MajorTom

What does, "something of significance" mean?

If you read carefully you'll notice I said over 13.7 billion years. I included energy to matter conversion in the "over 13.7 billion years", not because it has happened over all of that amount of time, but because it was easier to lump it in without being specific. I do realize that NEARLY all energy to matter conversion happened very early on. I say nearly because all is not accurate, to my knowledge. Particle accelerators have created other forms of matter, although that matter does not contribute in any practical measurable way to total entropy of the Universe. Other places in the Universe where conditions are similar to that of partical accelerators here on Earth could also produce new forms of matter. Also, and someone correct me if I'm incorrect here, but I do believe that very small amounts of matter do get created from energy at the event horizon of black holes. I have not had time to look this up and verify it. So someone feel free to correct this or verify it if you wish. But that's all really beside the point. I'm not sure what you're getting at here in terms of how this applies to my response. Thank you for clarifying the "implied" definition. But I'm not sure there is a difference between saying: "availability of energy to do work has decreased" (work should be assumed to be "useful" if it has any affect, not sure there's any reason to speficy that) or "unavailability of energy to do work has increased" In the context of the discussion, it's saying the same thing. If I'm wrong here, please enlighten me as to why. I'm not sure I understand this, could you explain in more detail? I'm not so sure we disagree here, I think we may actually be on the same page but I may not have explained myself well. It all depends on what you mean by this. Please explain in more detail if you don't mind. Thanks.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Let me take a shot at it, tell me if I'm misunderstanding you.. An observation or data can be considered fact. Evolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed. There is nothing arrogant about that. We've observed it in the lab and in nature. A theory is an explanation of some element of nature supported by facts, laws, etc. The Theory of Evolution, sets to explain the facts and data we've gathered. Theories are held to be more powerful in science because they have explanatory power and are able to make predictions. These facts, these observations are important, but it's the theory that is the amazing part. It has the power to make predictions on the world.

I don't think anyone reading this should write this question off (not that anyone is), it is a good one. Entropy is about available energy for useful work. Increasing entropy (or loss of heat) does not always correspond to human notions of order and disorder. While related, order and disorder are separate concepts who's flow do not soley depend on entropy flow. In other words, order can increase along with entropy, but most of the time order does decrease as entropy increases. 300,000 years after the initial expansion of the BB, the CMBR reveals lower entropy than today and lots of potential usable energy. This energy has been converted over 13.7 billion years to matter and other forms of energy, increasing entropy. This is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That may seem strange. How is it that entropy has increased, yet we now have more ordered forms like planets, stars and galaxy. Realize that this is a problem with human notions of order and disorder. What order and disorder are, are in fact much different than what human notions say they are. The formation of planets and stars are a condition of moving from order and less entropy to disorder and more entropy. The total energy of the universe was much more uniform and distributed much more evenly 300,000 years after the BB. Now when you look at the universe, the distribution of energy is inconsistent, available energy to do work has decreased and large pockets of the Universe are filled with near no usable energy. The interesting part of the question, is how did the Universe start off with such low entropy and high order to begin with?

OP, I'd recommend TalkOrigins.org. Great source with references. Also, for a good explanation of Evolution and how it relates to scientific theory, please read the following Stephen Jay Gould quote: "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Searching for a partner should be easier with all of the online dating stuff out there. Fixing divorce rates I think is a difficult problem being that people change over time thus growing apart, and promiscuity is a deep rooted behavior that is hard to fight for many.

I have read: Parallel Worlds Visions Hyperspace My favorite was Parallel Worlds.

Oh wow! That's pretty funny, but also pretty stupid by the Portland Water Bureau.

Me.

I think it depends on what is meant by "provable". As mooeypoo said, I think semantics are causing a lot of confusion. If one means by proof a, "logical conclusion based on evidence", not only is evolution provable but it is proven. If one means proof in the perpetual sense, evolution is no less provable than any other known fact. Evolution is a fact. If one means proof in some other sense I'm not thinking of, then I'm not sure how to answer the question. All that said, proof is a word that causes a lot of confusion, hence this discussion. Evidence is a better word. Let the evidence speak for itself.

New here. Thought I'd give a quick intro. I'm Shane from the US. I'm a software engineer and have an interest in all things science. Mostly cosmology/astronomy/evolution.