lucaspa

Orbital, the problem is that "race" is a meaningless term in biology. What most people, including you, seem to think of as "race" is the 3 "races": Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid. However, in the history of science, race has had several meanings. In Darwin's time "race" meant much smaller groups. People talked of the Irish "race" and the German "race". Basically, "race" equaled nationality in Darwin's day. The better term in biology is population. They are much smaller than "races" and each of the 3 "races" is made up of dozens/hundreds of populations. Scientific American article on race http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000 In terms of skin color -- what people often denote as the major hallmark of a "race" -- the different amounts of melanin content did arise by natural selection. I refer you to the following article: 1 G Kirchwager, Black and white: the biology of skin color. Discover 22: 32-33, Feb. 2001. Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin have first comprehensive theory of skin color. Need sweat glands to cool skin and brain; then need less hair for sweat glands to work better. Then need dark skin to protect from sun on hairless skin. An hour of intense sunlight cuts folate (vitamin B) in half. This results in neural tube defects in embryogenesis. Folate also necessary for sperm production. But you need UV to make vitamin D. Not enough UV getting to the skin, not enough vitamin and the result is rickets. Skin color correlated to sunlight: the weaker the UV light, the lighter the skin. In species with large numbers of individuals with an extensive range, natural selection acts as disruptive selection. The populations face slightly different environments and natural selection acts on them to diverge the population -- eventually producing new species by allopatric speciation. BUT, gene flow between the populations acts to oppose this divergence. As human technology became better and travel became more common, gene flow increased. Now, remember that, in sexually reproducing species, speciation = reproductive isolation. There is evidence today that isolated populations are undergoing disruptive selection and restricted gene flow necessary for speciation. 1. People who live in the higher altitudes of the Andean and Himalayan mountains show genetic physiological adaptations to living at the higher altitudes. Each population has different adaptations. Hum Biol 2000 Feb;72(1):201-28 Tibetan and Andean patterns of adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia. Beall CM Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 1999 Sep;124(1):1-17 Adaptation and conservation of physiological systems in the evolution of human hypoxia tolerance. Hochachka PW, Rupert JL, Monge C Am J Phys Anthropol 1998;Suppl 27:25-64 Human adaptation to high altitude: regional and life-cycle perspectives. Moore LG, Niermeyer S, Zamudio S 2. There is evidence that the !Kung people living in the Kalahari desert in Africa have a) adaptations to the dry climate, b) alleles unique to them and to no other population and c) do not have gene flow into the !Kung. When a !Kung marries, that person must go live with the spouse's people. If you ever saw the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy, one part is that a blond Englishwoman views a !Kung male as extremely ugly and not as a potential mate. He views the Englishwoman as ugly and not as a potential mate. This is one mechanism of reproductive isolation: individuals of one population simply don't view members of another population as mates. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994 Oct;51(4):460-5 Low prevalence of human T lymphotropic virus type I in !Kung San in Bushmanland, Namibia. Steele AD, Bos P, Joubert JJ, Evans AC, Joseph S, Tucker L, Aspinall S, Lecatsas G Ann Hum Genet 1979 May;42(4):425-33 Red cell adenosine deaminase (ADA) polymorphism in Southern Africa, with special reference to ADA deficiency among the !Kung. Jenkins T, Lane AB, Nurse GT, Hopkinson DA Am J Phys Anthropol 1988 Nov;77(3):303-19 Fitness and fertility among Kalahari !Kung. Pennington R, Harpending H It's an open question whether this process will result in new species of Homo. It depends on how isolated the populations remain. As I said, with increased transportation and intermixing of populations, gene flow is easier and this would prevent speciation.

ROFL! The problem with this is that Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit. So they were sinning before the fruit had a chance to fuse the chromosomes! However, on a more serious note, natural selection does explain the human tendency to sin. Think about it. Natural selection can only be selfish. So what is sin? Selfishness. Doing what we want instead of what Yahweh wants or what is good for our fellow humans. That's why Adam and Eve disobeyed Yahweh to eat the fruit: supposed benefits to them (selfishness). Humans are sinners as a result of the very process that Yahweh used to create us (assuming you believe in Yahweh). So evolution provides an answer to one of the major puzzles of theology. Ironic, isn't it? Of course, it is ironic that, historically, evolution was regarded in the late 1800s as rescuing Yahweh from Special Creation/ID.

1. Pretty much you are correct in the general drawing of a chromosome. Chromosome #2 for humans doesn't follow this pattern. Here is a good source: http://learning.swc.hccs.edu/members/david.schwartz/humanandapechromosomes "Human chromosome #2 has an inactive centromere exactly where the active chimp centromere is positioned, and at the human centromere, DNA sequencing has shown the order pre-telomere, telomere, telomere, pre-telomere; exactly what would be predicted by a head to head fusion of two chromosomes into one. " 2. This is an ad hoc hypothesis: it's purpose is to keep the main hypothesis -- special and separate manufacture of humans and chimps -- from being falsified by the hypothesis the our 23 pairs comes from fusion of 2 chromosomes in the 24 pairs in chimps. The person is conceding that our 23 comes from fusion of 2 chromosomes, but instead of the fusion resulting during evolution, the ad hoc hypothesis is that it is due to the Fall. IOW, the fusion is conceded, but the cause is different. That's a very difficult ad hoc hypothesis to refute scientifically, because how do you refute "the Fall" by science and what can happen via such a "Fall"? Now, the quote above shows that chromosome #2 has an inactive centromere where the chimp has an active one. You can try to play the "odds" game against the creationist and ask what the odds are that the human genome would correspond so closely to the chimp genome, including the fused chromosome! The creationist is going to reply "similar design", but the reply is: if chimps and humans are so very different and are very different animals (as creationism says), then where is the similarity of design? If there is such a "similarity of design", then chimps and humans aren't that different. IOW, the creationist ad hoc hypothesis puts him/her on the horns of a dilemma. If you want to step away from science and argue on the creationist's turf -- theology -- then there is a more powerful argument. Go to Genesis 3 and read carefully the punishments meted out for Adam and Eve's transgressions. They are very specific and very limited. If the creationist is taking the Bible literally, then to be consistent the creationist can't go beyond the literal Bible. There is no mention of "fused chromosomes" or any other genetic alteration in either Adam or Eve. If we can add this to the Bible, then what is to stop us from adding anything we want. Perhaps we can add that, when Jesus said "Let the little children come unto me" he then went off and molested them! What would stop us if the rules for making things up to add to the Bible are suspended? The creationist has put himself on the horns of a theological dilemma: wanting to asset the absolute authority of scripture, she is actually destroying that authority. Let us know how it turns out. BTW, there are other very solid refutations of the "similarity of design" argument if you are interested.

The problem is that natural selection monitors thousands/tens of thousands of cost/benefit analyses. Also, we cannot predict new environments that humans will encounter. Yes, we can use genetic engineering to make changes, but that doesn't mean they will be good changes. That's why I say it is stupid. When we do genetic engineering, we are arbitrarily stating some traits are "good" and others "bad", without natural selection's ability to consider the entire organism re the environment. Why? How do you calculate "likely"? And I'm not talking "superstition", remember. I'm talking reluctance as very good science. And here is the fallacy I talked about in my first paragraph of this post: the idea of "best" genes that human arbitrarily pick. "Best" for what? To say "best" means humans are inserting their judgement calls -- what you call "superstition". Nope. Not even close to viewing the total biological problem. You think aging is only due to some genes. Not so. There are many other problems, such as repairing methylation of DNA in somatic cells, as well as replacing cells that undergo apoptosis because of the damage and just normal wear and tear. That's the problem with this thread: people are being way too simplistic in looking at the situation. It's basically a cartoon of what the problems are. Simplify them down and then wish the problems away. In contrast, I like the idea of fusion power on board habitats. Yes, I think it is a technology that can be achieved. The problems I foresee are not those of fusion power, but those of having a sufficient industrial base for replacement of parts aboard a habitat in interstellar space and the major danger of collisions with interstellar matter. Not to mention the economic difficulties of getting the habitats to begin with. In order to operate the habitats, you must have effective birth control. BUT, if the society has effective birth control, there is no reason to build the habitats to begin with! There would be more than enough room on the planet! Also, where does the capital come from to build the habitats? Where is the return on investment? You would need a government. But very few governments could, in a situation of population growth you imagine, be able to divert the massive resources to build a habitat for a few thousand when millions could use the resources. So you have a chicken/egg problem in getting the habitats into existence. The very conditions in which you say you need the habitats are the very conditions that ensure they can't be built. But where does the reaction mass come from to accelerate and decelerate the habitats? A habitat large enough to have "millions of people" is enormous. A huge mass. Also from spin. Latitudes would have different gravities with the greatest gravity at the equator and no gravity at the poles. Since the computation ability depends on quantum computing, molecular computing, (both of which have not been shown to work) and a "host of technologies humans have not even conceived of", how are you sure your conclusion is going to happen? You are saying that imaginary processes will absolutely become reality. Don't you see the illogic in that? Why? Why does all intelligent life have to do this? You forget that not only is intelligence needed, but also the ability to make tools. Could dolphins discover all this? Nope. Also, you need motivation. You are assuming human levels of curiosity. Is this level of curiosity a requirement of intelligence? If so, why? Why would it do that? We have the curiosity to learn about other species and cultures. You are saying that an intelligent species has the same curiosity in order to develop the technologies you are talking about suddenly does NOT have the curiosity to contact other intelligent species? Sounds like inconsistency and special pleading.

Unfortunately, the question/issue for creationists began long before that. The Talkorigins site walks you thru the history. Basically, less than adequate measuring techniques for the speed of light in the period 1600 - 1800 gave several values that were way too high but improvements in measuring gave decreasing values toward the true value in the later measurements. YECers like Setterfield did a plot of c vs year in which it was measured and got -- gasp -- an asymptotic curve with the high end for speed of c in the past. So they extrapolated the part of the left hand side of curve (past to 1600) to get c several thousands of times faster than known as they drew the curve almost straight up before 1600. This lets creationists avoid the obvious problem of having stars/galaxies that are millions of light years away and fitting them into a 10,000 year old (or less) universe. It's not valid because they are assuming (something they abhor in other contexts) that the measurements in 1600, using very crude instrumentation, were completely accurate. That's an unsupportable assumption. Stan, there are several issues here: 1. Evolution and physics are separate theories. You lump them together. 2. In the period 1600 - 1831 young earth creationism was the accepted scientific theory. Those impartial "men of science" showed it to be wrong. The data that showed creationism to be wrong is still there. What we have today are a small minority of people who refuse to accept that the scientific theory is just plain wrong. This isn't about differences of ideas and opinions: it's about personalities (creationists) that simply cannot admit they are wrong. As used by creationists like Humphreys -- to make a universe less than 10,000 years old -- yes, it is "tommyrot". There is too many independent lines of evidence that the universe is old. The idea that c has changed so much that the universe is really young is an invalid ad hoc hypothesis trying to save young earth creationism from falsification. It's just very, very bad science. Then why are they still "young Earthers"? Without a change in c to compress those light years, there is no way the universe can be young. Doesn't work. Since the velocity of light in a vacuum is constant, then how the distant objects experience relative time doesn't matter. It still takes millions of years (theirs and ours) for light from them to get to us (and vice versa). Therefore the universe can't be young. Again, why are they still young earthers? Also, the expansion hasn't been "relativistic" for most of the life of the universe. It has taken time for the expansion to reach its current velocities. But even in our non-relativistic small corner of the universe, M31 in Andromeda is still several million light years distant. Which makes the universe way too old for young earth creationism. This is TalkOrigins' refutation of Setterfield -- a creationist. According to Setterfield, the speed of light has been decreasing! I'm afraid you misread the article. This particular young earth creationist -- Setterfield -- claims that the laws have changed. It is Talkorigins saying that the claim is invalid and giving the reasons for why they say that: 1. Setterfield used selective data by omitting some of the measurements. 2. Setterfield didn't include the error bars, but just the mean of the particular sets of measurements. Since the older measurements have very large error bars, the true speed of light (as we know it now) lies within the error bars. The "requirement" is to save their theory of a young universe. As it stands, the speed of light is such that it takes millions of years for light to reach us from distant galaxies. It even takes tens of thousands of years for light to reach us from stars in our own galaxy! This means the light started out long before the 10,000 years that young earth creationism says the universe has existed! Therefore, the speed of c -- and the time the universe has existed that it gives -- refutes/falsifies the theory of a young earth/universe. To save the theory requires some form of ad hoc hypothesis that would shorten up that time. A greater speed of light in the past is one such ad hoc hypothesis. Let me give you another example from science: the orbit of Uranus falsified Newtonian mechanics because it did not fit the known gravitational pull from the sun and other planets. In order to save Newton's theories, a new, undiscovered planet was "required" to exist beyond the orbit of Uranus. Of course, there is such a planet -- Neptune. Now do you see why I used the word "required" when I said that faster c in the past was "required" for young earth creationism? Stan, these are 2 separate issues: creationism and belief in God. Yes, Dawkins is wrong to confuse the 2 and try to use refutation of creationism as refutation of the existence of God. Dawkins steps out of science there and does what creationists do: misrepresent science to back a particular faith. In Dawkins' case the faith is atheism. As I noted above, belittling creationists is not the same as belittling belief in God. To believe that you must accept that only creationists can believe God exists. That leaves out most Christians, since most Christian denominations and individuals accept the major theories of science, including evolution.

This one is ironic since it has the speed of light be slower in the past. Creationists require the speed to be much faster. You might also add this article: 2. J Magueijo, Plan B for the cosmos. Scientific American 284: 58-59, Jan. 2001.

It shouldn't. After all, the material that composes the Dyson sphere would have to be the matter that was already in that solar system. The planets would have to be used to get the matter to make the Dyson sphere. So the mass is the same. I suggest you read Niven's later Ringworld novels. It turns out that the Ringworld "wobbles" and, without correction, eventually the ring will be so eccentric that it will brush the sun. Of course, a problem with a Ringworld is that you need a VERY strong material so that it is not torn apart by its own motion. Niven, since he is a science fiction writer, invented "scrith" and let it go with that. In the real world, we don't have a material nearly that strong. When you build a Dyson sphere or a ringworld, you have to clear out ALL the other matter in the solar system. Otherwise a stray comet or piece of rock pokes a hole and you lose all your atmosphere. Even then, stray interstellar junk has the capability of hitting the sphere or ring. This is also a problem with Skeptic's "habitats". And a reason they might not leave their own solar system. Once in interstellar space, they are vulnerable to any debris around. Relative velocities are such that collisions would be catastrophic, especially when you are a couple of light years from help or a place you can evacuate to. The effects extend far beyond that: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/89/1/379 http://www.busoc.be/en/research/microgravity/humanphysiology.htm There are cardiovascular problems and a decrease in red blood cells, for example. In the long term, that loss of bone is going to show up in neural problems. Calcium is extremely important in nerve function and the plasma calcium levels are VERY strictly regulated. Bone plays a huge role in the fine tuning of plasma calcium levels. Lose bone in prolonged microgravity and the nervous system is going to start degenerating over time, also. So, no, I don't think civilizations would use genetic engineering to modify themselves so extensively. Such an extensive makeover would not only make them a new species, but at least a new genus. We wouldn't. We would think we would lose something essential to being "human" in the process. Instead, we try to compensate by technology. BTW, we are never going to be as smart as natural selection. That's why we use natural selection when the design problem is too tough for us! Genetic engineering ourselves is a very bad and stupid idea. Better to use technology.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here as "a few wrong predictions". Can you enumerate them? Most of the objections I see is that many of the current theories in physics violate what some people see as "common sense". Too bad for common sense. Right now in physics are 2 major overarching theories: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The problem is that they are incommensurate. There is no way, currently, to quantize gravity. At least none that has has gained consensus within the physics community. Gravitons is one proposed theory to do this. In order to be accepted, the theory must have better concordance with the data. You are using Monday morning quarterbacking with heliocentrism. At the time, Copernicus' theory actually predicted the observed position of planets worse than geocentrism. That was why it was not accepted (and what got Galileo in so much trouble). It was emotionally appealing because it gave a huge universe. But emotion is not the correct way to evaluate a theory. So Copernicus' theory was debated and generally rejected until, as you note, Kepler used elliptical orbits and now, for the first time, heliocentrism made better predictions than geocentrism. No, it's not. It's just a very difficult requirement to meet. But it is precisely the requirement that must be met for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community. What we usually see, however, is that the theory makes no predictions. And that is where I, for one, want them to publish. Or at least try to publish. I think people come here because they think they can convince people who are not professional physicists and therefore gain acceptance that they cannot gain in the scientific community. I disagree with the alternative because of the second. If you look at this thread, many of the theories have had holes poked in the theory. The problem is that the person proposing the theory doesn't accept the holes! This makes it much more frustrating and a waste of time than giving good information to people who actually ask for it and appreciate it. If you are serious about proposing a new theory, then one requirement of your personality is that you be willing to accept criticism and modify your theory accordingly. I, unfortunately, see very little ability of the proposers to learn from the process. If they were willing to learn, I for one would enjoy the process in the hope that, one day, we really would get a valid new theory. THAT would be very exciting.

Distraction. The claim was that Milton was not a creationist. This has been refuted and you have not argued it. Milton gave false witness about his motives. No one ever claimed that some of the defenders of Darwinismdo not have religious biases. Nor did I ever claim that occasionally atheistic evolutionists went beyond the science and mistakenly claimed that evolution, and science, says that deity does not exist. I have. For instance, on this board I have questioned that Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory is correct. I have also refuted Dawkins' claim that the unit of selection is the gene. Enst Mayr (an agnostic) has also refuted this. Many scientists have called atheistic evolutionists to task when they have misrepresented what science can conclude. I refer you to an excellent book called Science Held Hostage. It is out of print, but you can still get used copies. I also refer you to this article by Eugenie Scott -- an avowed atheist -- discussing the limits of science to other atheists: Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998. Of course. However, why is it that creationists feel the need to disguise their motives and try to tell us they are not creationists? Dawkins does not disguise himself as a creationist in order to put forward bogus arguments against creationism and say "I used to be a creationist, but the evidence against creationism convinced me to change my mind." 1. Ironically, in the original Kuhnian version, paradigm shifts do depend on the "conversion" of scientists. 2. Historically, the paradigm shift from creationism to evolution occurred, of course, among scientists who were religious and devoted to creationism. Remember, Darwin started out the voyage on the Beagle as an ardent creationist! It was the evidence that convinced him otherwise. So, the real irony here is that you are advocating a "paradigm shift" back to a paradigm that has already been abandoned. Many paradigm shifts are facilitated by young scientists or those who are new to the field. They will not waste time learning the complex aplologetic arguments used to defend theories, but will instead prefer to survey the problems and propose often radical new solutiuons, given half a chance. I apologise in advance for my reliance on Wikipedia. The entry for the phrase "smoking gun" begins with the paragraph: ROFL! Beautiful rhetorical duck. I really have to applaud your effort. Of course, the title refers to the words of Milton uncovering his lie that he is not a creationist. You never even tried to quote any parts of Milton's book to back up your claim that Milton was being ironic. Your post was not a very gracious surrender, but I accept it nonetheless. Oh no! There are a LOT of "smoking guns" showing creationism to be wrong. Just as we have a "smoking gun" showing Milton is really a creationist despite the claim to the contrary.

But not because they used "simplicity" to decide it was wrong. Please read what I wrote. LET contains an unfalsifiable statement -- according to the source you provided. Now it appears that you are arguing against your own source! Let me remind you: "However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET." As I read this, anything that would falsify SR would NOT falsify LET, because the "undetectable ether" cannot be falsified. If the data eliminated SR, all it would do would eliminate the "coincidence", not the aether. In order to be valid, ad hoc hypotheses must testable independently of the hypothesis it is meant to save. That is, the ad hoc hypothesis must have effects other than countering the falsification. The contraction has the sole effect of countering the falsification of the Michelson-Morely experiments. There is no other effect of the contraction. How would a relativistic collision be able to counter the predictions of the contraction, since the contraction relates only to contraction in the direction of motion into the aether? You said: "Physicists first and foremost demand that a theory agree with observations." Then you said "Physicists use simplicity when two different theories yield identical predictions" Now, I disagree that physicists either do this or should do this. Let's look at some examples: 1. String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. Both end up making the same predictions: the universe we see. String Theory involves more entities (11 dimensions as opposed to the 4 of LQG), but do physicists discard String Theory in favor of LQG because of that? No. 2. Accounting for the order of this universe. There are several hypotheses out there for the cause that the universe has this particular order instead of some other order. Some of the hypotheses include bubble universe, quantum splitting, various forms of multiverse, and deity created. They all predict the same observations: the universe we see. Now, of these, deity created has the fewest entities by far. Nor can you say "we don't have evidence for deity" because we don't have evidence for bubble universes, quantum splitting, or multiverse, either. Also, none of the hypotheses explain anything, since they make no novel predictive features. Yet I don't see physicists adhering to the deity created hypothesis based on simplicity. Nor should they. Evaluation of hypotheses for accuracy should only be done on the data. A rose by any other name ... However, you have your own strawman here. Most theologies, including Christianity, state that deity sustains natural law. Yes, deity can act outsise natural law, but it is not constrained to only act outside what we call "natural law". Christian theology is that "natural laws" are just as much Yahweh acting as miracles (see below). What you did, however, was duck the issue that, for the specific case I gave, "God is the cause of the Big Bang" is simpler than any other hypothesis for the cause of the Big Bang. ALL the proposed causes are a "scientific dead end" because each of them is outside of "natural law" and each has no cause. Yet physicists don't choose the "simplest" and declare it correct, do they? Being a dead end is not the same as being wrong. Quantum fluctuation or No Boundary for the cause of the BB are "scientific dead ends". There's nowhere else to go. So that can't be a reason to discard hypotheses either. We have a separate problem, DH, is that in studying "natural law", we don't know if we are actually studying how deity acts: "A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959. "But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise. "The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion. The two above quotes are in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species. Now, those are belief statements, but they are statements that science is incapable of showing to be wrong. The deity for Fundamentalism is a literal Bible, not Yahweh. In terms of evolution, creationism postulates direct manufacture by deity of some entities. This is no longer "God did it" but a specific mechanism of how "God did it". We can test the mechanism and show it is false. However, we can't say that evolution is "God didn't do it", either. Popper did get it wrong ... as Popper himself admitted later. Popper, thru his own poor understanding of evolution, thought evolution by natural selection could explain any data. That there was no data that could falsify it. The example of the bacteria on Mars indeed would not falsify evolution, but there is data that would -- if we found it. In terms of natural selection, Darwin set out several pieces of data that, if found, would falsify the theory. Here is one: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501. In mutualism, the trait that helps the other species also helps the species with the trait. However, navel oranges have the trait of fruit without seeds. That trait is for the exclusive benefit of humans and, indeed, navel oranges were not produced through natural selection.

Lorentz ether theory is not an example of "simplicity". According to the website, it's an example of 1. an unfalsifiable statement: "However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET." and 2. an invalid ad hoc hypotheses: "Lorentz in 1892 (already quantitatively) suggested that the molecular forces are affected in such a way, that the dimension of a body in the line of movement is less by the value v2 / (2c2) than the dimension of the body perpendicularly to the line of movement. However, an observer co-moving with the earth would not notice this contraction, because all other instruments contract at the same ratio. In 1895 Lorentz proposed three possible explanation for this relative contraction: [8] [9] The body contracts in the line of motion and preserves its dimension perpendicularly to it. The dimension of the body remains the same in the line of motion, but it expands perpendicularly to it. The body contracts in the line of motion, and expands at the same time perpendicularly to it. " Notice that there is no independent test of the hypothesis. Lorentz is avoiding falsification by making an ad hoc hypothesis that has no other effect than to avoid falsification. Again, with all due respect, it appears that physicists (or perhaps just you) don't know what they are doing when it comes to how science is done. However, thank you for backing down and admitting that theories are evaluated on data, not simplicity. But you may want to rethink your fall back position as well. Because physicists don't do that, either. We have competing theories for the cause of the Big Bang: multiverse, No Boundary, quantum fluctuation, God, etc. Of these, the simplest is God. Yet physicists don't seem to take the simplest theory, do they?

THoR, our "conventional wisdom" is severly limited by our evolution. We have evolved to perceive and have "common sense" about a very narrow range of the universe: that which involved the survival of our ancestors. In science we test all of our ideas, even "conventional wisdom", against what the universe really is. You want to violate that principle: you want to impose your interpretation of what you think the universe ought to be -- "conventional wisdom" -- on the universe. This isn't looking for truth, it is trying to impose your prejudices on truth. This isn't interpretation. It's conclusion from the data. The reasoning is: if a photon is a particle, then it will behave in a particular manner in particular circumstances. We see that the photon does so behave in those circumstances. If a photon is a wave, then it will behave in a particular manner in other circumstances. The photon does behave as a wave in those circumstances. Therefore, conclusion: the photon is both a particle and a wave. Expand on that. What is a "simple propagation of change through space"? Chane from what to what? That's often not the case. Again, our "common sense" is evolved for objects about our size and speed. Phenomenon that operate outside that very narrow range of our unaided perception logically do not have to correspond to our precepts evolved for that range. But it is NOT "our tiny suburb". It's the entire visible universe, which is 50 billion light years or more across. That one won't work because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It also doesn't work because our universe doesn't have enough matter to collapse. True statements cannot have false consequences, and your statement has false consequences. Sorry. I said "nothing = no spacetime, no matter, no energy." That's a very limited definition of "nothing". Don't expand on that and try to make "nothing" anything more in this context. And yes, BB does say that in regard to our universe. Our universe started with the BB. IF anything existed "before", it was not our universe. People who do talk about "before" the BB have entities other than spacetime/matter-energy. They all concede that spacetime and matter/energy came into existence at the BB. For instance, Bojowald with Loop Quantum Cosmology has a complete other universe "before" the BB. It's not our spacetime or matter/energy. I refer you to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and this article: Lineweaver CH and Davis TM Misconceptions about the Big Bang, Scientific American 36-45 March 2005. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147 The "nature of the event" is that spacetime and matter/energy all came into existence within Planck time = 10^-35 sec. I disagree that Kaku was saying anyting of the sort. The problem with perturbation in a false vacuum is that the vacuum is already in a spacetime. With BB you have to get spacetime too. That is not to say that BB is not the result of quantum fluctuation, but it cannot be the result of the quantum fluctuation you describe. No, creationism has been shown to be wrong. That happened in the period 1800-1865. Modern creationism is also falsified. What happened in court was something different -- making a legal determination of creationism. A court decided that creationism was not science. However, in reality creationism is a scientific theory (see below) and one that has been falsified by the data. Again, creation deals with subjects that can't be falsified by observation. But creationism is about areas that specifically can be, and has been, falsified by observation and experience. "There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:" Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126. "There is a more interesting-if equally significant confusion running through much of Ruse's discussion, a confusion revealing a further failure to come to terms with the case I was propounding in "Science at the Bar." I refer to his (and Overton's) continual slide between assessing doctrines and assessing those who hold the doctrines. Ruse reminds us (and this loomed large in the McLean opinion as well) that many advocates of creation-science tend to be dogmatic, slow to learn from experience, and willing to resort to all manner of ad hoc strategies so as to hold onto their beliefs in the face of counter evidence. For the sake of argument, let all that be granted; let us assume that the creationists exhibit precisely those traits of intellectual dishonesty which the friends of science scrupulously and unerringly avoid. Ruse believes (and Judge Overton appears to concur) that, if we once establish these traits to be true of creationists, then we can conclude that Creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable (and "therefore unscientific"). This just will not do. Knowing something about the idiosyncratic mindset of various creationists may have a bearing on certain practical issues (such as "Would you want your daughter to marry one?"). But we learned a long time ago that there is a difference between ad hominem and ad argumentum. Creationists make assertions about the world. Once made, those assertions take on a life of their own. Because they do, we can assess the merits or demerits of creationist theory without having to speculate about the unsavoriness of the mental habits of creationists. What we do, of course, is to examine the empirical evidence relevant to the creationist claims about earth history. If those claims are discredited by the available evidence (and by "discredited" I mean impugned by the use of rules of reasoning which legal and philosophical experts on the nature of evidence have articulated), then Creationism can safely be put on the scrap heap of unjustified theories. But, intone Ruse and Overton, what if the creationists still do not change their minds, even when presented with what most people regard as thoroughly compelling refutations of their theories? Well, that tells us something interesting about the psychology of creationists, but it has no bearing whatever on an assessment of their doctrines. After all, when confronted by comparable problems in other walks of life, we proceed exactly as I am proposing, that is, by distinguishing beliefs from believers. When, for instance, several experi-ments turn out contrary to the predictions of a certain theory, we do not care whether the scientist who invented the theory is prepared to change his mind. WA do not say that his theory cannot be tested, simply because he refuses to accept the results of the test. Similarly, ajury may reach the conclusion, in light of the appropriate rules of evidence, that a defendant who pleaded innocent is, in fact, guilty. Do we say that the defendant's assertion "I am innocent" can be tested only if the defendant himself is prepared to admit his guilt when finally confronted with the coup de grace? In just the same way, the soundness of creation-science can and must be separated from all questions about the dogmatism of creationists. Once we make that rudimentary separation, we discover both (a) that creation-science is testable and falsifiable, and (b) that creation-science has been tested and falsified-insofar as any theory can be said to be falsified. But, as I pointed out in the earlier essay, that damning indictment cannot be drawn so long as we confuse Creationism and creationists to such an extent that we take the creationists' mental intransigence to entail the immunity of creationist theory from empirical confrontation." Larry Laudan, "More on Creationism", Chapter 24 in But Is It Science? Edited by M Ruse pp 363-366 Perhaps Swansout will let us start a new thread going over the scientific data that falsifies creationism. BTW, we can deal with the past in the same manner. Remember, the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Unless, of course, you wish to deny cause and effect. However, you might also consider that nearly all scientific experiments happen in the past. The very recent past, but the past. For instance, I am doing an experiment where I am looking at adult stem cells healing a bone gap in rats. However, I am not "looking at" it directly. I am putting the stem cells in the gap and waiting 8 weeks. When I euthanize the rats and look at the bone, the bone gap is gone. I didn't see this happen directly. It happened sometime in the past 8 weeks. But the present -- the condition of the gap -- is what it is now because of what happened in the past (those 8 weeks). Unless you are videotaping animal behavior or something similar, then all fo science deals with past events and the inferences that we make of what happened in the past.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is no the Missing Link. Instead, there are dozens of "missing links" linking hominid species in a line back from H. sapiens to the common ancestor with chimpanzees. There are transitional individuals taking our ancestry back thru 2 species to a third: A. afarensis. The reason people looked for intermediates from the common ancestor was exactly because they wanted to understand our biology and psychology better. Huxley gave a series of lectures and papers in the 1860s describing the similarities between the great apes and humans. Darwin in Descent of Man noted psychological similarities, and people have continued that work ever since. All this supports the hypothesis that we and the great apes evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore looking for fossils of intermediate species is part of testing that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is incorrect, then no intermediate species would be found. Since many transitionals ("missing links") have been found, the search now is more akin to geneology: exactly what species and where was the common ancestor? For H. sapiens, did all humans arise from a single population in Africa or was it a blending of many populations around the world (Mutiregional). Genetic data refute Multiregional. That's their problem. In this forum we are here to discuss the science, aren't we? Not project onto science the misconceptions of the public but to find out what the data really is. Right? Then that is a problem of journalism. If you want to satire journalism, then you need to be more specific. Otherwise, we aren't going to appreciate the satire, because it looks like you are denying science and the data. It goes beyond that. There is also only one common ancestor between lineages. Thus there is one species that is the common ancestor of all the great apes -- including us. There is also one species that is the common ancestor of all tetrapods (birds, dinos, sauropsids, amphibians, and mammals). The issue is specifically which "missing link" we are talking about. Tiitikalek (sp) is a "missing link" in the chain between fish and amphibians. This particular article was correct in limiting this particular "missing link" to the common ancestor all great apes, not a common ancestor of chimps and humans. See above, N. nakayamai is a "missing link" in THIS particular area. I think the problem is that you have the misconception that there is only one "missing link". As we look at lineages and the fossil record, there have been many "missing" links between lineages -- different links depending on which lineage we are looking at.

I have no idea. Somewhere he got the idea that the oceans had a lot of iron in them. Then he extrapolated that to make a logical inference that they were green. IOW, he worked backwards, He obviously has not seen the early oceans, so he hasn't seen that they were green and then worked out the reason they were green. He must work in the other direction: know first the early ocean had a lot of iron and then deduce that, therefore, they were green. The assertion "the oceans were green" is just that -- an assertion. It's not data. For data we would need some geological data and he doesn't provide that. Perhaps layers of iron oxide that precipitated from the early ocean? The only geological data he presents is stromatolites and they are data of microrganisms being present 3.8 billion years ago. Only that.

Causing the expansion and causing the universe to exist are 2 different things. Please define "existence". Others have been using existence = universe. So, if "creation" (of what? the universe )requires a cause, then so does existence. No. We simply don't require the creator to have a cause. THe existence of the universe has a "cause", whether that be quantum fluctuation, logical and mathematical necessity, God, or whatever. It's just that the list of causes of the universe do not need a cause. The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as what works within the universe. It's limits are the universe. Therefore it does not apply to getting a universe to begin with. Once you have the universe, then the law of conservation of energy applies. This was what ydoaps said: "Pfft......virtual particles must be given energy to become real. The first Law of Thermodynamics still holds." How do you know from the concept that ydoapps used the terms properly. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. ... Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring." If you want to disagree that, please go ahead. Please explain the reasons and data for your disagreement so that we can better understand why you are saying what you are. However, I hope you can now understand why I said what I did. Scientific American is usually a very reliable and accurate source. Let's start here. You know very well that this is not what theories are. Theories are statements about the physical universe. Many theories have been proven to be wrong. Some are untested. And some have so much support that we accept them as (provisionally) true. For instance, one theory is that of inertia. Do you really think inertia is "another unprovable opinion"? If so, why do you bother to use the breaks on your car? If inertia is not true, then you would hit the other car and come to an instant, and non-damaging, stop. But you don't do that, do you? If you have every flown in an airplane, then you think Bernoulli's theory is more than "unprovable opinion". If you thought that, you would be irrational to get on board the airplane. So ... you don't really think this. So why say it? Because you propose an opinion that is wrong and are trying to give it some respectibility and equality with well-accepted theories: This is wrong because it only applies to what happens within our universe. It does not apply to getting a universe to begin with. However, you want it to apply so you can say: First Law of Thermodynamics doesn't imply anything of the kind. All the other data supporting Big Bang says matter did NOT always exist. Along with spacetime, matter/energy came into existence at the Big Bang. But you don't like that so you want your opinion to have the same "weight" as Big Bang. Since you don't have the data, you denigrate all theories to "unproveable opinion". Self-serving, but not accurate science.

Sexual selection isn't natural selection. Two different things. Darwin separated the two. Sexual selection falls under "nonrandom mating" in ways to disrupt a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Natural selection is a different way to disrupt the equilibrium. As it turns out, in many cases natural selection underlies sexual selection. By that I mean that the traits selected for by females are linked genetically to other traits for overall fitness. But the female is not selecting for those overall traits. An example is: 3. E Pennisi, Females pick good genes in frogs, flies. Science 280:1837-1838, (19 June) 1998. Discusses recent studies that show how "bad" genes associated with male display are actually connected to survival genes in males, so that females actually pick survival traits. In frogs the descendents of "long callers" did better in every fitness test. These are not subtypes of natural selection. Instead, frequency dependent and frequency independent selection describe the fitness of the allele in terms of the frequency of the allele in the population "the fitness of a genotype depends on the genotype frequencies in the population" Futuyma, pg 389. Futuyma then goes on to discuss inverse frequency dependent selection where the fitness is greater when the allele is rare. The frequency will then go to an equilibrium. In positive frequency dependent selection, "whichever allele is inititally more frequent will be fixed". Notice that these are processes within the 3 categories of natural selection. Positive frequency dependent selection can move a population to a new trait in a changing environment or, if a population is already established at a fitness peak, keep it there. So, they are not really different forms of natural selection but ways in which natural selection works at the level of alleles. You just changed the definition of "purifying selection". This is too simplistic (why am I not surprised at that from molecular biologists) because it ignores things like heterozygote fitness and equilibria. That is still not "forms" of natural selection. It is deciding what the units of selection will be for directional, purifying, or disruptive. Gregory may make a distinction, but that doesn't make group selection exist. It doesn't say anything about the new perspective being any more valid than the old. I have just finished reading that paper and, in fact, Gregory makes many more valid arguments against group selection (particularly species selection) than he does for it. Mayr makes an overwhelming counterargument in What Evolution IS. Species are groups of individuals, and the unit of selection remains the individual. Gregory basically says the same thing in his paper. Gregory tries to make an argument that the genome itself is a unit of selection. I find his argument correlating genome size to body size particularly unconvincing, since one of the the largest genomes (the amoeba) has a very small body size. And no, Gregory is not talking size of cell, but of body size of multicellular organisms. After admitting that both the smallest and largest genomes are represented in protists, he then seems to forget that and look only at multicellular organisms! Yes, there are different names. But they are not necessarily different "forms" of selection. They are ways of describing different details of how selection is working -- in all 3 forms. By the way, Futuyma does not view frequency independent (what we normally talk about) and frequency dependent selection as different "forms" of natural selection: "Thus a population is not necessarily driven by natural selection to the most adaptive possible genetic constitution." pg 392

Merging Christianity and evolution is no problem. Been done for over 100 years and both are fine. Merging Fundamentalism and evolution is not possible. Fundamentalism is a belief in a literal and inerrant Bible. All your examples are from Fundamentalism, not Christianity. And many are contradicted by a literal reading of the Bible. Ironic, huh? That's not what the Bible says. Look in Genesis 1:27. God gives people food to eat. Why? Why do people need to eat? So that they do not starve to death. Genesis 2 contradicts this order anyway. The order of creation is different in the 2 creation stories. So one of them is wrong. It is a sign you should not read Genesis 1-8 literally. Contradicted by Genesis 3. Nowhere does it say "sin and [physical] death came into the world". The death in Genesis 2-3 has to be spiritual, not physical. Remember, Adam was to die immediately upon eating the fruit (beyom in Hebrew) and he did not. Yep. Jesus' geneology in Matthew and Luke contradict anyway so we know they are figurative. No problem. How does God's rights change if He created us by evolution rather than creating us by directly zapping us into existence? Again, no problem. First, the processes of chemistry, physics, and evolution are NOT chance! Evolution is contingent, but then so is human history. And no Christian has a problem with God being able to use the contingent events of human history to further His plan. Mutations are random only with relation to the needs of the individual and the population. Selection is the opposite of random -- it is determinism. So the "random" is a strawman. Also, there is nothing in science to say that God cannot introduce specific mutations. We would be unable to detect that. Even Dawkins', with is ardent atheism, admits this. So, a strawman problem. 1. This is accepting the basic belief of athiesm that natural = without God. Who says that belief is correct? Ironically, not Darwin. He had this quote about the role of God in "natural" in the Fontispiece to Origin: "The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion. This is just bad theology on Fundamentalism's part. 2. You are using the common misrepresentation of Ockam's Razor. The Razor isn't about theory evaluation, but about describing phenomenon. You shouldn't use hypotheses in the description of phenomenan. IOW, never use the word "because" and what follows when describing what is happening. The Ockham Razor statement about evolution would be "species transform to other species". Nothing about natural selection and nothing about God. 1. This is exactly what Christians concluded before Darwin published Origin of Species: "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832. 2. It is also what Fundamentalists do in other cases. Look at Luke 2:1. No Fundamentalist (or Christian) believes the whole world was enrolled. We use reliable extrabiblical evidence to know that Luke was speaking only of the Roman world. Fundies simply don't want to apply the rule to their interpretation of Genesis 1. They engage in Special Pleading. 3. This is not an "ad hoc hypothesis". Rather, it is a conclusion based directly on the Christian belief that God created. What did God create? Creation. What does science study? Creation! Christians believe that God has 2 books and can be found in both. When God's book of Creation contradicts with our interpretation of scripture, then it is out interpretation that is wrong. Fundamentalism, OTOH, is a worship of an interpretation of scripture as a god. So yes, evolution and science contradict the god of Fundamentalism. But since that god is not God, there is no problem. Simply drop your false idol worship and you are fine. That's no better. But you used the word "believe", didn't you? That is, this is their opinion in the absence of data. But it is only an opinion. None of the physicists have absolutely ruled out technicolor, have they? They are waiting for the data, the discovery of the Higgs particle. Again, even in your discussions, it can be seen that we don't evaluate theories on simplicity. We may have a prejudice toward theories that are simpler, but we don't declare them correct based on their simplicity. Even physicists wait for data. Unfortunately, the evidence in the physics literature and your own comments are refuting this. And is that "simpler" than either 3 dimensions or Loop Quantum Gravity? Why do you stick with something that is more complicated that LQG? Philosophy of science cuts across scientific disciplines. As I said, most examples used for illustrating the philosophy of science comes from physics. We may be talking slightly different standards here. You seem to be insisting that this is how physics is practiced. I am talking about "normative" practice for science -- how science should be done correctly. So you have another problem: just because physicists do this doesn't mean they should be evaluating theories on simplicity; they are doing bad science when they do. Dirac has a famous quote that it is more important for an equation to be "beautiful" than for it to be true. We know that is a bad way to do science. Evaluating theories by simplicity is a subset of Dirac's quote and is also a bad way to do science.

Vampares: 1. A locus is the site of a gene. There can be many alleles (= forms of a gene) associated with the locus. So your hypothesis has lost some credibility because you don't have the background science correct. 2. SHH is a HOX or developmental gene. The pathway of signalling by SHH has been implicated in several cancers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez (if this doesn't have the papers, just enter the search term "sonic, hedgehog, cancer") So you're hypothesis didn't come from your studies and is not original to you. It has been around in the scientific literature for quite a while and there is considerable direct evidence of a relationship of SHH and some cancers. If you thought you had a new idea, then I'm sorry. You've been scooped. 3. Gimap proteins are nucleotide binding proteins BUT function in T cells alone. Thus, they would not play a role in causing cancer in non-T cells (such as lung cancer where the cells that become cancerous seem to be progenitor lung stem cells).

No. You didn't read the posts: "The bacteria in the Stromatolites produce a material that glues the individual bacteria together. Because it is a kind of glue, this also traps particles of dirt and rock too. In a way, they form a bit like the plaque on your teeth. Both are produced by bacteria. In the case of Stromatolites, however, they also pick up junk from around them (like dirt and rock)." Dirt and rock. Not iron. I have not seen any data on the early ocean having a lot of iron. However, dissolved oxygen will react with iron to form iron oxide. Nor is calcium carbonate a byproduct of photosynthesis. Also, this is NOT a "transitional" species. The speaker is very confused about his science. The valid part is that the earliest fossils we have are of single-celled organisms. This contradicts creationism and is supports evolution. In creationism, the Flood would have mixed all the fossils together so that we would find multicellular organisms in all the layers of the fossil record.

Toumai and Ardipethecus are close to the common ancestor of humans and chimps. Mr. Skeptic, you can derive this by noting the arguments over whether the species are on the human or chimpanzee side of the split! Mr. Skeptic, the "holy grail" of transitions between apes and humans has been found so many times that it is not an issue anymore. It is only an "issue" for creationists, who keep trying to deny that the transitionals exist. This particular paper is trying to go back and find the common ancestor for ALL the great apes. It predates the split leading to the hominid lineage by 2-3 million years. If it is not the common ancestor, then it is a close relative of the common ancestor.

If you read the anthropological literature, "human" used to be applied only to the species H. sapiens. However, now the term is applied to any species in the genus Homo. CDarwin, we aren't going to settle the term here. That's being more than a little presumptuous. It is going to be debated within the anthropological scientific community and we will use the term as they do. So, for now, "human" applies to any species in the genus Homo. And yes, it is somewhat arbitrary and will remain so. Because evolution happens, it is always somewhat arbitrary when you do from one species or genus name to another. There are transitional individuals between A. afarensis and H. habilis. Are they "human"? Right now the anthropological community says "no". Not until you have recognizably fully H. habilis would the term "human" be applied. Otherwise, they use the term "hominid".

Please define this and give us some sources, as well as a description of how this causes extinction, especially of widely distributed species or groups of species. They do. Population genetics is the mathematics of natural selection. However, biology/ecology/evolution also incorporate contingency. Because events outside biology can profoundly influence biology (such as solar input or plate tectonics), biology/evolution can never be as deterministic as classical physics. Also, since individuals vary, this also forbids biology/evolution from being strictly deterministic, but instead being probabilistic. You wouln't be able to find buildings for the reasons you noted. However, gold, silver, and gem jewelry would be a better bet. Since all are stable, if we could find say, a gold ring or a cut emerald, that would be signs of intelligence. There was actually a sci-fi short story the author used a gold ring was found around the finger bones of a dino. The author also used something like the Laetoli tracks, only incorporating the impressions of a wheeled cart or wagon. This comes from the studies on H. floriensis, the "hobbit" fossils on the island in Indonesia. The idea is that, on small islands with a restricted food supply, large mammals evolve to be smaller. On this particular island, H. floriensis would be smaller H. erectus and there were also "dwarf mammoth" bones on the island. Mammoths isolated on the island also evolved to be smaller, so that they would use less food. Sauropsids, being cold blooded, tend to need less food than warm-blooded mammals. However, there is considerable evidence that dinos were at least partially warm-blooded. The only descendents of dinos around -- birds -- are fully warm blooded. So we can infer that what happens to large mammals on small islands happens to large dinos. However, notice that small mammals don't get smaller. The mice and rats on the island stayed the same size. None of this restricts the habitats that mammals can occupy. After all, the hominids and mammoths adapted to the small island, so they can occupy that habitat.

Actually, there is evidence against that theory. As we go back in time, that's when we get to the Big Bang. As I said, even time comes into existence at the Big Bang. So your "continuously to infinity in both directions of time" doesn't work. "Before" the Big Bang, there is no time. Sorry, but QM is not wrong. Virtual particles have been observed. It is your concept of existence that is wrong. Yes, particles pop into and out of existence everywhere all the time. They last for about 10^-21 seconds. You can get the particles to be "permanent" by adding energy -- such as the energy in colliders. When particles collide in an accelerator, you get not only the original particles, but lots of new particles that didn't exist before. Those are the virtual particles that got enough energy to be permanent. In the case of virtual particles, "existence" is result of change in quantum states; it is a function of change. Interestingly, our universe has a net energy = 0. The universe can be viewed as a huge virtual particle. Which is one reason why "quantum fluctuation" was in my list above. It's possible that our entire universe is a quantum fluctuation. However, we would also need spacetime to arise via quantum fluctuation. One of the reasons String Theory has such attraction is that spacetime does arise by quantum fluctuation in ST. No, virtual particles must have energy to be permanent. They are still "real" in any sense of the word, it's just that they don't exist long -- ~ 10^-21 seconds. However, while they exist, they exert real effects on other matter. The Casimir Effect is well-documented: 3. C Seife, The subtle pull of emptiness. Science, 275 (Jan. 10): 158, 1997. Describes recent experiment demonstrating the Casimir effect. 3a. Physical Review Letters -- November 23, 1998 -- Volume 81, Issue 21 pp. 4549-4552 http://ojps.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000081000021004549000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid=2476841006384468984 Paper documenting Casimir Effect 3b. http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6 web article on Casimir effect 7. P Yam, Exploiting zero-point energy. Scientific American, 279: 82-101, Dec. 1997. Another confirmation of the Casimir effect, including attempts to tap it for energy. 8. LM Krause Excerpt: the physics of virtual particles. Natural History 107: 16, Feb. 1998. It's not a premise; it's a conclusion. Before Big Bang the accepted theory was Steady State, which had matter/energy/spacetime always existing. You seem to be equating universe with existence. Those may not be the same thing. However, if we take existence = universe then yes, it seems that an uncaused First Cause is needed to start the universe. The false premise here is that the phenomenon of existence must be reconciled with the precepts of logic. In science, logic is valid only if our experience of the universe shows it to be valid. If the universe contradicts logic, too bad for logic. Wave-particle duality contradicts the logical precept of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Too bad for the law; light is still BOTH a particle and wave at the same time.

1. Bacteria don't have "encapsulation" within the cell. 2. If, by "encapsulation" you mean a cell membrane, then this is one area where the protocells are so cool. The proteins themselves form the membrane. Remember, today's cells have membranes that are 60% protein! The idea of a lipid bilayer omits the majority of the membrane. The all-protein membranes of protocells are semi-permeable. This is demonstrated by their having action potentials identical to modern nerve cells. 3. Organelles in eukaryotic cells can have arisen several ways: a. Symbiosis of bacteria. This is how mitochondria and chloroplasts came to be b. Internal connections to the cell membrane: this could have given rise to lysosomes. c. The protocells often form like an onion, with several layers of internal membranes. This could be the origin of a nucleus and the Golgi.

Robert Bakker proposed that dino numbers and species diversity were decreasing long before the meteor impact at the KT boundary. His idea was that land bridges and plate tectonics were allowing the migration of species of dinos on one continent to others. So there was now an intermingling of similar species that before had been isolated. He proposed that this intermingling allowed diseases that were well-adapted to their host populations to break into virgin populations. It is well-known that both the microbe and the host populations evolve rapidly. A microbe breaking into a virgin population (such as jumping species) causes a much more severe reaction from the host -- a reaction that often kills the host. This creates a crisis for the microbe: if the host dies, all the microbes (virus or bacteria) die also. Unless, of course, some of them have managed to infect a new host. Over the course of generations, both the host and the microbe evolve to reduce virulence (the severity of the disease). The microbe then becomes a "childhood" disease. When measles, mumps, whooping cough, etc. first were introduced into European populations in 100 - 400 AD, they caused widespread epidemics and high mortality. Altho they all were referred to as "plagues", don't leap to the conclusion that they were bubonic plague. By 1500 AD all these had adapted and were childhood diseases. Then when the Europeans invaded the Americas, these relatively mild diseases to the Europeans became deadly "plagues" to the American Indians, causing widespread mortality and the extinction of scores of tribes. See the book Plagues and Peoples by MacNeil. Bakker proposed that something similar happened between 70 and 65 Mya. The order Dinosauria was already in decline and heading for extinction when the meteor finished off the last of them. Detailed population studies in the Hell Creek formation are consistent with the hypothesis. But there is no way to tell how widespread or effective this was. Today we see diseases jumping from species to a new species and causing widespread population decline, but I don't know of any observed extinction due to this. How are mammals "restricted in terms of local environment"? Mammals are found in all sorts of climates. It is the sauropsids that are more limited: they cannot exist in frigid environments like the polar bear and caribou do. I have seen that dinos gained the upper hand over early mammals because of increased mobility. The early dinos were bipedal and thus able to move faster and quicker than the early mammals. Try the "Walking with Dinosaurs" series. The segment of life before the dinos goes into the advantages of bipedality.