The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

You are getting ahead of yourself, YoursTrue.

Of course, Darwin didn’t know about modern genetics and didn’t know about DNA. No one did. Not even Darwin’s contemporary, Gregor Mendel, the pioneer of modern genetics, knew nothing about DNA & RNA.

Science is about progresses and such knowledge occurred over time, meaning scientific knowledge are attained incrementally with discoveries. It applied to every Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences, every branches, fields & subfields, and not just in Evolutionary Biology.

And more importantly. No scientists - back then and now - are not expected to know about everything there are to know. And especially not especially not pioneers in their respective fields.

Darwin, as well as Alfred Russel Wallace, were two pioneers of Natural Selection. They got the theory of Evolution started, providing the general framework of evolution via Natural Selection. Neither of them knew anything about the other evolutionary mechanisms, like Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking…and I don’t know who were responsible for being pioneers in these other mechanisms.

What drive changes in Natural Selection, is the environments of the populations of organisms, so when the environments “changed”, eg geographical terrains, geological, natural resources, climate change, natural disasters, etc, in order to sustain the populations, the organisms must have some sorts of biological traits that are adaptable and advantageous to that environment, and the descendants would inherit that traits through reproduction, etc.

Darwin did attempt to understand the mechanism for heredity, during his research for his book The Variations Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication in 1868, called pangenesis.

Pangenesis was a hypothesis that didn’t succeed. The pioneer of genetics was Gregor Johann Mendel (1822 - 1884), a Silesian friar for the Order of St Augustine at St Thomas’ Abbey, who would later become its abbot in 1868. Silesia was part of Austrian empire at that time, it would later be part of Czech Republic. Mendel became a priest and join the order, largely because the church would pay for his university education, and he studied physics. When he joined the abbey in 1853, he became a school teacher. Between 1853 and 1863, he spent part of his free times, doing his own experiments on peas, recording his works with Natural History Society at Brno - Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments On Plant Hybridization, 1865). Unlike Darwin’s works, Mendel received very little attention outside of Moravia, and was largely forgotten, until 1900, when his work was rediscovered, by Hugo de Vries and by Carl Correns.

My point is that while Mendel introduced heredity law through his paper and his discoveries with pea experiments, Mendel too, knew nothing about genes and DNA.

from what i understand, no one single person contributed to the DNA. For instance, nucleic acid were discovered in 1878, but it was Phoebus Levene who identified the molecular component of the DNA in 1927: the deoxyribose sugar, the 4 base molecules (nucleobases), and the phosphate group. However, his discovery didn’t lead to the importance of the DNA nucleotide…Levene didn’t know that the nucleobase are what contained the genetic information. It wasn’t until the early 1950s, that Francis Crick and James Watson that DNA contained genetic information about the organism.

So Darwin wasn’t the only one who who nothing about DNA in the 19th century.

Sciences take time to understand their discovery. Darwin wasnt wrong about (genetic) variations are responsible for evolution.

To give you another example. Michael Faraday was a pioneer of electromagnetic fields, but he too didn’t know EVERYTHING about EM fields. It was Faraday’s younger contemporary, James Clerk Maxwell who contributed to formulating the mathematical model of EM, the Maxwell’s Equations. And neither Faraday and Maxwell knew anything about electrons of atoms, or of radio waves, or of electronics. They also knew nothing about quantum mechanics.

You cannot Darwin for what he didn’t know at the time, anymore that you can blame Mendel or Faraday or Maxwell or Einstein or Planck, etc.

but the evolutionary biology is a fact, and Natural Selection have been modified and updated a number of times, where modern biologists have successfully incorporated genetics, molecular biology and other fields into the understanding of the theory of Evolution.

I'm not blaming Darwin. But he didn't know about genetics. But so far, I see there are fossils and I understand there are various species of crawling fish. I think they are fish. To the best of my knowledge they can't live too long out of water. Maybe two days. Also I understand that cells are composed of molecules. I gotta get this straight. Cells are composed of molecules, right?
Meantime I don't see that genetics show that crawling fish becomes eventually land dwellers. But that's me now, I wonder about these things.

 

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic et al - best if you keep your responses short so I can read them well. One or two points at a time please.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, we *do* know that gravity alone is sufficient to form stars. We can see the process happening today. We can use our understanding of gravity to make detailed models of the process that match observations. In those models, all that is required is gravity.

So, to the extent that it is *possible* to know something about the real world, we *do* know this. Maybe the problem is in what you consider the word 'know' to mean. For example, do you consider it to be 'known' that the sun is a star?

Once again, you fail to explain *why* the existence of life and its diversity implies the existence of a creator. it seems to be an assumption you make with no justification whatsoever.

Once again, the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years. This is not simply conjecture, but is supported by multiple lines of evidence.

As for life starting about 3.8 billion years ago, it is *known* that life existed that long ago. It is *known* that such life was anaerobic and that the large scale use of oxygen wasn't for another 2 billion years or so. Once again, this is supported by multiple lines of evidence, backed up by observations, etc. It is more certain that anything required in a court of law.

Not in detail. Is that required to know when it happened?

Once again, it is NOT conjecture. It is the result of observation and understanding what the evidence says.

Because the evidence says so this way and not the other ways.

Why is that even relevant?

Because it appears that gorillas and birds do not ponder over these things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is light,

God is a photon?

If you assume there was a primordial atom for the BB; singularity, from which all the mass and gravity of the universe will appear, there would also initially be extreme General Relativity based time dilation in the early universe, so earth reference time would not apply. The odd spacing of days in Genesis, appear to take into account an observational reference that goes from extreme time dilation; longer duration events, to get shorter and shorter time scale events, until one finally reaches the earth reference; rest day 7.

Sounds like ad hoc rationalization for what is obvious nonsense.

The other alternative way to explain the time difference is to look at science evidence for what happened 6000 years ago. The two critical changes were the invention of written language and the formation of sustainable civilization.

Sustainable civilization is quite older then 6000 years.
And the invention of written language happened over a rather large timespan in multiple independent places.
It didn't pop-up everywhere overnight at the same time.

There are in fact still tribes today that still haven't developed writing.

These two factors would alter nature and evolution, extending natural selection to include manmade selection; breaking the age old connection of the pre-humans to nature; loss of the tree of life. The change would favor man made knowledge and selection; tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This makes no sense. Natural selection is not impacted by civilization or writing.

At 6000 year ago, a new clock starts, for a new type of human with will and choice, apart from natural instinct.

Nonsense. Humans of the last 6000 years are the "type" of human as 50.000 years ago.
If you could go back in time and kidnap a 80.000 year old homo sapiens baby, take it to modern times and raise it in modern society, you'ld barely notice any difference, if any at all.

The Julian calendar is 2023 years old and the zero marks a changing of the times.

No, it doesn't. The zero is completely arbitrary and cultural. Other cultures have different calendars. The Julian one merely became the dominant one through conquest and cultural dominance on an international scale

The 6000 years ago time=0, appears to be connected to a secondary center of human consciousness appearing, called the ego. The ego has will and choice apart from the primary center connected to instinct; inner self, which is guided by genetic based instinct. But the tree of life is seal, meaning access to the inner self is still out of reach to the ego, less the mess up the operating system with knowledge of good and evil. That is not how instinct works. It is 3-D and 4-D or spatially integrated in space and time instead of temporal fad for the ego.

This seems like pure word salad.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fruit wasn't "evil." Their action was.

He said "until after partaking".

He didn't say the fruit was evil.
Read with attention.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He didn't keep Adam and Eve ignorant. Frankly, do you know good from evil? Who sets up the conditions, by the way? They had one commandment. They did not obey. If you knew that you should not go beyond the speed limit or else you'd get a ticket, if you did not want a ticket, you'd obey most likely. But if you didn't care about getting a ticket, and some people do not, can't complain about getting a ticket.

You are missing the point.

According to the very story, they didn't know good from evil. They had to eat the fruit before understanding the difference.
Hence, they could not have known that "going beyond the speed limit" was a bad thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible says Eve was deceived, I believe. Adam was not. He KNEW he would die. She did not think she would die but listened to the reasoning presented by the serpent, later id'd as the Devil. She found out she was wrong. He chose to die along with her.

Hence the analogy of toddlers I like to make.

This entire Eden story is comparable to having 2 toddlers in a house with loaded guns with a known psychopathic babysitter who tells them that they should play with the guns and that nothing bad will happen if they do.

Then the toddlers do exactly that and hurt eachother.
Then the parent comes home and decides to punish the toddlers.

The parent is 100% at fault and responsible here. Not the toddlers.

If I would leta known sadistic psychopathic evil mind who's determined to create chaos in my house alone with my kids, then *I* am the responsible one when it goes south

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd have to understand all these things like dating techniques, which scientists used a particular technique, on what, in order for me to say "Oh, yes...homo sapiens are 300,000+ years old so far."

You don't, actually.

Radiometric dating is based on atomic theory.
If radiometric dating doesn't work, then we don't know how atoms work. Then atomic theory is incorrect.

Yet nukes explode.

Science is very much results based.
In the same way, you don't need to fully understand Einstein's field equations in order to know that relativity is pretty accurate, because GPS systems work.
All you need to know is that we need to calibrate the internal clocks of GPS satelites to run at a different rate then clocks on earth to accomodate for the relativistic effects of speeding at 40k km/h in orbit around the globe. If we don't do that, GPS is off by several miles. If we do, it works.

So you don't need to dive into the very hard, very complex, field equations to know that the theory of relativity is pretty accurate.
GPS wouldn't work if it wasn't.

And nukes wouldn't explode if we didn't understand how atoms work.
Nukes are a practical application of atomic theory.
So is radiometric dating.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I learned a while back that some things I learned in school and now in a book by Hawking and Mlodinow has been altered to meet current evaluations. Therefore, something(s) were incorrect. Time and science, I suppose, marches on. ?

Science indeed marches on.
Unlike fundamentalist religion, which insists on being stuck in the bronze age. Kicking and screaming.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That may be your opinion. And that of others. It is not mine. There is no way that I can be convinced at this point that it happened without a conscious force. But anyway...I bid you a good day, thank you really for your respectful and kind posts.

I just think it's funny how you insist on inventing / appealing to a conscious to explain the existence of a conscious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said something about humans. We can probably agree that it would be highly unlikely to the point of near impossible perhaps that the human form would evolve by -- lack of conscious design somehow somewhere however the genetics work -- . on another planet somewhere.

Not for the same reasons, obviously.
If you could press the reset button on earth and go back to the dawn of life 3.8 billion years ago, then humans would not exist again.
Practically none of the species that ever roamed to earth would exist again.

I believe that God created angels. And that they have free will. However, they are different from humans. And life on earth.

And scientologists believe they have inner thetans hiding inside their bodies.
Beliefs are a dime a dozen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is said to have come as a result of abiogenesis, is that not so?

No.


Evolution is a result of existing life reproducing with variation while being in competition with peers over limited resources.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All right. Is abiogenesis proposed to have led to evolution?

No.
Abiogenesis led to the first generation of living things.

If not, what did?

Existing life reproducing with variation and being in competition with peers over limited resources.

Maybe I didn't read what has been said scientifically about abiogenesis.

It is clear that you don't read a lot of things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For instance if a piece is in the key of G Major virtually every musician knows what that means. There is no guesswork, no particular variance. But if a fossil or artifact is found I'd like to know more as to how it is categorized.

When a fossil is found, every paleontologist knows how to date and categorize it.

You, as a non-paleontologists (and actually a full blown scientific illiterate) do not know how to do that.
Just like any non-musician does not know what it means for a song to be in the key of G Major.


Your ignorance about paleontology (or music) doesn't mean that categorizing and dating fossils (or writing music) is "guesswork".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The 1st law of thermodynamics demands that the universe- in some form - has always existed.
You merely made a claim but shown nothing

The 1st law means that the universe did not come from nothing.
the 2ns law means that it has not always existed.
So, God must have created it.

 

[Polymath257]

I realize they're classified as fish but many fish can't live too long out of water. And these can't live to long out of water either, can they? Maybe longer than codfish or salmon but not real long either. They have to go back to water to keep living.

Neither can frogs. That is the point: there is a transition stage where both they live on both land and water.

Ok let's say mutations do not have a set conclusion. That's kind of obvious, you're right. It (mutation) just happens by...something -- an inner force perhaps?

Usually not an 'inner force'. A mutation is a change in the DNA molecule. That change can happen because of other chemicals in the environment, because of radiation, because it is read incorrectly when duplicated (this is rare, but it happens), because it is duplicated more than once (also happens).

Not sure how it happens. I'm thinking maybe some will say there are no accidents with mutations. Because technically speaking, now that we're on the subject, can't be any accidents in evolution. It seems some changes work out for continuance and some do not.

The term 'accident' is problematic. It assumes an intentionality that is not present. Things happen according to the laws of nature.

Yes, some mutations work to further survival and continuance and others do not. Furthermore, a mutation that can further survival in one environment could lessen it in another.

For example, a mutation to make slightly larger ears will increase the amount of heat lost from the ears. This can be an advantage in a hot environment and a disadvantage in a cold one. The mutation has the same chance of occurring in both environments.

 

[Polymath257]

The 1st law means that the universe did not come from nothing.
the 2ns law means that it has not always existed.
So, God must have created it.

The first law is the conservation of energy. In modern treatments, that includes mass, although the original statement did not.

But the first law says that the total amount of energy at any two times is the same. That implies the universe existed at all times. But, if time doesn't go infinitely into the past, the universe would not either.

In contrast to the first law, the second law is NOT fundamental. It is understood that it can be violated since it is a *statistical* law and NOT a fundamental one. In fact, there is the notion of the Poincare recurrence time. In such a time period, it is *guaranteed* that the second law will be violated.

Finally, your first two statements do not imply the third.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not blaming Darwin. But he didn't know about genetics. But so far, I see there are fossils and I understand there are various species of crawling fish. I think they are fish. To the best of my knowledge they can't live too long out of water. Maybe two days. Also I understand that cells are composed of molecules. I gotta get this straight. Cells are composed of molecules, right?
Meantime I don't see that genetics show that crawling fish becomes eventually land dwellers. But that's me now, I wonder about these things.

OK, you really need to stop and learn a bit.

Yes, cells are composed of molecules. Molecules are composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Chemistry is about how atoms and molecules interact with other atoms and molecules.

EVERYTHING around you is made of atoms (which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons) except for light (which is made of photons). That includes the air, water, books, tables, rocks, and yes, cells.

To even have to stop and ask whether cells are made of molecules means you have a serious deficiency in your science education. Among the *types* of molecules that compose cells: proteins, carbohydrates, water, DNA, RNA, fats (also called lipids), sugars, starches, etc.

In this, proteins, DNA, RNA, proteins, and starches are made from smaller pieces that are themselves molecules. To be made up like this is to be a polymer. For DNA and RNA, those pieces are call nucleic acids. For proteins, the pieces are called amino acids, and for starches the pieces are sugars.

ALL of life is ultimately chemistry of those molecules.

 

[Polymath257]

Because it appears that gorillas and birds do not ponder over these things.

Why is that relevant? Humans don't lay eggs. Nor do they make nests from leaves.

Humans have a well developed brain that allows for abstract thought. We are the only species that we can verify such abstract thought for. But other species also have complex brains (less complex than ours, but similar in many ways).

Why do you see that as relevant as to whether humans evolved from animals that had brains that were less complex?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are two ways to account for the time differences between Genesis and the Big Bang/Evolutionary theories. The first is connected to Relativity. If God was in a reference, close to the speed of light; God is light, he would be like the moving twin in the twin paradox. His clock would be going much slower. As such, one God day could be a billion earth years in our reference. The current science models time from the POV of the stationary twin; earth, and assumes the moving twin is aging the same way. The stationary twin will be surpassed when his moving twin returns.

We use the earth day as our reference of convenience, even though there was no earth reference during the first 7-8 billion years of the universe. The earth is not that old. Our earth day is based on the sun, which is also not as old as the universe. This could cause problems and create time illusions.

If you assume there was a primordial atom for the BB; singularity, from which all the mass and gravity of the universe will appear, there would also initially be extreme General Relativity based time dilation in the early universe, so earth reference time would not apply. The odd spacing of days in Genesis, appear to take into account an observational reference that goes from extreme time dilation; longer duration events, to get shorter and shorter time scale events, until one finally reaches the earth reference; rest day 7.

The other alternative way to explain the time difference is to look at science evidence for what happened 6000 years ago. The two critical changes were the invention of written language and the formation of sustainable civilization. These two factors would alter nature and evolution, extending natural selection to include manmade selection; breaking the age old connection of the pre-humans to nature; loss of the tree of life. The change would favor man made knowledge and selection; tree of knowledge of good and evil.

At 6000 year ago, a new clock starts, for a new type of human with will and choice, apart from natural instinct. The Julian calendar is 2023 years old and the zero marks a changing of the times. The 6000 years ago time=0, appears to be connected to a secondary center of human consciousness appearing, called the ego. The ego has will and choice apart from the primary center connected to instinct; inner self, which is guided by genetic based instinct. But the tree of life is seal, meaning access to the inner self is still out of reach to the ego, less the mess up the operating system with knowledge of good and evil. That is not how instinct works. It is 3-D and 4-D or spatially integrated in space and time instead of temporal fad for the ego.

You are quite incorrect about the calendar. The Julian Calendar was first adopted in 45BC. It got its final form in 8 AD.

The current system of AD began in 525 AD. And BC was adopted in 731 AD:

Keeping Time: The Origin of B.C. & A.D.

The use of "anno domini" and "before Christ" to mark time began in the early days of Christianity, and they're still used to track calendar years today.

www.livescience.com