 17th November 2005, 09:10 PM

Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959. To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God. Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.

Mercutio · 17th November 2005, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by teacher

Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959.

Mostly limericks, I assure you.

Quote:

To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God.

"Explains"? I think "I don't know" is the best that we have, although there are some promising possibilities. The possibilities are, IMO, plausible enough that the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of some supernatural force, but that is just my (correct) opinion.

Quote:

Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.

I (and most probably, "we") would love to hear your story!

Spidey13 · 17th November 2005, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Mostly limericks, I assure you.

Not lately, buddy. Get your butt over to that thread! It's been dead lately.

OK, you can get back on topic now.

teacher · 17th November 2005, 09:28 PM

Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?

Bronze Dog · 17th November 2005, 09:50 PM

Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion.

But I digress.

Another trippy thing I suddenly remembered hearing: Creation ex nihilo might be possible scientifically, after all: When you add it all up, the universe is nothing: All the forces and such cancel each other out. So, even starting with nothing, the universe still obeys conservation. Of course, I don't know if that's really true, or just one of those things some people randomly think up.

All this time and cosmology stuff makes my head hurt.

Kiless · 17th November 2005, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by teacher

Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?

It's 1.44 in the afternoon here (and a slow day), so I'll see if I can help.

a) Also interested in your story - perhaps the Forum Community one or even this one on how you came to be so many things!

b) The search function up the top is useful, although the
Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum area is good too as a start.
As for other theists, there's quite a nice bunch around here... I'm certain if you started up a) you'll find some reply to you.

Otherwise I'll prod them with a stick or something, being a teacher myself and all.

Dr Adequate · 17th November 2005, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by teacher

b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?

Hi, welcome.

As far as "healing" goes, that word covers a lot of things. Are we talking crystals? homeopathy? magnetic insoles?

Lots of things are called "healing" by their practitioners.

Quote:

Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?

There are various theists and deists who post here: for example, I believe that a couple of the heros of the Homeopathy Wars have faith.

"Skeptics" is a loose term. I think that the mood of the forums is much more pro-science than anti-religion: and so as long as people find science to be compatible with religion, they're on my side.

Kiless · 17th November 2005, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion

I just didn't want my compliment of your lovely avatar to detract attention from my birthday present to you, a large iron coathanger.

It's currently strung over the Sydney Harbour, let me know when you're coming to collect it!

chran · 18th November 2005, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?

No, it's just funny!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 18th November 2005, 06:20 AM

Merc, don't forget to mention that the "complete void in space" has nothing to do with how we think our universe happened. So the artist must be talking about a different universe. Perhaps in that universe Swatches do evolve.

Hi, I'm an idiot. I have no idea about any of this stuff, so I think I'll draw a cartoon illustrating my ignorance. Then we can all laugh at ... evolution!

~~ Paul

Melendwyr · 18th November 2005, 06:51 AM

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.

hammegk · 18th November 2005, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations.

I'm amazed! We agree on something.

Mercutio · 18th November 2005, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.

What definition of natural selection are you using? Certainly not any that I am familiar with. Darwin's summary is:
IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

So...I don't see how this can possibly apply to the beginnings of the universe, the formation of stars, metals, etc., or even to abiogenesis. Only after these things have happened can we possibly have the IF conditions which define natural selection.

I look forward to your explanation.

Upchurch · 18th November 2005, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations.

How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 18th November 2005, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Hammegk

I'm amazed! We agree on something.

I agree, too! It's a giant love-fest!

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 18th November 2005, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.

As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars.

I wouldn't use the term natural selection for this, just because it causes confusion with a term that already has the world confused. But it's something similar to selection. I'd also avoid using the term evolution in other contexts.

~~ Paul

Upchurch · 18th November 2005, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

But it's something similar to selection.

I have to disagree. The formation of a new star based on the material of old star is not dependant upon the old star's ability to survive in its environment.

Melendwyr · 18th November 2005, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.

No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.

Melendwyr · 18th November 2005, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars.

That's not really a good example.

A better one would be osmosis. Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert. Or a sand-sifter.

Upchurch · 18th November 2005, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

A better one would be osmosis. Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert. Or a sand-sifter.

How in the world are those examples of natural selection?

Mercutio · 18th November 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

delphi_ote · 18th November 2005, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

Who cares what he had to say about evolution? It's not like he wrote the book on the subject.

Upchurch · 18th November 2005, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

Or anyone else's, for that matter, since it completely leaves out the mechanism in natural selection that interrupts "the persistance of arrangements".

Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 18th November 2005, 09:41 AM

Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.

Quote:

Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?

In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul

petre · 18th November 2005, 10:05 AM

What I noted was the very first sentence of the cartoon:

Quote:

Once upon a time, there was a complete void in space.

I'm not aware of any currently supported theory that includes this. Any that I have heard of make it quite clear that time, space, and matter are all related. Time could not exist without the other two, therefore there was no time before the existance of matter.

It's just bad form to begin any point with a faulty model of the opposing view. I believe there's a word for that, starts with a straw- and ends with a -man

PatKelley · 18th November 2005, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.

In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul

I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.

Living organisms persist only if they can continue to accrue energy. The original competition was in who could actually reproduce, and at that time the only energy was in other organic molecules. The original was chemical evolution by sustained reaction. The more molecules that accrued, the more chance of persisting; rather the antithesis of rocks being beaten down. It would be as if rough rocks had a better chance of washing downstream; you would end up with more rough rocks than not in a given environment. The rounding is not a selection pressure; the differential is.

Now, this is not to say sedimentation is evolution; it represents a selection pressure. A sieve in sand is similar in this regard, as there are some grains that get past while some do not. But this is only part of the equation; it is selection pressure, it is not evolution. Evolution comes about when there is more than one molecule vying for available energy as a means of survival. The larger ones persist, then the ones that can fold so they are harder to break apart, then the ones of those that can more efficiently fold and unfold with temperature changes to both guard and assemble more energy. Eventually, some have folding sequences that curve and actually cover other sequences during vulnerable times, or that form a ribozyme that clips at other sequences (the first predator).

From there it is steps along the way, with selection pressure being the gate, but mutation and reproduction being the driving force to create a new generation. Without change, a new selection pressure could cause an end to this process. Without reproduction, the process stops.

PatKelley · 18th November 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper. Today's editorial cartoon?

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?

They left out the last line: "That one REALLY shows my total ignorance!"

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 18th November 2005, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by PatKelley

I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.

Well, the ones that can't see above themselves are beaten down by falling rocks, right? Yes, I understand that "selection pressure" does not mean physical pressure.

~~ Paul

Melendwyr · 18th November 2005, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

(raises eyebrow) Darwin was addressing the subject of change in biological organisms. Not surprisingly, he was concerned with selection pressures that operate on biological organisms.

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.

Upchurch · 18th November 2005, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.

I know you've already given what you think are examples of this, but could you please expain how these are examples?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 18th November 2005, 12:58 PM

I gave several examples above. We are not saying that other forms of selection are exactly the same sort of thing as biological natural selection, but they are forms of pressure and selection. Dust and rocks in the appropriate orbits are selected to become planetoids. The other dust stays dust. Water that follows depressions collects into rivulets and then streams. The other water simply evaporates. The right sort of crystals replicate; the rest crumble apart.

It must be the case the non-life undergoes pressure and selection, or life would not have gotten started in the first place.

~~ Paul

17th November 2005, 05:40 PM	#561
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 38,619	Originally Posted by BillHoyt It is NO accident Satan and Science both start with 'S'! And they both end in an "n" as well. If you assume that all words end after five letters. It is a sign, brothers!
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

17th November 2005, 07:19 PM	#563
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by Mercutio So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance? Write in and complain. Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance. It's the perfect setup, after all.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064

17th November 2005, 08:53 PM	#566
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119	ID/Evolution/Big bang My very first post in the JREF. With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract). Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred? I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists. Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119

17th November 2005, 08:57 PM	#567
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,993	The one I tend to think is easiest is the "always there" for matter. Of course, the closer you get to t=0, the weirder t gets. As I understand it, the idea of creation ex nihilo having a place in science is a creation ex nihilo by religion.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

17th November 2005, 09:03 PM	#569
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119	Many thanks Bronzedog, that would make sense. Hope to join in a lot in future threads on various topics, and you seem to be a regular (2164 posts). Have some particular favourite topics, e.g. healing.
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119

17th November 2005, 07:04 PM	#562
Mercutio Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 16,279	Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper. Today's editorial cartoon? So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?

17th November 2005, 07:25 PM	#564
Mercutio Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 16,279	Originally Posted by Melendwyr Write in and complain. Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance. It's the perfect setup, after all. I've already been looking online to do so. Looks like I actually have to put pen to parchment, though...but thanks for the Dawkins tip--I had gone a completely different direction.

17th November 2005, 07:42 PM	#565
hellaeon Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,488	These zealots sicken me. This is just ignorance. that link about the discovery institute makes me VERY angry. All the valid arguement goes out the window in the end and the final say is because of their belief. Belief based on assumptions. I do not like religions. Welcome to the dark ages.

17th November 2005, 09:01 PM	#568
Mercutio Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 16,279	Originally Posted by teacher My very first post in the JREF. With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract). Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred? I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists. Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution? Very Very quick response...the beginnings of the universe are not something that is covered by Natural Selection. The formation of Stars & origin of heavy elements...is not something that is covered by natural selection. The Origin of Life is not something that is covered by Natural Selection. Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term... Teacher...each of these areas has scientific hypotheses attempting to explain them. They may be strongly supported, they may not. What they absolutely are not, is relevant whatsoever to Evolution by Natural Selection. I don't know whether I addressed your question, but I thank you for letting me vent just a little bit more about mine...

17th November 2005, 09:10 PM	#570
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119	Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959. To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God. Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119

17th November 2005, 09:20 PM	#571
Mercutio Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 16,279	Originally Posted by teacher Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959. Mostly limericks, I assure you. Quote: To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God. "Explains"? I think "I don't know" is the best that we have, although there are some promising possibilities. The possibilities are, IMO, plausible enough that the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of some supernatural force, but that is just my (correct) opinion. Quote: Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it. I (and most probably, "we") would love to hear your story!

17th November 2005, 09:23 PM	#572
Spidey13 Pastor of Muppets Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 3,457	Originally Posted by Mercutio Mostly limericks, I assure you. Not lately, buddy. Get your butt over to that thread! It's been dead lately. OK, you can get back on topic now.
	__________________ "I love you like a fat kid love cake." - 50 Cent

17th November 2005, 09:28 PM	#573
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119	Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you. Let me know if: a.) there is anything you need to know now and b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing? Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?
teacher Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 119

17th November 2005, 09:50 PM	#574
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,993	Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. sniff And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion. But I digress. Another trippy thing I suddenly remembered hearing: Creation ex nihilo might be possible scientifically, after all: When you add it all up, the universe is nothing: All the forces and such cancel each other out. So, even starting with nothing, the universe still obeys conservation. Of course, I don't know if that's really true, or just one of those things some people randomly think up. All this time and cosmology stuff makes my head hurt.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

17th November 2005, 10:52 PM	#575
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,041	Originally Posted by teacher Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you. Let me know if: a.) there is anything you need to know now and b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing? Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site? It's 1.44 in the afternoon here (and a slow day), so I'll see if I can help. a) Also interested in your story - perhaps the Forum Community one or even this one on how you came to be so many things! b) The search function up the top is useful, although the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum area is good too as a start. As for other theists, there's quite a nice bunch around here... I'm certain if you started up a) you'll find some reply to you. Otherwise I'll prod them with a stick or something, being a teacher myself and all.
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,041

17th November 2005, 10:54 PM	#576
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766	Originally Posted by teacher b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing? Hi, welcome. As far as "healing" goes, that word covers a lot of things. Are we talking crystals? homeopathy? magnetic insoles? Lots of things are called "healing" by their practitioners. Quote: Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site? There are various theists and deists who post here: for example, I believe that a couple of the heros of the Homeopathy Wars have faith. "Skeptics" is a loose term. I think that the mood of the forums is much more pro-science than anti-religion: and so as long as people find science to be compatible with religion, they're on my side.
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 17,766

17th November 2005, 10:54 PM	#577
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,041	Originally Posted by BronzeDog Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. sniff And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion I just didn't want my compliment of your lovely avatar to detract attention from my birthday present to you, a large iron coathanger. It's currently strung over the Sydney Harbour, let me know when you're coming to collect it!
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,041

18th November 2005, 05:52 AM	#578
chran Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Denmark, yo Posts: 629	Originally Posted by Mercutio So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance? No, it's just funny!

18th November 2005, 06:20 AM	#579
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,139	Merc, don't forget to mention that the "complete void in space" has nothing to do with how we think our universe happened. So the artist must be talking about a different universe. Perhaps in that universe Swatches do evolve. Hi, I'm an idiot. I have no idea about any of this stuff, so I think I'll draw a cartoon illustrating my ignorance. Then we can all laugh at ... evolution! ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

18th November 2005, 06:51 AM	#580
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064

18th November 2005, 07:06 AM	#581
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413	Originally Posted by Melendwyr Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. I'm amazed! We agree on something.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,413

18th November 2005, 07:20 AM	#582
Mercutio Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 16,279	Originally Posted by Melendwyr Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter. What definition of natural selection are you using? Certainly not any that I am familiar with. Darwin's summary is: IF there are organisms that reproduce, and IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and IF there is variability of traits, and IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population, THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive So...I don't see how this can possibly apply to the beginnings of the universe, the formation of stars, metals, etc., or even to abiogenesis. Only after these things have happened can we possibly have the IF conditions which define natural selection. I look forward to your explanation.

18th November 2005, 07:21 AM	#583
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,264	Originally Posted by Melendwyr Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

18th November 2005, 07:21 AM	#584
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,139	Originally Posted by Hammegk I'm amazed! We agree on something. I agree, too! It's a giant love-fest! ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

18th November 2005, 07:23 AM	#585
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,139	Originally Posted by Upchurch How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material. As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars. I wouldn't use the term natural selection for this, just because it causes confusion with a term that already has the world confused. But it's something similar to selection. I'd also avoid using the term evolution in other contexts. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

18th November 2005, 07:43 AM	#586
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,264	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos But it's something similar to selection. I have to disagree. The formation of a new star based on the material of old star is not dependant upon the old star's ability to survive in its environment.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

18th November 2005, 08:24 AM	#587
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by Upchurch How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material. No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064

18th November 2005, 08:27 AM	#588
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars. That's not really a good example. A better one would be osmosis. Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert. Or a sand-sifter.
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064

18th November 2005, 08:29 AM	#589
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,264	Originally Posted by Melendwyr A better one would be osmosis. Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert. Or a sand-sifter. How in the world are those examples of natural selection?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

18th November 2005, 08:35 AM	#590
Mercutio Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 16,279	Originally Posted by Melendwyr No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle. So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

18th November 2005, 09:00 AM	#591
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Mercutio So, a completely different definition than Darwin's. Who cares what he had to say about evolution? It's not like he wrote the book on the subject.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

18th November 2005, 09:05 AM	#592
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 34,264	Originally Posted by Mercutio So, a completely different definition than Darwin's. Or anyone else's, for that matter, since it completely leaves out the mechanism in natural selection that interrupts "the persistance of arrangements". Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

18th November 2005, 09:41 AM	#593
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 19,139	Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here. But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing. Quote: Or is extinction not a part of natural selection? In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure." ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim

18th November 2005, 10:05 AM	#594
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887	What I noted was the very first sentence of the cartoon: Quote: Once upon a time, there was a complete void in space. I'm not aware of any currently supported theory that includes this. Any that I have heard of make it quite clear that time, space, and matter are all related. Time could not exist without the other two, therefore there was no time before the existance of matter. It's just bad form to begin any point with a faulty model of the opposing view. I believe there's a word for that, starts with a straw- and ends with a -man
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887

18th November 2005, 10:13 AM	#595
PatKelley Guest Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here. But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing. In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure." ~~ Paul I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded. Living organisms persist only if they can continue to accrue energy. The original competition was in who could actually reproduce, and at that time the only energy was in other organic molecules. The original was chemical evolution by sustained reaction. The more molecules that accrued, the more chance of persisting; rather the antithesis of rocks being beaten down. It would be as if rough rocks had a better chance of washing downstream; you would end up with more rough rocks than not in a given environment. The rounding is not a selection pressure; the differential is. Now, this is not to say sedimentation is evolution; it represents a selection pressure. A sieve in sand is similar in this regard, as there are some grains that get past while some do not. But this is only part of the equation; it is selection pressure, it is not evolution. Evolution comes about when there is more than one molecule vying for available energy as a means of survival. The larger ones persist, then the ones that can fold so they are harder to break apart, then the ones of those that can more efficiently fold and unfold with temperature changes to both guard and assemble more energy. Eventually, some have folding sequences that curve and actually cover other sequences during vulnerable times, or that form a ribozyme that clips at other sequences (the first predator). From there it is steps along the way, with selection pressure being the gate, but mutation and reproduction being the driving force to create a new generation. Without change, a new selection pressure could cause an end to this process. Without reproduction, the process stops.
PatKelley Guest Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 608