Exactly my point.
Revelation is starting to make some sense..
- Thread starter Fractals 'R Us
- Start date
Exactly my point.
1) What specific facts are you referring to, that scientists used to back up their hypothesis concerning the macroevolution of any species? Use any example you want.
2) What specific hypothesis, concerning macroevolution, are you reffering to that has been proven? Again, use any example you want.
Although you probably won't understand the content:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2410209?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101736590407
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703003835
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2409766?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101736590407
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/338370?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101736590407
There are a lot more...
Yes, deltastrike, I' ve read over those webpages many times before.
I'd like for you to set aside some time to closely read over this one. Try to suffer through all of it.
Point out some of what you think is wrong or flawed.
I'm being open-minded with most of you guys' comments. Really.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Edit: I do lean towards the multiple-origins theory that piezoe referred to, as it lines up more with what I believe is the truth.
1. Stu I am still waiting for you to present your present your science that life came from non life..
you have have been lying your ass off for years.
my statement is the same as yours for the purposes of a fricken paraphrase on a message board.
you are not bill clinton...
2. finally your dime store troll debating is ridiculous.
when something appears designed a logical possibility is that there is a designer.
Which is why I have presented penrose, susskind, and noble prize winners telling you our universe appears designed.
for you to compare that science and logic to a random assertion about spaghetti monsters proves you an idiot (technical definition) or a troll.
you have have been lying your ass off for years.
my statement is the same as yours for the purposes of a fricken paraphrase on a message board.
you are not bill clinton...
2. finally your dime store troll debating is ridiculous.
when something appears designed a logical possibility is that there is a designer.
Which is why I have presented penrose, susskind, and noble prize winners telling you our universe appears designed.
for you to compare that science and logic to a random assertion about spaghetti monsters proves you an idiot (technical definition) or a troll.
a. http://www.economist.com/node/21558248
"The constant gardener
One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.
Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."
b. hawking..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
c. carr...
âIf there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008)
d. penrose... in writing...
http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
penrose video...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Summary...
I have provided dozens of quotes and videos from other top scientists.
so given our current understanding it is widely and almost universally accepted that our universe appears fine tuned.
The question is what the explanation...
given what science understands now...
a. we really are incredibly fine tuned because there is a Tuner; or
b. perhaps there are almost infinite other universes... so our is not so special. (note this is pure speculation.)
c. we will someday find a reason why our constants are so tuned.... via a theory of everything...(although... then the question might still be... does it take a tuner.
d. there are a very small number of scientists who do not buy into the fine tunings..... but I will bet that with the finding of the higgs boson... there are even fewer.
"The constant gardener
One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.
Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world."
b. hawking..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
...
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
c. carr...
âIf there is only one universe,â British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, âyou might have to have a fine-tuner. If you donât want God, youâd better have a multiverse.â (Discover, December 2008)
d. penrose... in writing...
http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
penrose video...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Summary...
I have provided dozens of quotes and videos from other top scientists.
so given our current understanding it is widely and almost universally accepted that our universe appears fine tuned.
The question is what the explanation...
given what science understands now...
a. we really are incredibly fine tuned because there is a Tuner; or
b. perhaps there are almost infinite other universes... so our is not so special. (note this is pure speculation.)
c. we will someday find a reason why our constants are so tuned.... via a theory of everything...(although... then the question might still be... does it take a tuner.
d. there are a very small number of scientists who do not buy into the fine tunings..... but I will bet that with the finding of the higgs boson... there are even fewer.
I choose "C".
You know what also looks fine tuned? Spiral galaxies and butterflies.
I mean, how does a butterfly do it? A tiny computer with eyes and chemical sensors and wings and an engine, weighs a few grams, navigates and flies thousands of miles. Can zip through a thick forest without hitting things. Amazing. That natural forces and time alone can design such a thing boggles the mind and makes even the most hardened atheist wonder.
Perhaps we should think of origin in terms of location rather than the chemistry, which must be much the same at each location. Think perhaps of 10<sup>x</sup> locations where there was favorable chemistry and where x might be a surprisingly large number. Of course if the reaction conditions at each location were similar, the reactants were similar, and the physical laws the same of course, one would expect similar products. This kind of thinking makes what might otherwise seem highly improbable a little less so.
Orgel always allowed for the possibility, I think he thought it was a very small one, that our planet, might have been seeded by a meteorite, or even intentionally from another planet in another solar system. That always seemed far fetched to me, but we are now in a position where it might be possible for us to intentionally "seed" another planet if we can identify a planet with the potential to support life and reach it. Fifty years ago this would have been bizarre thinking, but maybe not so much today.
There must be thousands of other planets with life similar to that on Earth. And it is very likely based on carbon. (M.J.S. Dewar made a convincing argument why carbon is the element on which life is based in a paper entitled "Why Life Exists" . It's a wonderful paper. It also makes a very sound argument, in my opinion, for why elementary college texts are wrong about third period elements making use of d-orbitals. So far as I know, this error persists still today in General Chemistry texts!
You can read the whole paper here for free. http://www.palisadessd.org/cms/lib03/PA01000106/Centricity/Domain/232/WhyLifeExists.pdf
But you might need a little chemistry knowledge to make sense of it.
Rapid sequencing of genomes today is telling us who is related to who or what, and revealing our evolutionary past. As it turns out we are very closely related to both pigs and chimps. And I suppose that explains much of our behavior.