Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend

[stu]

there is no proof for you at all there. pure speculation. I quote "maybe there was something there before the big bang." Just like we have been saying. Of course "before" may not be the correct term.

Quite obviously you don't understand a what parody is when you see it

one of the guys who discovered DNA realized that it was so complicated there was very little chance in developed here on earth by random chance

That would be Francis Crick, Nobel prize winning co-discoverer of the DNA molecule structure, who changed his mind back in the 1990's, in regard to 1billion years being too short a timeframe. He decided in light of a later discovery that RNA, the precursor to DNA, has enzymatic properties, life could have indeed originated on Earth after all.

And even that it still does not really explain whey our universe also seems to be so incredibley fine tuned for life.

Holes don't really explain why puddles seem to be so incredibly fine tuned to fit so well in them either.
That is of course, until you actually think about it.

 

[oldnemesis]

Holes don't really explain why puddles seem to be so incredibly fine tuned to fit so well in them either.
That is of course, until you actually think about it

GREAT!!

 

[jem]

why don't you explain your parody... because you presented it as proof from BBC.

I know who Crick is... I presented the links to you more than once.

So one again its Stu vs science. weren't you the guy distorting science and telling us the cosmological constant is zero?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[1][12]

• N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]
• Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[13]If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[12][10]
• Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12][14]
• Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms ofPlanck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]
• Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
• D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.[12]

 

[WeToddDid2]

Now the BBC no less, shows there's proof God was not the creator at the point where religion and science meats...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfgfq


did you see that!! The universe was Noodled into existence!

You still believe in the big bag? It is very ironic that the only way the big bang could have occurred is if physics did not exist at the time of the big bang which is the science they are trying to use to prove that it did occur.

Whoever produced that video and you obviously didn't see the below article.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[piezoe]

"beginning to understand" why do you so frequently have to make such unfounded self aggrandizing statements. Its annoying having to correct your specious crap. you just waste both our time.


If you go back and read some of the arguments I have had with Stu on this subject... you see I was talking about that fact one of the guys who discovered DNA realized that it was so complicated there was very little chance in developed here on earth by random chance, so he wrote a paper about Pan Spermia. (I probably wrote that 6 to 7 years ago. I have presented papers and quotes for the top guys in the field on this subject ever since then.

I agree the programming does not have to come from a Creator but it seems almost impossible that it was create by random chance in the limited amount of time the evolution from non life to life could have happened. Pushing the evolution back into space only buys you a small bit of time.

And even that it still does not really explain whey our universe also seems to be so incredibley fine tuned for life.

Well I gave you too much credit, that's all. Obviously you have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "random" in its statistical sense. Random means random in order of observation. It doesn't mean anything can happen.

For example when you draw a card from 52 cards thoroughly mixed in a hat the probability of a particular draw is determined by the makeup of the cards. There is nothing random about it. It is fixed. The order in which the observations are made of which particular card has been drawn is what's random. In other words, you might draw two Jacks in a row one time and then next time draw a two of diamonds followed by an ace of spades. The probability of drawing any of these cards, however, is fixed by the cards themselves.

And so it is in nature. What can happen is entirely fixed by the laws of chemistry and physics there is nothing random about THAT! Everything is highly determined from the outset, i.e., highly constrained. And that makes the spontaneous development of life vastly more probably than some might think! As long as you have the elements of the first four periods of the periodic table present and you have suitable conditions of time, temperature, concentration, and aided by perhaps a suitable substrate, you will have many trillions of instances on both our planet and in the universe where organisms develop and evolve. You won't be able to avoid it! Mother Nature will insist!

If you were to catalog every organism on the Earth today, which naturally you can not, and live a billion years, which naturally you can not, and then once again catalog every organism on the planet, you would find huge numbers of organisms that were in your original catalog that are no longer present. And too, there would be huge numbers of new organisms. I will assure you without any reservation whatsoever that that is the case, and challenge you to disprove what I say.

There is your your God, Jem, the chemical and physical laws. That is "the creator," the intelligent designer you've been searching for. But it's a pointless search, like looking for your glasses when they are resting on your nose.

 

[wildchild]

Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species', he did not write the 'The Origin of Life'. It seems that neither Creationists nor Non-Creationists understand that Darwin's work was never intended to explain the mechanism that changed the Earth from a planet with no life, to a planet with life.

 

[piezoe]

That's right. However Darwin's hypotheses for which there seems to be much support in observation, the basis for Darwin's his ideas, and nowadays in DNA sequences, is not an issue here. As stu has pointed out, evolution of species is an issue apart from whether inanimate elements and molecules may combine to form organisms, and whether this is probable or not.

 

[achilles28]

Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species', he did not write the 'The Origin of Life'. It seems that neither Creationists nor Non-Creationists understand that Darwin's work was never intended to explain the mechanism that changed the Earth from a planet with no life, to a planet with life.

Except that's exactly what teachers do when they teach a class in evolutionary biology....

So perhaps you should notify Universities, Colleges and High Schools across the country and let them know Darwins evolution doesn't extend to the origin of life......

I would also add many evolutionists assert life came from nothing. The "primordial soup" as they like to call it. So that's not really accurate, either.

Evolution has come a long way since Darwin. It's Darwin 2.0 (aka Atheism).

 

[stu]

why don't you explain your parody... because you presented it as proof from BBC.

If you need a parody to be explained then you don't understand parody.
If you need me to explain why the BBC put the FSM (Pasta Be Upon Him) where you imagine a God to be and why I called it proof, then as far as things go, you resemble the intellect of a five year old.

I know who Crick is... I presented the links to you more than once.

yep you know who Crick was so well you referred to him as "one of the guys who discovered DNA" .

And you present links alright, but in the same way a pet cat presents dead birds into the living room. You really haven't a clue what you've done or what any of it means.

You keep trying to make a big deal about DNA structure not having enough time to develop on Earth due to comments made by Crick, though he quickly rescinded his assessment on hearing new discoveries in the properties of RNA.

So one again its Stu vs science. weren't you the guy distorting science and telling us the cosmological constant is zero?

I said the CC could/might be zero, not that it IS zero. For a long time now you've portrayed a distinctly severe problem recognizing words and their meaning.

You must imagine Sean Carrol is distorting science too...
"The value of the cosmological constant in our present universe is not known, and may be zero, although there is some evidence for a nonzero value; " Sean Carroll Preposterous Universe

For all your "presenting of links" you have an astonishingly low level of knowledge about any of this. But of course you need to stay that way to allow for that "Creator".

 

[stu]

You still believe in the big bag?

On a personal note I've never thought about belief in big bags, but more generally I find no necessity to either believe or not believe in the big bang.

It is very ironic that the only way the big bang could have occurred is if physics did not exist at the time of the big bang which is the science they are trying to use to prove that it did occur.

It is not known what did exist and what did not exist, what laws of physics were or were not present at big bang.
Whether the Universe started to exist or existed forever is for me a scientific question to be answered.
It's perfectly possible existing laws of physics might well explain what happened.
However the art of concocting philosophical questions or remarks similar to yours which merely assume and don't explain, and are basically intended never to be answered, sit more in the realm of religion than physics.