North American Man Boy Love Association (Turned Evolution)

[dissent]

The Big-Bang theory is irrelevant to evolutionary theory, and vice versa. Once there was something biological for selection to act on, then discussion of natural selection becomes appropriate. And the use of the word \"advanced\" ought to be avoided IMHO. It implies an arrow or direction to evolution that is not part of scientific discussion of the theory. Evolution is really just the observed success of adaptation - well adapted life forms succeed and poorly adapted ones don't do so well. Change the environment in the right way, and then, voila, those (previously) less successful life forms could find themselves to be the better adapted ones.

[Bet51987]

.

[flip]

No sorry it cannot be irrelevant. it may be irrelevant to the theoretical study of evolution, but something has to explain the beginnings of life itself and that's my point. It's an incomplete science still with no real answers. To just accept it as fact would be a mistake and much of the evidence is subject to interpretation considering ones philosophy. I myself never said life from inanimate matter, that was in the quote I provided, but it does present a challenge. Big Bang is taught as being the best we have at this point and then a huge leap is made to the point of biological life. But the Big Bang teaches just that, life from inanimate matter and is the widely accepted scientific theory. It is used as the big accident that started everything then all other theories go from there. Here's an interesting read: This is Ken Miller debating Phillip Johnson on evolution through a series of letters with no clear winner.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/

Still I think if were gonna try and figure out how life evolved into what we see today, trying to pin down the very beginning is crucial. So far the Big Bang theory attests that life came through inanimate matter and contrary to what your saying, evolution is built upon this being true.

[Heretic]

How can you have any evolution with out the big bang? That isn't right. Seriously, irrelevant hardly. Ok throw out the big bang. The other theories for life on earth are

1 Spontaneous generation.

2 Panspermia talks about life be deposited on our planet from outer space via asteroids or comets.

3 Chemical evolution the transformation of simple atoms and molecules to produce life. Something from inanimate.

Oh wait no big bang no life.

[Heretic]

Well said from Heretic's link... "Many people have been raised to accept unquestioningly certain principles, one of which is that life originated by means of a God or gods. The theological or philosophical idea that life resulted from such a supernatural process is a belief. Admittedly, it might be a perfectly good belief, but it remains just that—a belief—for no unambiguous information, acceptable in a laboratory of science or a court of law, confirms the creation of life by a supernatural being or beings. Scientists have no clear data whatsoever supporting the idea that someone or something deposited already-made life on planet Earth long ago. Furthermore, we have no known way to test experimentally the idea that divine intervention created life.

The belief that life suddenly arose by means of some vitalistic process is outside the realm of modern science. Today’s scientific method, which is a philosophy of approach based on reasoned logic bolstered by experimental and observational tests, cannot be used to study supernatural ideas for the origin of life. Accordingly, such ideas, unprovable even in principle, seem destined to remain beliefs forever, hence beyond the subject of science."

I'm glad you're reading that link I hope you finish the whole thing.

[flip]

A key process in evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into multiple new species. There are several modes through which this occurs. Ultimately, all living (and extinct) species are descended from a common ancestor via a long series of speciation events. These events stretch back in a diverse \"tree of life\" which has grown over the 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on Earth

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years

I guess this is what I'm trying to get at. The widely accepted belief is that the earth existed for around a billion years before life existed. Are they saying that's a billion years of no life and then a billion years later life spontaneously exists? Well that would have to mean that all of the sudden, after a billion or so years life erupts. Well that's life from inanimate matter. Then the very basis of evolution is that when this life erupts it is a \"single ancestral species\" with no other kind but itself that branches off, or speciates into all other living creatures. Am I right so far?

[flip]

Then I start to wonder this. This \"single ancestral species\" that erupts after a billion years of no life. Was that just one single eruption from inanimate matter or did this eruption happen all over at once? One eruption or a billion?

[null0010]

I'm no expert, but I seem to recall from my high school biology class that life arose as a byproduct of the elements in the earth's atmosphere interacting with lightning; I also recall that scientific experiments have verified that this is plausible (I do not have a source on hand for this but I will try to find one).

[Heretic]

I heard that to when I was in school 30 some odd years ago. This article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31897306/ns ... e-science/

I also remember Victor Von Frankenstein use lightning to create life. (disclaimer: Just a Joke People Nothing More)

[dissent]

yes, the Big Bang theory is (essentially) irrelevant - to evolution. Also irrelevant to abiogenesis. The Big Bang happened billions of years before our solar system came into existence. Abiogenesis occurred with whatever elements were present in the early Earth system. Selection (and evolution) occurred once there was something that would respond to selection pressures.

The only relevance of the Big Bang is the nature of the physical forces and distribution of chemical elements created in the early universe

Evolution would still be a perfectly fine theory even in Fred Hoyle's steady state universe. Hence, Big Bang not required.

Granted that theories of abiogenesis are not as well founded as evolution itself. Just like doing family history, it is a lot easier to start from the present and work your way back into the past that to try to start in the distant past and work your way towards the present. I wouldn't try to make sense of evolution because of what we know, or don't know, about abiogensis.

[Heretic]

Didn't Fred Hoyle start out as an atheist then start believing that there was a guiding hand behind evolution? Don't people who believe in the intelligent design hypothesis cite his work? In fact don't evolutionary biologists reject his odds of cellular life evolving statements?

[flip]

When I cited Fred Hoyle it was as a mathematician, not a biologist.

it is a lot easier to start from the present and work your way back into the past that to try to start in the distant past and work your way towards the present.

See this is a difference in philosophies we hold. You see the house of cards, I see the foundation it was built on.

[Ferno]

Maybe I don't believe because of the blind faith others put in to the scientific theory of evolution and the total disregard any evidence to the contrary

Faith implies a belief. Science is based on testing an observation.

At one time there was nothingness. The a huge explosion called the Big Bang happened and created the Universe and all it's elements.

If you read up on string theory and quantum theory, you'll see that they have hypothesized that the universe didn't come from one big bang, but rather an old universe collapsing into a single point and then rapidly expanding... like one giant cycle.

[Tunnelcat]

You have to watch this episode of Futurama. They put the cyclical universe theory to the test.

http://futuramaepisode.org/episode-9-a- ... rk-origin/

[Heretic]

You have to watch this episode of Futurama. They put the cyclical universe theory to the test.

http://futuramaepisode.org/episode-9-a- ... rk-origin/

That was one of their funniest.

[Heretic]

At one time there was nothingness. The a huge explosion called the Big Bang happened and created the Universe and all it's elements.

If you read up on string theory and quantum theory, you'll see that they have hypothesized that the universe didn't come from one big bang, but rather an old universe collapsing into a single point and then rapidly expanding... like one giant cycle.

I thought it was a theoretical object called a brane. That decayed in to closed loops via a big bang type event. That may or may not been cause by a collision of two branes and created normal matter in the universe. Wasn't string theory replaced by M-theory also which is just an updated version of string?

[Ferno]

Wasn't string theory replaced by M-theory also which is just an updated version of string?

Both. But instead of an updated, it's an extension of string theory.

[dissent]

See this is a difference in philosophies we hold. You see the house of cards, I see the foundation it was built on.

Again, I still don't see the point. Big Bang or origin of the universe stuff has no impact whatsoever on whether or not evolution can plausibly explain the diversity of life on this planet. It's not foundational to evolution at all. The evidence for evolution is independent of any of this origins discussion.

However, the thread is now morphing to branes and string theory. Who knows what's next.

[flip]

I abandoned Big Bang with this post:

I guess this is what I'm trying to get at. The widely accepted belief is that the earth existed for around a billion years before life existed. Are they saying that's a billion years of no life and then a billion years later life spontaneously exists? Well that would have to mean that all of the sudden, after a billion or so years life erupts. Well that's life from inanimate matter. Then the very basis of evolution is that when this life erupts it is a \"single ancestral species\" with no other kind but itself that branches off, or speciates into all other living creatures. Am I right so far?

[AlphaDoG]

See this is a difference in philosophies we hold. You see the house of cards, I see the foundation it was built on.

Again, I still don't see the point. Big Bang or origin of the universe stuff has no impact whatsoever on whether or not evolution can plausibly explain the diversity of life on this planet. It's not foundational to evolution at all. The evidence for evolution is independent of any of this origins discussion.

However, the thread is now morphing to branes and string theory. Who knows what's next.

Zombies!

[Heretic]

I guess it has gone on long enough. Might as well throw this in to complete the subject matter. After 219 post not one mention of Nazis.