Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: General Stuff
Topic: Make a decision
started by: GORDON

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 31 2010,14:37

The wedding reception I attended the other night... some of the older relatives of my wife were at the table talking about "All I know for sure is that I didn't come from a monkey, that really makes me angry to say that.

I kept my mouth shut, even though what I was thinking, "Not only are you related to monkeys, you are related to amoebas."

But anyway, do you think evolution is how you got here? If you are actually an alien infiltrator, don't vote because you'll screw up the results.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 31 2010,15:10

What poll will you have next, about whether the earth is round?

To anyone that accepts that science has a reasonable basis, there is no doubt on this topic. The evidence is monumental in scope. At this point, to deny evolution is to declare oneself as incapable of rational thought.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 01 2010,09:37

If there's some supreme, divine, all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being that created everything, his engineering skills could use some fine-tuning.

Posted by Vince on Sep. 01 2010,18:45

(Malcolm @ Sep. 01 2010,11:37)

QUOTE

If there's some supreme, divine, all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being that created everything, his engineering skills could use some fine-tuning.

I don't know. Think of any other system with all the moving parts and hydralics that the human body has that routinely lasts 70 years.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 01 2010,21:28

(GORDON @ Aug. 31 2010,14:37)

QUOTE

"All I know for sure is that I didn't come from a monkey,

Technically they are right we didn't come from monkeys we came from something that branched off to form us and monkeys.

Of course I know what they are saying and I think they are crazy.

I also find it interesting that evolution is just to radical or impossible of an idea but an all powerful unseen man just making everything isn't too much of a leap.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 02 2010,08:01

(Vince @ Sep. 01 2010,20:45)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Sep. 01 2010,11:37)

QUOTE

If there's some supreme, divine, all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being that created everything, his engineering skills could use some fine-tuning.

I don't know. Think of any other system with all the moving parts and hydralics that the human body has that routinely lasts 70 years.

Any being w\ the power to pull off all that while fucking up some common sense logic is too improbable.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 02 2010,08:40

QUOTE

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic parti

Posted by unkbill on Sep. 02 2010,17:08

(Malcolm @ Sep. 01 2010,09:37)

QUOTE

If there's some supreme, divine, all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent being that created everything, his engineering skills could use some fine-tuning.

Guess I stand alone again here. I believe alittle of both. But I do believe in a force. Do I go to any church. NO. But I do believe in something bigger than me came up with this mess. And yes the fine tuning is the answer just because it isn't perfect.
That said 2 things you don't discuss in a bar is religion and politics. I have to be with very close friends for that to happen. That happens once every year maybe. And so for here also. Nuf said.

Posted by Vince on Sep. 02 2010,18:01

(TheCatt @ Sep. 02 2010,10:40)

QUOTE

Hawking has been rather... odd for a long time.

Isn't gravity a measure of mass? Before the Universe, therefore mass, how would one have gravity?

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 02 2010,18:38

(unkbill @ Sep. 02 2010,19:08)

QUOTE

Guess I stand alone again here. I believe alittle of both.

For the record, I will acknowledge the possibility of a Prime Mover, a divine being that provided the initial spark. There's no evidence against such a thing, and I won't show contempt for someone with that sort of belief. It's those people that gleefully embrace ignorance and deny science while at the same time enjoying the technological and medical advances that science provides that get me riled up.

On the other hand, there's no evidence for a Prime Mover, either, so Occam's Razor slices the issue with me as an atheist. But I won't disrespect you for it if you go the other way.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 02 2010,18:49

(Vince @ Sep. 02 2010,20:01)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Sep. 02 2010,10:40)

QUOTE

Hawking has been rather... odd for a long time.

Isn't gravity a measure of mass? Before the Universe, therefore mass, how would one have gravity?

Gravity is the warping of space-time. Mass exists in zero gravity.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 02 2010,19:38

I'd need to read more to make a judgement; that limited quote is likely missing some key points.

Current theories have the fabric of space being a frothy sea of virtual particle creation, especially where space is most flat. It's not necessarily inconceivable to push that to an idea of totally flat (i.e. no universe) = massive particle creation explosion.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 02 2010,19:48

My 4 year old recently got a book from the library called "The Universe" and now he is asking me questions about how The Big Bang worked.

The other kids were reading Dr. Seuss.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 03 2010,05:27

I don't think I could ever quite grasp how something has come from nothing.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 03 2010,06:05

(TheCatt @ Sep. 03 2010,08:27)

QUOTE

I don't think I could ever quite grasp how something has come from nothing.

LET THERE BE LIGHT.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 03 2010,06:09

(GORDON @ Sep. 03 2010,09:05)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Sep. 03 2010,08:27)

QUOTE

I don't think I could ever quite grasp how something has come from nothing.

LET THERE BE LIGHT.

Well, right. Supernatural being or spontaneous generation of matter -> Either is pretty much magic to me.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 03 2010,06:39

Happens all the time, it seems. It's just usually they blink back out of existence just as quickly.

And apparently that's where this is coming from. Particles are created and destroyed all the time, the new theory being that they are destroyed because our existence as a universe overwhelms them. Take the universe out of the way, and there's nothing to destroy them again.

It would do odd things to the inflationary theory. Instead of inflation, now you can postulate that the big bang was a simultaneous much larger sea of individual bangs, at every point in that larger region, as all those virtual particles failed to be destroyed upon creation. No more need for inflation, which always struck me as being a bit of a kludgey theory anyway.

I now also wonder if maybe "dark matter" is really the cumulative effects of nearly infinite numbers of particles that almost but not quite exist, dark matter being another kludgey theory that needs help.

Posted by unkbill on Sep. 03 2010,16:16

(TPRJones @ Sep. 02 2010,18:38)

QUOTE

(unkbill @ Sep. 02 2010,19:08)

QUOTE

Guess I stand alone again here. I believe alittle of both.

I apriciate that. And I will look into Occams knife. Is that anything like Schroeders Cat?

Posted by unkbill on Sep. 03 2010,16:26

Occams Razor.
Oh, Unkbill Of Oakham. Or as judge Judy says "Keep it simple Stupid" Yes and I am also of a fan of go with your first instinct. It is normally correct.
But when I come up with something hard on a job I need to do. I like the one were I sleep on it. Sometimes that has worked so well for me.
Sometime life is so hard. I can see where some people need faith, And then other people take advantage of it. Jim Jones, Jim and Tammi Baker. I follow my own faith. Led, follow or get the fuck out of the way. Just don't muck up my life sheep.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 03 2010,17:38

(TPRJones @ Sep. 03 2010,09:39)

QUOTE

Magic

Yeah.

Posted by Vince on Sep. 03 2010,19:46

(TheCatt @ Sep. 03 2010,08:09)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 03 2010,09:05)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Sep. 03 2010,08:27)

QUOTE

I don't think I could ever quite grasp how something has come from nothing.

LET THERE BE LIGHT.

Well, right. Supernatural being or spontaneous generation of matter -> Either is pretty much magic to me.

I've thought for years the the whole "dark universe" (dark matter, dark energy, dark protons, dark iPods) was the scientific worlds version of God.

"Well no... there's absolutely no proof that these things are out there, but they allow us to answer important questions like'Why don't my equations work?'"

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 03 2010,19:51

As long as we are aware that while dark matter is in the realm of theoretical physics, there is, as was mentioned earlier, mountains of evidence supporting theory of evolution, and not a single bit of evidence that can positively disprove it. If there was, 'evolution' would be declared incorrect.

Posted by Vince on Sep. 04 2010,05:04

I agree that evolution happens, but this has always been one of those fields where the more we learn the less we know.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2010,07:40

I don't necessarily agree with that. The more we learn, the more the theory of evolution is supported.

Used to be we could only observe what was out there, and how interacted with its environment. Then we started incorporating the fossil record, and the evidence was there. Then we discovered DNA, and evolution was supported there. Then we discovered RNA and mRNA, and it was supported there. Things check and cross check and it can be amazing to see the puzzle come together.

The only thing that says it doesn't work is the bible, and that is vague on what it actually says if you don't take it literally; GOD CREATED THE BEASTS OF THE LAND AND THE FISH OF THE SEA AND SAID FOR THEM TO BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. But he never DIDN'T say "and evolution is how I will do it..." so whatever. It gives religious people an 'out' to still accept science.

Biology on earth works because the laws of the physical universe allow it to work. It is complex, but we are talking about an unfathomable amount of time in which to experiment with an unfathomable amount of mutation. No human can wrap their head around it except as a big picture, but the mountains of evidence are there. Literally mountains, if everything humans have learned about evolution of life on this planet were to all be written down. Versus... a Book, and millions of people who never took Biology 141 and who have in the past been known to burn other books that disagreed with their Book.

When I hear someone say, "All I know is that I didn't come from a monkey," all I hear is, "I am ignorant and may someday be a threat to you if you challenge my world view to which I cling so dearly, because there are more of me than there are of you. God said suffer not a witch to live."

Posted by Vince on Sep. 04 2010,10:42

(GORDON @ Sep. 04 2010,09:40)

QUOTE

I don't necessarily agree with that. The more we learn, the more the theory of evolution is supported.

And I don't disagree with that. But the more we learn, the less we understand about the mechanics of it.

As you look at the fossil record, there are relatively short amounts of time (in geological terms) where a huge amount of new and diverse species suddenly appear and long stretches of time where not a lot changes in the makeup of animals.

Then there's the bat, which was always confusing to Darwin's supporters. Before anything resembling flight occured with bats, they went through an amount of time where not only would half formed wings be of absolutely no benefit to the creature, but they'd have actually been a hinderance to survival. Imagine us with 4 foot long fingers dragging behind us while being chased by a tiger.

A few years ago they said they think they found the gene that got flipped in bats that would have allowed them to form fully functional wings in just a handful of generations. I don't have any reason to say they're wrong, but that really doesn't fit neatly into what to that point had been our understanding of evolution.

All I'm saying is that at this point we have the understanding of the process that a 4 year old has of a gun. They know you point it and pull the trigger and it makes a big bang and puts a hole in what you're aiming at, but the mechanics of gun powder and propulsion and the swirl of the inside of the gun barrel and everything else aren't understood yet.

That being said, I hope if my Autobot gene ever gets flipped I get to turn into a fire truck, because that would be kind of cool.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2010,12:51

QUOTE

I agree that evolution happens, but this has always been one of those fields where the more we learn the less we know.

What? By definition, the more you learn about something, the less remains unknown -- unless you've got a very Lord Kelvin-like view of "what you don't know" actually is.

QUOTE

And I don't disagree with that. But the more we learn, the less we understand about the mechanics of it.

So ... the more new things we learn, the more we learn there's all kinds of other crap related to it that we didn't know about before? That seems only logical since we're trying to understand in a couple hundred years what happened over the course of a couple hundred million (at least).

QUOTE

As you look at the fossil record, there are relatively short amounts of time (in geological terms) where a huge amount of new and diverse species suddenly appear and long stretches of time where not a lot changes in the makeup of animals.

Assloads of meteorological and geographical phenomena, coupled with the fact that we'll pretty much always be missing some part of the fossil record.

QUOTE

Before anything resembling flight occured with bats, they went through an amount of time where not only would half formed wings be of absolutely no benefit to the creature, but they'd have actually been a hinderance to survival.

Natural selection isn't survival of the fittest; it's the survival of the most prolific. Your species (given that climate & geography) might be able to survive a worthless trait or two provided they can reproduce enough or avoid predators with enough frequency. Even definitively calling something a "hindrance" is sketchy at best. Animals find all kinds of clever ways to use weird-ass evolutionary traits. Zoologists discover "new" natural behaviour in modern animals all the time. The fact that we find evidence of a trait in the fossil record means there's a decent chance it wasn't completely worthless. We simply haven't figured out its purpose yet and might never be able to.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2010,13:01

And even if your autobot gene got flipped, that would be just a mutation, not evolution. Evolution is defined as a change in the traits of a population over time. You, as a firetruck, would never be able to pass on your autobot gene, because, even as a human, you are unattractive to women.

Posted by Vince on Sep. 06 2010,04:49

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand...

Would bats growing wings have been a mutation or evolution?

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 06 2010,09:08

This is just speculation. Often there were thought exercises in bio class that were "speculate why this trait would aid in survival," and I always came up with good suggestions, but then the 'correct' answer was still better than what I came up with.

I doubt one day there was a mouse that didn't have wings but one day grew wings. Mutation typically doesn't behave like a comic book where a person is bitten by a radioactive spider and somehow that venom rewrites the DNA of every cell in the body in exactly the same way. Typically mutation happens before birth when a random bit of information in the sperm or egg is changed by a random happenstance. A lot of things can alter a single molecule inside a body.

So I bet one day there was a mouse that had babies, and one of them had a mutation with webbed arms, like how some humans are born with webbed fingers and toes. This particular webbed mouse was able to escape from predators because it figured out that it's webbed fingers/arms/whatever would break a fall if it jumped from the top of a tree. This specimen lived to reproduce, and all of the offspring had webbing just like its parent. Those webbed offspring also had the "can escape from predators by jumping from high places" advantage.

Eventually, when there was a big population of webbed mice, another mutation increased the amount of that webbing so it actually worked like the wings of a bird, a concept known as "convergent evolution." Bees and hawks both have wings and fly, but that doesn't mean they are closely related.

Maybe around this time the echolocation mutation happened, some were born with really good hearing and were able to detect their squeaks bouncing off of bugs, and these flying mice now had a 'food gathering' advantage. Over time this favorable trait bred true and was strengthened.

Interesting to note: all mammals generally have the same bone structure. One bone int he upper arm, 2 in the lower arm, differentiated wrist, hand, and finger bones, all in the same proportions. RIb cage, pelvis, backbone. One bone in the upper leg, 2 in the lower, etc. This applies to bats. They have the same number of fingers and bones as a human, just shaped differently, and some may be fused. But they are all there and there are no open mysteries about where bats fit on the tree of life.

People don't just wake up one day and find their "autobot gene has been switched on," just like how there's no actual working lab process that would allow the venom of a spider bite to rewrite the DNA in every cell you have. These things typically happen gradually within a population, and from birth.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 06 2010,11:41

(Vince @ Sep. 06 2010,06:49)

QUOTE

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand...

Would bats growing wings have been a mutation or evolution?

Mutation is a random thing that happens when one or more bits of DNA get copied slightly differently from one generation to the next. It's one mechanism that can affect the evolution of a species. It appears to be the only thing that can inject random (yet occasionally constructive) chaos into the process, though.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 06 2010,20:55

Followed a link on MSN about something and it took me to The Huffington Post where I found < this article > which is relevant to this discussion.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 07 2010,05:09

QUOTE

If the universe is accidental, there is no God and life has no meaning - it's just an accident. But if the universe is intentional, then there is God and, yes, life has a meaning.

If you depend upon something for the entire meaning of your life, you're probably going to believe it exists, regardless of anything.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 07 2010,07:02

As to the bat thing, as Gordon expressed there are many many steps between mouse and bat that are useful to the evolving proto-bat. I wouldn't be surprised if in another few thousands of years the flying squirrel convergently evolves into another sort of bat.

Although, it's important to note that that doesn't mean there would be no more flying squirrels. Because evolution isn't about a species changing over time as a unit, it's about individuals and their variation. The whole idea of species is often very blurry. Sometimes kids are different than their parents, and sometimes those kids are more successful, and when that happens the average description of what we call a member of the species has changed slightly. That's all evolution is.

As to there being no purpose without God, I call bullshit for two reasons:
1) It's possible to have purpose without God; at a minimum "go have kids better than yourself who then evolve the species" is one way to look at it, and
2) even if there is a God that doesn't imply purpose at all, depending on the nature of the god in question. You have to postulate a god that cares about your purpose in order to have it mean that God = purpose, so it's all very circular and illogical.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 07 2010,08:19

(Leisher @ Sep. 06 2010,22:55)

QUOTE

Followed a link on MSN about something and it took me to The Huffington Post where I found < this article > which is relevant to this discussion.

QUOTE

First, science deals with God not as a supernatural entity, but as something natural.

If that's true, then it's worth noting there's NOTHING in all of existence we know of that happens just once. One cosmic being statistically implies the existence of lots of others.

QUOTE

If the universe is accidental, there is no God and life has no meaning - it's just an accident.

Plainly false. God doesn't give life its only possible meaning. Alternatives have been pointed out. Insects don't have religion (as far as we know), but bees still pollinate flowers w\o it & that seems good enough for them.

QUOTE

And it shows, using recent scientific data, that the universe is fine-tuned for life...

Uh, whoa. If you were to take a random member of a random species from this planet (or any other, I'd argue, if you'd care to take it that far) & drop it at a random point in the universe, there's a strong, strong chance that critter will end up dead in a few seconds. There's probably more than a few places where life can survive & even flourish, but there's lots more places that snuff it out.

QUOTE

In fact, quantum theory tells us that things are so bizarre that particles only decide in which place they are when we look at them. If we accept these weird concepts, why don't we accept a simpler evidence: that the universe is intentional?

Because we've got mathematically backed, reproducible experiments which back the theory certain particles behave in weird-ass ways. Unless you can find design plans for the universe that look to predate the Big Bang, I'm not buying into any intentional design. I'm not buying into the fact that there's some all-powerful cosmic engineer that can create all things & this is the best he could do.

Posted by Vince on Sep. 10 2010,05:02

< The Bat Autobot gene. >

You won't scoff at me when I'm a firetruck that runs over your ass.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2010,05:28

This is < The Banana Argument, > which was used for a long time by creationists as proof that God Did it.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 10 2010,05:59

(Vince @ Sep. 10 2010,08:02)

QUOTE

< The Bat Autobot gene. >

You won't scoff at me when I'm a firetruck that runs over your ass.

So... that shows that our understanding of evolution is growing, and we're learning more about it all the time.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 10 2010,09:45

Yeah, what about the bat thing is weird? Changes tend to happen gradually over time, but there's nothing that prevents some (from a species perspective) semi-cataclysmic event that wipes out lots of your brethren, except for the few w\ that one odd mutation.

Posted by DoctorChaos on Sep. 10 2010,14:03

So based on that article, pigs do fly?

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 10 2010,14:56

If you flip the right genes on and off and allow for a few generations of intense selection, then yes, pigs can indeed fly.

Posted by Vince on Sep. 11 2010,04:16

(TheCatt @ Sep. 10 2010,07:59)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Sep. 10 2010,08:02)

QUOTE

< The Bat Autobot gene. >

You won't scoff at me when I'm a firetruck that runs over your ass.

So... that shows that our understanding of evolution is growing, and we're learning more about it all the time.

That was kind of my point from the beginning.

We are just getting past the fundamentals. We know a lot less than we don't know.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2010,14:55

"Religious ceremony forces fish to evolve or die."

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....science >

So... these fish... one day they are stunned by this anesthesia, and then all of a sudden their autobot gene gets flipped and they are immune?

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 13 2010,16:38

Not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that switches are randomly flipped all the time in little increments, and some switches help them with tolerance to the stuff. Those with more tolerance live longer and thus have more kids.

The process they're doing is much like was done to dogs and most cultivated crops. They're just doing it on accident and selecting for one specific trait.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 13 2010,16:48

(GORDON @ Sep. 13 2010,17:55)

QUOTE

That isn't evolution, it's < selective breeding. > But I'm guessing that was your point.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 13 2010,17:06

That's still evolution. Just artificial evolution where "fittest" is defined by the people doing the breeding instead of natural forces.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2010,18:05

I was being sort of facetious with the above post. Vince mentioned "the autobot gene" in a facetious way, so I was sort of parroting that.

Evolution is the change in the traits of a population over time.

Individuals do not evolve.

And selective breeding is indeed a force of change in a population.

I enjoy stumbling upon these random instances of evolution where it can be directly observed and measured. You hear about them from time to time.