humans evolving from monkeys

[kbc_1963]

Ahhh, but here is where you are wrong. By just putting the amino acids (common ones, found in many places, especially thermal vents) togethor and simulating thermal vents, they have seen amino acids turn into self-promoting proteins. Not by intelligent design, but by nature, albeit in a simulated environment.

Can you show me empirical proof of this or was everything setup including all the chemicals that would be required to build the actual protien.

 

[kbc_1963]

Something tells me that this neat question is really a strategem to increase your deity's elbow room.

Why yes it is, I have no qualms about admission of intent

Only kidding. The Strong Nuclear Force between particles keeps them in place with neutrons acting as a kind of "glue" to keep protons in the nucleus. Electromagnetic forces keep the electrons in their orbits.

I was also aware of the current understanding of how things are working but, my question goes beyond just saying a generic term like nuclear force. our planet circles the sun in a similar fashion as electrons circle a nucleous and yet we know that over time we will fall into the sun. so in my eternal ignorance I wonder how those electrons are powered to keep an absolute stable orbit unto infinity without an influx of energy to keep it stabilized. the fact that any transfer of energy is imperfect and there is always a loss in the transfer begs to be applied in the area of the atom and yet it seems that that law can't be applied there as the atoms defy the laws that govern the rest of the universe.
Electromagnetic forces as far as I understand pull things to themselves so what stops the electron from diving into the center of the atom?
The patent office states that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine based on those same laws but everything is made up of perpetual motion machines at the level of the atom, I can't seem to get past the fact that energy is energy no matter the amount so where is entrophy for the atom.
I do not have an answer for this, it is just a thing that I have always wondered and it never seems to have a satisfactory answer.

 

[painted wolf]

um, actually electrons rather than falling into the protons eventually fly off the atom this is called atomic decay. The fact is that electrons also produce forces against the protons in an electromagnetic way... its called repulsion. Magnets not only pull they push. Atoms are not perpetual motion machines they decay like everything elce, allbeit at a slower rate.

Atomic decay is a basic idea in chemistry.

wa:do

 

[meogi]

our planet circles the sun in a similar fashion as electrons circle a nucleous and yet we know that over time we will fall into the sun.

I'm curious where you get the idea? Because as far as we know, the earth's orbit has been stable for over 4 billion years, and will be stable for at least the next 5 billion. At which point, the sun will turn into a red giant and engulf the earth. So rather than falling into the sun, the sun will run into us.

I wonder how those electrons are powered to keep an absolute stable orbit unto infinity

They arn't, they do decay. Very, very, very, very slowly in some cases. And what exactly is your understanding of infinity? As far as I know, we can't even comprehend something that is infinite. So to give something infinite time to do something seems kind of pointless, because odds (not even odds, it will happen) are, that everything will have happened in an infinite time frame.

 

[kbc_1963]

'm curious where you get the idea? Because as far as we know, the earth's orbit has been stable for over 4 billion years, and will be stable for at least the next 5 billion. At which point, the sun will turn into a red giant and engulf the earth. So rather than falling into the sun, the sun will run into us.

as near as I have learned from science based papers our orbit around the sun changes year by year, how much I don't know exactly but at some point it is believed that all orbiting bodies will be pulled in. I will try and look up those articles that refer to that idea and post them. I have also read about the red giant idea and I alway thought to myself that gravity is relative to mass so as the sun grew in size wouldn't that create more of a gravitational force and literally overcome our semi stable orbit and force us into an ever faster decaying orbit? In my mind it would take a long time before the sun got to its biggest size and if we say that at its current size we are in a stable orbit oround it then as the sun grew it would then create a decaying orbit for earth and we would fall into it before it could reach out and touch us.

They arn't, they do decay. Very, very, very, very slowly in some cases. And what exactly is your understanding of infinity?

as far as I understand the science the atoms only go to their lowest possible state but never fall apart into just their component parts. so the question would be do atoms decay to nothingness? this is not something I have an extensive understanding of and it is meant more in a quest to understand way here. the infinity I was refering to is that science has never observed an atom disintegrate om its own but they seem to say that an atom is forever only changing states as energy is added or lost.

 

[painted wolf]

actually scientists have oberved atomic decay. Both with natual unstable elements such as sodium, uranium and others. Radiation is caused by atomic decay and is easily observed in nature with a simple giger-counter or other similer device.

some examples:
http://www.chemlin.de/news/aug04/20040818e01.htm
http://159.93.28.88/popeko/second.html
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/decayrate.htm

Hope this helps

wa:do

 

[Mister Emu]

Far too tired to read those pages .

I believe the question kbc asked was:

Can an atom decay down to it's components. Free protons, nuetrons, and electrons I believe

 

[meogi]

First off, your analogy of atoms and solar systems is off. They are not similar, the nuclear strong force along with electromagnetic force cause things to act a lot differently than our solar system. But onto the star stuff (did some research).

how much I don't know exactly but at some point it is believed that all orbiting bodies will be pulled in.

Actually, as the sun uses up more and more of it's hydrogen, the gravitational pull will slowly decrease, and we'll end up slightly farther from the sun than we are now. (1 year will turn into about 1 year + a week or two)

I will try and look up those articles that refer to that idea and post them.

Excellent, thanks.

I have also read about the red giant idea and I alway thought to myself that gravity is relative to mass so as the sun grew in size wouldn't that create more of a gravitational force and literally overcome our semi stable orbit and force us into an ever faster decaying orbit?

Sure, but the sun's gonna expand a hell of a lot faster than the gravity is gonna suck us in. Think nuclear explosion, but the blast radius is gonna 'end' right around mars' orbit.

In my mind it would take a long time before the sun got to its biggest size and if we say that at its current size we are in a stable orbit oround it then as the sun grew it would then create a decaying orbit for earth and we would fall into it before it could reach out and touch us.

Well, it wont take a long time.

the infinity I was refering to is that science has never observed an atom disintegrate om its own but they seem to say that an atom is forever only changing states as energy is added or lost.

I'm curious to where you hear that an atom is forever? I've never heard of that (I could be ignorant of the fact). Atoms break up all the time (look at our sun, or any nuclear reaction). I'm guessing what you're looking for is an atom, just sitting there, doing nothing but spinning around. I honestly don't know if anyone has ever tried this or not... getting an atom to sit by itself with no outside forces acting on it, well... doesn't seem possible. Thing is, there are not atoms that are just sitting alone in a vacuum, they are always interacting with something (at the least, some form of energy).

 

[painted wolf]

Mister Emu

in answer to your question: Yes. There are stray electrons, neutrons and protrons out there as the result of atomic decay. Eventually (and this takes a long time for many atoms) they will fall apart. Eventually though the stray parts may be picked up by other atoms and used to 'fill' them up. Though this process usually takes place under extreme conditions such as in solar furnaces or the core of the earth and the like, but then more atoms are being broken apart in a closer and more extreme setting than say in your back yard.

All radiation (heat for example) is caused by atomic decay, what you are feeling is bits of the atom (electrons and more commonly neutrons) flying off and hitting you. (makes you want to cuddle up next to a nice warm fire now doesn't it...mmmm.. radiation)

wa:do

 

[Mister Emu]

Ok thank you painted wolf.

Just to make sure I got it.

An atom can decay until there is no atom left correct?

 

[painted wolf]

Your more than welcome, I like to help answer questions when I can.

yes, though with most atoms this process is extremely long. There are eaven differences in how long it takes different types of the same atom to decay based on its stability. For instance Plutonium 239 has a half life of roughly 24,000 years while plutonium 241 has a half life of roughly 14 years. Some 'man made' atomic elements have half lives measured in seconds or less.

In case you wonder about half life it works something like this. Say you have 10 pounds of Plutonium 239, 24,000 years later you would have 5 pounds left. now here is where it gets a bit wierd. 24,000 years after that you have about 2.5 pounds left (half of the remaining 5 pounds)... another 24,000 years later you would have 1.25 pounds and so on untill you had a single atom left wich would then decay.

There is also three types of decay that can happin with an atom Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Gamma being the most dangerous of the three. (what is classicly called 'radiation' when talking about uranium and nuclear power)

thus it would leave you with just free roaming neutrons, electrons and protrons.

Untill they come back together again to form new atoms or are grabbed by other atoms as they pass.

wa:do

 

[kbc_1963]

I'm curious to where you hear that an atom is forever? I've never heard of that (I could be ignorant of the fact). Atoms break up all the time (look at our sun, or any nuclear reaction). I'm guessing what you're looking for is an atom, just sitting there, doing nothing but spinning around. I honestly don't know if anyone has ever tried this or not... getting an atom to sit by itself with no outside forces acting on it, well... doesn't seem possible. Thing is, there are not atoms that are just sitting alone in a vacuum, they are always interacting with something (at the least, some form of energy).

I read a paper on atoms when I was in college and that was the gist of it,
they basicly said that the atom only goes to different energized states but never just becomes nothing.
I knew atoms could be broken apart by force but if it was kept away from that type of thing would it just disintegrate to components thus proving that the 2nd law of thermodynamics occurs at every level of matter.

Now I must ask - if an atom has a finite life then there should come a day when there will be no more atoms right?

Thx for all the other answers guys I will be checking out anything that I can find with your leads.

 

[Dayv]

wow, talk about getting off the subject.

 

[painted wolf]

yeah, it is off... but it seemed that few here wanted to discuss the origional question for very long. ;(

anyway, kbc- you assume that there is a finite source of atoms.. this is not true, atoms are formed from stray protrons, neutrons and electrons and thus the cycle starts over again. So no there will not be a day when there are no more atoms. Atoms do have a finite life but there is no finite source of atoms.

hope this helps.

wa:do

 

[Druidus]

Actually, the way we currently view atoms is wrong. Electrons are not orbiting anything. In reality, there is a "quantum cloud" of electrons.

 

[anders]

Quite right, Druidus,

I'd even say that it is a "probability" cloud.

And during all my years of chemistry studies, I never heard that a normal, stable atom would decay or change in any way unless subjected to man-made forces.

 

[Druidus]

Well, if an atom has more then it's required electrons it will usually have a tendency to lose them.

 

[roli]

Something tells me that this neat question is really a strategem to increase your deity's elbow room.

Only kidding. The Strong Nuclear Force between particles keeps them in place with neutrons acting as a kind of "glue" to keep protons in the nucleus. Electromagnetic forces keep the electrons in their orbits. Check out: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html

What is it within this statement that represents natural law,you said it, Electromagnetic forces keep the electrons in their orbits, yet, this universal and natural law has no origin or trace of man's intervention and or control, is this natural, as per another thread .

In regards to the topic, there is one species of monkey's ,but many kinds and variations. The same is with humans ,dogs,cats, birds.
Microevolution, is the process of change(or adaptation) in species through interbreeding, among other things such as time, climate,enviroment, etc , This is the amazing complexities of creation in a whole, altering many features within a species, but never evolving into another species that has surfaced as evidence,throughout history and science that has validated it's claims, but, this is all dependent again on, what your definition of evolution is. A dog has yet to become a cat , or man or horse which if did would be apparent to all of a macroevolution.
To some maybe a big horse was a dog at one point, if you really pick it a part, but you will never convince any physiologists,scientists, biologists etc, that one species can become another regardless of how much rational thought you excercise.
Why ,if in fact we did evolve, are there no present day evidences of it happening anywhere,is that because evolutionists have concluded it just stopped, that would seem to conviently .
Many factors and questions remain to prove that evolution happened , but the bigger question is asked ,why is it not happening anymore, too many missing links that science can't yet prove, thus we have the Theory Of Evolution.
Why do we feel as a species, that if science, biology,anthropology, history, experience , rationale and intellect etc. can't prove it and it does not equate, it therefore can not be.

Some may find interesting, if you research, who in the scientific community were creationists such as Newton , Faraday, Boyle,Pascal, Herschel Pasteur,has openly declared that there are missing links to evolution and that the creation theory appears more of a possibility ,requiring less faith then that of evolution .I can elaborate on those names starting with Darwin HIMSELF, DESPITE HIS STERN POSITION on evolution, he contradicts himself and his philosophy many times, as in one such quote," to believe the eye with all it's all it's contrivances for adjusting focus, light etc. formed by natural selection ,I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree Charles Darwin Origin Of The Species

 

[Ceridwen018]

To some maybe a big horse was a dog at one point, if you really pick it a part, but you will never convince any physiologists,scientists, biologists etc, that one species can become another regardless of how much rational thought you excercise.

Actually, there are many instances of different species being documented as sharing the same ancestors. Take the okapi and the giraffe for instance, or the manatee and the elephant.

Many factors and questions remain to prove that evolution happened , but the bigger question is asked ,why is it not happening anymore, too many missing links that science can't yet prove, thus we have the Theory Of Evolution.

I'd like to inquire as to what factors you believe remain unanswered. Some people aren't up with current science, and don't realize how solid the theory of evolution really is.

As far as 'why is it not happening anymore?', I can assure you, it is. You must take into consideration that evolution is a process which takes millions of years. It's not exactly easily observed on a modern scale, due that it has only been a theory for a couple hundred or less.

Why do we feel as a species, that if science, biology,anthropology, history, experience , rationale and intellect etc. can't prove it and it does not equate, it therefore can not be.

Because these are the only legitimate and objective tools we have to perceive the world. Anything which does not register with any of these areas must be considered pure speculation and assumption. What other methods were you thinking of?

I can elaborate on those names starting with Darwin HIMSELF, DESPITE HIS STERN POSITION on evolution, he contradicts himself and his philosophy many times, as in one such quote," to believe the eye with all it's all it's contrivances for adjusting focus, light etc. formed by natural selection ,I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree Charles Darwin Origin Of The Species

Luckily enough, science doesn't make old research act as a complete foundation for a theory--it uses new research too. The fact that Darwin had misgivings about his findings is not conclusive evidence. What is conclusive, is the fact that modern observations and experiments fit with many of Darwin's original ideas. Advanced technology and added experience don't hurt either--although Darwin may have thought it impossible for the human eye to have evolved, with our modern knowlegde of the eye we can easily understand how it could have happened.

I would like to reiterate--just because Darwin himself had misgivings, doesn't mean his idea wasn't right. I might get a math problem right, but still have misgivings over it if I don't have the answer laid out before me to compare to.

 

[Druidus]

We need to stop giving credit for the theories of evolution and natural selection to Charles Darwin. Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather, believed in natural selection before Charles was even born. Even further back, Democritus, in about 300BC, developed the theory of evolution.