lucaspa

Too bad for your beliefs and logic! I don't mean to be insulting here, but if you do science then "belief" and "logic" have to take a last place to data. The data for the Big Bang is solid. Even Bojowald, Hawking, and others looking at "different" theories accept the data for the BB. All they are trying to do is removed the singularity that is the BB under General Relativity. IOW, they accept BB but want a theory that means BB is not a singularity. Nope, the universe being that old is not an illusion. It's a theory strongly supported by the data. Also, remember to be careful about separating time from other dimensions. It's spacetime with 4 dimensions: 3 of space and one of time. Again, too bad for logic. What you object to is trying to make QM be deterministic. Yes, when people try to make QM what it is not, then the math gets weird. The math is pretty simple if you take QM for what it is. QM itself is based on the data and obsevations. Those observations violate what we consider "logic", but the observations are solid. On a philosophical level, I'm glad the universe is indeterministic. It means the future is open and what I do has real consequences. Think about it. If the universe is strictly deterministic, then everything we do is caused by a prior state and is determined. My writing these sentences has been determined since the beginning of the universe. Your reply has been determined. Why bother? We are just puppets going thru the motions, and it is the instant of the beginning of the universe that is pulling the strings. You do realize that BB says that "before" the universe there was nothing, right? No space, no time, no matter/energy. What I don't see is how the "crystal ball" explains anything. What does it DO? Why hypothesize it in the first place? If you think the "crystal ball" explains things and can be understood, then work out the math for understanding it, then submit the paper to a physics journal. Let the experts review it for you.

Yes, that's your belief. The question is: HOW did God create? Did God create everything in its present form? Or did God create thru the BB and all the material processes that followed? In the previous discussion, what do you see that makes you think God did not create?

You are assuming I saw the show. I didn't. I was hoping for something in print as a source. See my post above for a description of ekpyrotic. What I cited is a science news story from a scientific meeting plus the original paper discussing ekpyrotic. As I said, ekpyrotic depends on String Theory, and String Theory is in trouble. There have been tests of the "rolled up" dimensions essential to ST at detection levels that early versions of ST predicted they should be detected. Nothing. ST has been modified to lower the detection levels, but new tests are probing those levels and still not seeing what ST says they should be seeing. 5. Kaku M, Testing string theory. Discover August 2005 http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/cover/ To my knowledge, ST has not yet been definitively falsified, but I may have missed it. However, if ST is falsified, then ekpyrotic is also falsified.

That is not what I have read. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. " It takes place in 11 dimensions, six of which are rolled up and can safely be ignored. In that effectively five-dimensional space float two perfectly flat four-dimensional membranes, like sheets drying on parallel clotheslines. One of the sheets is our universe; the other, a "hidden" parallel universe. Provoked by random fluctuations, our unseen companion spontaneously sheds a membrane that slowly floats toward our universe. As it moves, it flattens out--although quantum fluctuations wrinkle its surface somewhat--and gently accelerates toward our membrane. The floater speeds up and splats into our universe, whereupon some of the energy of the collision becomes the energy and matter that make up our cosmos. ... That is because at any moment another membrane could peel off, float toward us, and destroy our universe. Indeed, Steinhardt says, we might have already seen the signs of impending doom. "Maybe the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is a precursor of such a collision," he says. "It is not a pleasant thought." " Maybe Seife got it wrong. If so, could you please post your source? Why do you keep saying "Hurok" when it is "Turok"?

Partially, we do have a disconnect in usage of terms. As used in LQC, "determinism" has a different meaning than used in philosophy. However, I think you are going beyond what Bojowald states. Again, going back to the review written by Bojowald, he specifically discusses determinism: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-11/ "Loosely related to unitarity, but more general, is the concept of determinism. This is usually weakened in quantum mechanics anyway since in general one makes only probabilistic statements. Nevertheless, the wave function is determined at all times by its initial values, which is sometimes seen as the appropriate substitute for deterministic behavior. In loop quantum cosmology the situation again changes slightly since, as discussed in Section 5.18, the wave function may not be determined by the evolution equation everywhere, i.e., not at points of classical singularities, and instead acquire new conditions on its initial values. This could be seen as a form of indeterministic behavior, even though the values of a wave function at classical singularities would not have any effect on the behavior for non-degenerate configurations.2 (If they had such an effect, the evolution would be singular.) In this situation one deals with determinism in a background independent context, which requires a new view. In fact, rather than interpreting the freedom of choosing values at classical singularities as indeterministic behavior, it seems more appropriate to see this as an example for deterministic behavior in a background independent theory. The internal time label first appears as a kinematical object through the eigenvalues of the triad operator (46). It then plays a role in the constraint equation (49) when formulated in the triad representation. Choosing internal time is just made for convenience, and it is the constraint equation that must be used to see if this choice makes sense in order to formulate evolution. This is indeed the case at non-zero where we obtain a difference operator in the evolution parameter. At zero , however, the operator changes and does not allow us to determine the wave function there from previous values. Now, we can interpret this simply as a consequence of the constraint equation rejecting the internal time value . " As I read this, Bojowald is saying that the evolution of the universe is "determined" by the initial wave function. That still leaves the indeterminism of quantum mechanics within the universe intact. HOWEVER, Bojowald is also saying that the initial wave function itself can be indeterministic. It may, or may not, have any connection to previous values (see the last sentence I italicized). If there is no connection to previous values, that breaks the cause-effect chain necessary for determinism in the philosophical sense.

Did you? Do they mention ekpyrotic? I told you I was going by the titles; I didn't have time to watch them. That I did when slides were available. They are not for most of the talks. Losing interest is not the same as being falsified. Have you found any articles refuting ekpyrotic? I'm not advocating ekpyrotic; I'm simply pointing out that it is a contender. A whole paper at the meeting of nothing but "perfunctory acknowledgment"? Does that seem likely. The problem I have heard about No Boundary is that it doesn't lead anywhere to more tests. In order to get No Boundary, parameters where all the space dimensions and time are indistinguishable are picked arbitrarily. They do lead to the universe we see, but there is no compelling reason to pick those parameters except they give the universe we see. So there is no way to test No Boundary. Martin, I caution you to remember 1) that science is not a popularity contest and 2) don't get emotionally attached to a particular theory. Yes, I see Loop Quantum Cosmology is the big news, but that doesn't mean it is accurate. We need to wait to see that. Since LQC is based on LQG, do you see the same interest in LQG? If not, isn't that strange? Well, that may represent the increasing trouble that String Theory is in. I'm not sure about that as you are. I found a nice review of LQC written by Bojowald -- http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-11/ Some excerpts relating to LQC and time: "The wave function thus extends to a new branch beyond the classical singularity, i.e., to a classically disconnected region. Intuitively this leads to a picture of a collapsing universe preceding the Big Bang, but one has to keep in mind that this is the picture obtained from internal time where other time concepts are not available. In such a situation it is not clear, intuitive pictures notwithstanding, how this transition would be perceived by observers were they able to withstand the extreme conditions. It can be said reliably that the wave function is defined at both sides, “before” and “after”, and every computation of physical predictions, e.g., using observables, we can do at “our” side can also be done at the other side. In this sense, quantum gravity is free of singularities and provides a transition between the two branches. The more complicated question is what this means for evolution in a literal sense of our usual concept of time (see also [200]). " The article goes on to say that there is a discontinuity in time in the wave functions from "before" to "after": "It is not clear in general that a wave function penetrating a classical singularity enters a new classical regime even if the volume becomes large again. For instance, there can be oscillations on small scales, i.e., violations of pre-classicality, picked up by the wave function when it travels through the classical singularity. As discussed in Section 5.17, the question of what conditions on a wave function to require for a classical regime is still open, but even if one can confidently say that there is such a new classical region does the question arise if time continues during the transition through the pure quantum regime. At least in the special model of a free massless scalar in isotropic cosmology the answer to both questions is affirmative, based on the availability of a physical inner product and quantum observables in this model [24]. " Since Bojowald specifies a "special model", there are other models. I think you are going beyond what LQC says when you say definitively "It goes back in time." The answer I see is "maybe LQC goes smoothly back in time." Or maybe there is a dicontinuity and time "starts" at the BB. A question I have is: where do you get such a contracting spacetime? Black holes? Not the universe in general, since the data is pretty clear now that the universe is going to expand forever.

That is not exactly what SSU was. You qualify it by saying "whatever the universe is". That would allow you to accept that the "universe" is two 4-D 'branes in a 5-D space, wouldn't it? Or it would allow the expansion/crunch of the original No Boundary, right? But that isn't what SSU stated. SSU stated that the universe we see -- the observable universe if you will -- is static. In that case, you are back to the original SSU. And that has been falsified. Sorry. And how does a theory get to that stage of acceptance? By having the alternative theories falsified! We established in the aquatic ape thread that supporters != support. There is always going to be a few die-hards that cling to falsified theories. Shoot, up until a couple of years ago there was still a Flat Earth Society!

The Standard Model does that. So does String Theory. Look how those theories incorporate math. Remember, the posit in String Theory are strings and 'branes. Interactions of those cause matter to be organized out of those subatomic parts. In the Standard Model, we have quarks and forces such as the strong nuclear force. Between them, these are the causes for matter to be organized. Again, there is math there. So why do you think your theory should be exempt? Severian is correct. You are turning the thread into a parody by doing exactly what the OP said should not be done when proposing a new theory. Yep. So why can't we measure the effects of your proposed causes? Why no mathematical description of the strength of the effects of your causes? Why is your theory exempt from these when other theories can produce the math and measurements? No, you canNOT "conclude that something needs to cause" at the quantum level. That is an extrapolation from common sense that the data denies. There are events at the quantum level that have no cause. Decay of individual radioactive atoms is one. The pattern of decay of large numbers of atoms is regular, but at the level of the individual atom there is no "cause" that triggers that atom to decay at that particular time. Entanglement seems to be the same. Quantum particles become entangled so that spin up or spin down is undetermined. Determine the spin of one of the pair and the other immediately assumes the other spin. How? Don't know and there may be no deterministic cause. What you are doing is trying to force a philosophy -- determinism -- onto the universe instead of letting the universe tell you how it really is. What you are doing is the opposite of science and how science is done. Theories are collections of statements. Statements have consequences. What you call "measurement and calculation" are the consequences. And yes, to be valid a theory requires consequences. If a theory has NO consequences, it doesn't say anything and it is not part of science. No, we do not "need" to consider mind and consciousness. As far as we know, we are the only consciousness in the universe. Therefore, since we are not the cause of quantum entanglement, we don't need to consider consciousness. The OP said that you have to correctly represent current theories. This paragraph does not do that. Interactions among matter/energy are much more complex that the "push or pull" you stated.

Somewhat. However, whenever areas of science that are in conflict with creationism are discussed, I submit the forum needs to allow space to discuss the interaction of science and religion. You have tried to shove these discussions off to other boards or close them entirely (I see you closed the Philosophy of Science section). Sayonara, you can't treat or limit science to simply a collection of facts. Collecting facts are the most boring and trivial part of science. What is really important in science is formulating and evaluating hypotheses/theories. This is the exciting part of science. And whenever this is done, some theories are going to be extrapolated beyond science to other areas of our lives. You can't stop it; people from PZ Meyer and Daniel Dennett to the lay interested person on this board is going to do that. Thus, if you are going to have a 'science forum', then that aspect of the scientific discussion is going to come up. You are going to have Socrates say that science and theism are in conflict. Part of science is evaluating whether that is true. You might argue that this is not part of any particular scientific theory, but it is part of how people view and use science. And it is of great importance to everyone interested in science and who might want to become a scientist. How is the public perception of science going to impact government funding of science in the next 50 years? Will it go so far as to have outside oversight as to what scientists can study? Will it even influence the conclusions scientists can reach? And I mean that on both extremes of the religion - atheism continuum. After all, there are some studies vocal atheists don't think should be done, too, and some conclusions that are not acceptable to them. So, I think you are either going to have to find a place for these discussions of science and the wider society or they are going to keep cropping up piecemeal as posters make comments about science.

How do you or djmacarro know dogs have souls to begin with? How do we objectively and intersubjectively identify a soul? Part of our discussion of soul is based upon the ability to conceive and verbalize abstract thoughts. Dogs certainly don't have the ability to verbalize. If the ability to have abstract thoughts is dependent on brain size (and much evidence suggests it is), then dogs don't have large enough brains.

I know it "seems" that way to you, but you are still mistaken. Remember, in the original post, those 2 statements are not together. They are separated by several paragraphs. Go back and look. There is no "because" or "ergo" linking them. It is a fallacy to insert the "because" or "ergo". As I stated, the conclusion that Fundamentalism is not Christianity is independent of the stance on evolution. So, I have two separate claims: 1. Christians accepted evolution. 2. Fundamentalism is not Christianity. I did explain how Fundamentalism contradicts the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. Look at my replies to Sisyphus. Basically, the Nicean and Apostle's Creeds are about God and Jesus. Fundamentalism is about a collection of books. Also, I never said the Nicean or Apostle's Creeds implied acceptance of evolution. I merely said that they state "God created" without specifying how God created. Fundamentalism specifies a literal and inerrant Bible. The reason it came up in a discussion about evolution is because Socrates claimed that we were witnessing a conflict of science vs theology. In Socrates' view, Fundamentalism was standing for all of theology or all of theism. In order to state the correct conflict, it was necessary to point out that the opposition to evolution is coming from a particular religion -- Fundamentalism -- and not all of theism. And yes, for reasons I have gone into, Fundamentalism is not Christianity. It is a new, separate religion that calls itself Christianity but isn't. Now, the wolf in sheep's clothing that is Fundamentalism is a problem Christianity has to deal with. It's not science. However, the reality is important to science in terms of politics and sociology. If science continues to misidentify Fundamentalism as Christianity, then science risks alienating its most valuable allies in keeping evolution taught in public schools and excluding creationism as being misrepresented as a valid scientific theory. In all the court cases against creationism (and in favor of evolution) in the United States, the plaintiffs have always been Christians. Not just theists, but Christians. The plaintiffs were not atheists and not scientists. Scientists only come in to give expert testimony, not to initiate the lawsuits to begin with. In the famous 1982 case of MacLean vs Arkansas that prohibited the teaching of young earth creationism, there were 26 plaintiffs. 23 were ministers or rabbis; the other 3 were educators and Christians. In the recent Dover case that prohibited teaching intelligent design creationism, there were 8 plaintiffs. Again, all were Christians. If the Christian community is alienated by saying science is in conflict with theism and forcing that community to choose either atheism or rejecting science, then science loses the social and political battle. Worse, putting science in conflict with theism misrepresents science! It warps and distorts what science is, what it can and cannot tell us, and how science works. Creationism attacks individual theories. Saying that science refutes theism attacks the very foundations of science. Don't be silly. You are not applying the reasoning I used. The First Commandment is foundational for Judeo-Christianity. It says there is only one god and that believers can only worship that god. It clearly states that turning anything else into a god is against the religion. OTOH, the Deut 21:18-21 is a minor rule. It is not in any sense foundational for two reasons: 1. Stoning recalcitrant children is not in the creeds. Believing in Yahweh is. 2. Paul states that the Laws no longer apply, but the Commandments do. Therefore this Law is not a necessary part of Christianity. As I told Sisyphus, accepting evolution is logical conclusion from the foundational beliefs/statements of Christianity. Fundamentalism has different foundational beliefs/statements. From those foundational beliefs -- belief in a literal and inerrant Bible -- it is "logical" to reject evolution/geology/physics/cosmology because they contradict much of a literal Genesis 1-8. I put "logical" in quotes as applied to Fundamentalism because Fundamentalism has many internal logical contradictions and the Fundamentalist has to arbitrarily pick and choose among the inconsistencies to get the particular "logic" involved in rejecting scientific theories.

Neither have I. A google search -- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cosmological+pluralism%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 -- shows that nearly all uses of it are Socrates posting on various boards! When discussing "life" on other planets, you always have to be careful to be sure what is being discussed. Is it "life" in general, even if it is only microbes, or does the poster mean "sentient species with a technological society"? Both have been used in this thread. A lot of the chemical reactions that make up "life" depends on the chemical properties of water. Particularly, on the water's dipolar nature and high heat of vaporization. We did discuss ammonia in biochemistry class as a possible substitute. It is bipolar. However, the problem is that ammonia boils at such a low temperature. That means very little energy available for chemical reactions of proteins or other macromolecules dissolved in the ammonia -- a very low metabolic rate, IOW. So, theoretically possible but not very likely. However, I've seen sci-fi stories even speculating with liquid hydrogen as the solvent. That yields even slower metabolism lifeforms.

There are a couple of titles there that could be discussing 'branes and ekpyrotic. Remember, ekpyrotic is dependent on String Theory. Therefore, the following talks could be ekpyrotic: Struggling with Spacelike Singularities in String Theory[Podcast][Aud][Cam] Winding Strings and Spacelike Singularities[slides][Podcast][Aud][Cam] Loop Quantum Gravity -- String Theory's main rival -- was represented: Non-singular Behavior in Loop Quantum Gravity[slides][Podcast][Aud][Cam] So was No Boundary: Discussion: No Boundary Proposal and Alpha Parameters[Podcast][Aud][Cam] You made a claim in an earlier post that there is now a "before" the BB. Please document that. What I have seen are attempts to get a quantum theory of gravity -- to quantize GR. This would remove the "singularity" but still wouldn't give you anything "before" the BB. Ekpyrotic and No Boundary provide a "before" the BB. But you dismiss ekpyrotic out of hand and do not mention No Boundary. So I sincerely want to know where you got the idea that there has not been determined that there was not a t = 0.

There are a couple of titles there that could be discussing 'branes and ekpyrotic. Remember, ekpyrotic is dependent on String Theory. Therefore, the following talks could be ekpyrotic: Struggling with Spacelike Singularities in String Theory[Podcast][Aud][Cam] Winding Strings and Spacelike Singularities[slides][Podcast][Aud][Cam] Loop Quantum Gravity -- big rival to String Theory -- was represented: Non-singular Behavior in Loop Quantum Gravity[slides][Podcast][Aud][Cam] As was No Boundary: Discussion: No Boundary Proposal and Alpha Parameters[Podcast][Aud][Cam] Now, your claim that the new theories go back to "before" the singularities needs some documentation. I see people trying to explain the singularity and find a theory of quantum gravity, but that still doesn't get us to a "before" the BB. Please cite your sources. Ekpyrotic and No Boundary have a "before" the BB, but you didn't mention those two. So please tell us what you were thinking of. Actually, ekpyrotic does give a smooth transition thru the singularity. Because there is no singularity. Ekpyrotic and No Boundary try to remove the singularity. I also still don't see a "before" sequence in the other quantum gravity theories. Please tell us what you have gleaned is the "before" sequence. Finally, as I mentioned elsewhere, quantum mechanics is inherently not deterministic. Therefore you can't get "the quantum state of the universe in a deterministic way". The computer model was done, but I don't think Turok needed the different cases. Because the initial conditions were not arbitrary -- there was something pre-existing "before" the collision of the 'branes. However, such modeling of different conditions would be necessary if there was no "before" the BB. So this argues that the different quantum gravity theories don't provide a "before" the BB.

Those are hits that mention SSU. But SSU is a falsified theory. There is evidence that simply can't exist if SSU were true. Sorry, but SSU is not a possible answer. There are proposed alternatives to BB. Ekpyrotic is one, No Boundary is another. However, they both LOOK LIKE BB. That is, they accept all the data that led to BB, but think there is an alternative way to get the same data. SSU cannot produce the data.

Sorry, but with quantum mechanics, NONE of the universe is strictly deterministic!

I do. This is called "ekpyrotic". The papers, in case anyone is interested, are here: 1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. "Ekpyrotic" model. 11 dimensions, 6 rolled up and safely ignored. In perfectly flat 5D space float 2-4D membranes. One is our universe, the other a hidden "parallel" universe. Random fluctuations cause hidden universe to shed membrane that floats to our universe with quantum fluctuations. Some of energy of collision becomes matter and energy in our universe. Removes need for inflation. Removes singularity of big bang, instead is a "platelike splash". Big bang and ekpyrotic have different gravity waves. If another membrane peels off of hidden universe, then would destroy ours on impact. http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189 2. Turok on ekpyrotic http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/turok2/ 4. Veneziano G The myth of the beginning of time. Scientific American 54-63 May 2004 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000 Sciam article I would be careful of the phrase "theoretical physicists are starting to believe " Ekpyrotic was proposed by Turok. A FEW physicists are looking at it seriously. Veneziano is one. But this is still a small minority in the theoretical physics community. A very large problem is that ekpyrotic depends on String Theory, and ST is in trouble. That's not what I have read. Ekpyrotic means the destruction of our universe and the creation of a new one. We're going to need a citation for this paragraph, please.

It is not a human perception issue. You can look at what science is and how science is done and reach a conclusion based on data. Just like you evaluate any scientific theory (collection of statements). As it turns out, science is agnostic. There is no doubt of that. That's one argument against Darwinism being atheistic. However, at the time Darwin wrote Origin of Species, Darwin was (according to his own words) a staunch theist. It was only later in life that he had "wild" swings of belief: from theist to agnostic. He said that he was "more and more, but not always" an agnostic. I have no idea what this says. Really, I don't understand your meaning. Please try again. In order to find the flaws in reasoning and logic, you must know what the reasoning and logic are to begin with. What is "that"? The belief that evolution is the method God used to create? Did I say there was "proof"? NO! I labeled it clearly as belief: "I mention this because there is a huge number of people, including at least 50% of all evolutionary biologists, who believe that what science discovers, including evolution, is the specific mechanism by which God created. IOW, they believe in creation, but also accept evolution." Notice how I was careful to use "believe" when applied to the idea that God created and "accept" applied to evolution. We "accept" scientific theories as provisionally true. Accept because of the data. This isn't a label, but rather an ad hoc hypothesis trying to save creationism from falsification. The reason it doesn't work is because it violates the data creationists are working from: the Bible. We can test the hypothesis by going to the Bible and seeing if Satan has ever messed with Creation. Nope. Only God created. Not Satan. Therefore all the data that led us to accept evolution had to come, by the internal logic of creationists, from God. Not Satan. And the point I'm trying to get at is that science is NOT "just a method". Particularly not a method, as in singular. Science does not use one method. Science is the study of the physical universe. That said, it is impossible to come up with a criteria to say "this is science but this is not". All attempts to do this, including yourse that "science really is just a method" does not work. You have to come up with a better idea of what science is. You just applied a human label to science! You said science is just a method! And science does not "gain fact". Instead, the ultimate production of science is theories. It's not just "subjective". Given the premise that the Bible is literal and inerrant in that literalness, then it is objective that science refutes inerrant literalness of the Bible. There is no doubt that what we have discovered thru science tells us that the earth is NOT young or that each species was NOT specially created. Let me try this another way. What creationists have done is take a literal reading of the Bible and construct a number of scientific theories from that: the earth is young, all geological features are due to a world-wide flood, species are manufactured and independent from other species, etc. Those theories can be, and have been, evaluated just like we evaluate other scientific theories. And that objective evaluation shows that the theories are wrong. The "perceptual issue" comes from an error on the part of creationists: tying the scientific theories to the ultimate existence of God. Yes. But the point I wanted to get across to you is that those "conspirators" were also creationists. You try to say "there is no vast conspiracy because there are too many conspirators". I am saying "So, how can there be a "conspiracy" if the adherents of creationism are the ones that showed it to be wrong? (remember, Darwin started out the voyage of the Beagle as a creationist)" IOW, there can be no conspiracy "for evolution" because all the original evolutionists were creationists. They should have stayed creationists. There is no need for them to have a "conspiracy". It takes a human mind to say anything! So what is your point? You use your human mind to say "To me evolution is simply a fact about the world around us," It takes a human mind to say that. And, in fact, you are wrong. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It is such a well-supported theory that we regard it as (provisionally) true, but it is not a fact. Facts are observations. Theories are collections of statements. Evolution is a collection of statements (actually 5 theories) that is well-supported by facts. Then I am really sorry for you, because there is a big difference between evolution and atheism. What you seem to be doing is introducing your own philosophical subjective opinion into science. Yes, evolution happened. Evolution is the material explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. BUT, can you validly extrapolate beyond that to either 1) God exists or 2) God does not exist (atheism)? No. The facts won't let you. PS, you use FSM -- flying spaghetti monster -- as tho it is a valid argument. If FSM has the characteristics of God, then it is God. A rose by any other name ... All you've done is shown your own failure to grasp the facts and your belief that, because you call deity something other than "God", you have somehow denied deity. You haven't. You could say "gristhnorp burns in the presence of oxygen to form water." I would reply "you mean hydrogen". You would say "no, I mean gristhnorp and because I said grishthnorp then hydrogen does not exist."

However, it's still an "accident" that some fish have the variation/mutation to hatch at 17°C. Natural selection is a two step process: 1. Variation 2. Selection. Mutation is one component of variation. Sexual recombination is a bigger component. Now, there are times when mutability is itself selected for. That is, defects in faithfully replicating DNA, with its resultant large number of mutations, is itself advantageous: 3. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15). The primary research articleis JE LeClerc, B Li, WL Payne, TA Cebula, High mutation frequencies among Eschericia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science, 274: 1208-1211, 1996 (Nov.15). Sorry, but the mutation is "unplanned". You act like evolution is a conscious process. It's not. It happens to populations, not individuals. "Species have a strategy" is not accurate. The individuals of a species do not get together in a meeting an plan anything, much less a "strategy". In general, faithfully reproducing DNA is more advantageous than having a large number of errors. However, complete fidelity is impossible to achieve. It would take more entropy than the entire universe possesses to have a complete error-free system of copying DNA. Notice that: it takes more energy and effort to have a more error-free process. So there is always a trade-off going on: error-free DNA replication or use of resources. Natural selection is always doing a cost-benefit analysis for every trait, including the trait of faithful replication of DNA. At some point the cost overwhelms the benefit. No "strategy" involved. Just natural selection sifting thru the offered designs and picking the best one for current conditions from those available.

OK, I do work in the medical field. Cloning is expensive. A lot more expensive than good old fashioned sexual reproduction. Remember that cloning, so far, is very inefficient. Over 700 attempts to get Dolly. Now cloners have the attempts reduced to "just" about 200 per successful cloned animal to term. The advantage, for animal breeders, is that it preserves exactly the genome of an extraordinary animal. Say, a sheep that has much finer wool or a cow that produces twice the amount of milk. What else would you condider the clone? How would a clone be different from a twin? Scientific reasons: Problems: The following is not a reason for "stopping", but simply problems. There is really no scientific reason for not doing something. The reasons are always ethical/moral. There seems to be problems in getting cloned humans. Remember, the Korean group had to fake their results. There is difficulty in getting the ovum to divide more than about 4 times. There is concern that the clone my prematurely age. For continuing: it can preserve endangered species; it can keep the alleles of infertile people in the population; it can shorten the time it takes to improve of livestock or plants by selective breeding. Moral reasons: Remember, none of these are scientific but arise from whatever source of ethics the individual is using. So these are some of the reasons I have seen advanced by various people. Please do not quote any of them as my personal opinion. For cloning: Provide a means for infertile people to have children. Provide a source of genetically identical crops/animals so that we know the safety of the product. If cloning is only continued to the blastocyst stage (5-10 days in humans), then the cloned blastocyst provides a source of embryonic stem cells. If the clone is continued to term and then adulthood, the clone can provide a source of spare parts for people. Against cloning: "plays God". Safety concerns, especially for humans. We don't know the long-term effects of cloning, such as perhaps an increased risk of cancer, degenerative diseases, or premature aging. Loss of diversity: if all domestic plants or animals are clones, then they would be more vulnerable to new diseases. Such an epidemic could wipe out the plant or animal, having deleterious effects on humans dependent on the crop or food animal. Prejudice: people not view the clones as humans. Or worse, people exploit the clones as property or for spare parts.

I'm sorry, book worm, but the information is still incorrect. 1. BB occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. 2. It was not an explosion. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmexp.html Questions about Big Bang http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/cosmology.php#questions Better questions about BB This next one is a truly exceptional article that clears up a lot of misconceptions about the BB: 7. Lineweaver CH and Davis TM Misconceptions about the Big Bang, Scientific American 36-45 March 2005.

It's disruptive selection. Natural selection comes in 3 forms: 1. Directional selection. This is what we usually mean when we say "natuarl selection". This is the selection that transforms populations. 2. Purifying or stabilizing selection. This is when a population is well-adapted to its niche. Any new variation is likely to be less adaptive, so selection keeps the population the same. 3. Disruptive selection happens when the population faces different environments in different parts of its range. Directional selection in each region tends to pull the population apart into 2 species (allopatric) but gene flow between regions keeps this from happening. Not really. "by geography" is allopatric speciation. "lifestyle" is sympatric speciation. There is no "point". Your assumption -- "I'm assuming that at some point one generation becomes a new species from the previous generation." -- is wrong. We can look at a population at generation 1 and say "It is species A". Then we can come back 1,000 generations later and say "It is species B." BUT, there is no magic line where we can say "At generation 499 we have species A, but at generation 500 we have species B." Reproductive isolation is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. This is why there is no precise defintion of species. Whatever definition you make, you will always find a population that is in-between undergoing speciation that doesn't fit the definition. Go back to the beginning of my previous post. I clearly stated that speciation by hybridization happens often in plants. Here is one paper detailing the genetics of speciation by hybridization: 1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 Here's another one: 2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1 But in animals speciation by hybridization is extremely rare. I gave you one reference to such speciation -- in snails. If you look at that paper, it will cite other examples. In the biological species concept, species are populations of individuals that interbreed freely with each other but do not breed with other populations or, if they do, they do not produce fertile offspring. So, as speciation begins by allopatric or sympatric (geographical or lifestyle isolation), yes, there are fertile hybrids. BUT, as the populations diverge then the hybrids become less common and they are not fertile with each other, altho they may still be able to interbreed back to one of the populations. Look up the research of the Grants on the Galapagos finches and you will see this. Eventually, as the speciation process continues, the hybrids are not fertile at all with anyone. The exact genes involved in this process are now known: 1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. I don't see how. We already know behavior of humans and behaviors of chimps. We can compare those. Much of our behavior is cultural, and a hybrid is not going to have a culture. No, but I haven't done an extensive search. This isn't society deciding what is true, but what is ethical! Remember the Nazi experiments on humans. Lots of scientific data obtained. Completely unethical. Remember the syphilus experiments on black men. Lots of data; completely unethical. You are confusing 2 different concepts, and it's dangerous: 1. What is true in an objective sense. 2. What is ethical. Science is not a system of ethics. Whatever you use to decide "right and wrong", it is NOT science! It comes from some other source. For some, it is religion. For others, it is a study of ethics. What you are using is the ethic of "the ends justify the means", because you are justifying ES cell research by "will create technology that will revolutionize medicine". I don't buy that ethic. Also, scientifically, there are severe problems with your view. Nearly all the revolution for medicine can be accomplished by adult stem cells. Now, I don't agree with those opposed to ES cell research, but that is because I am coming from a different ethical premise. My premise is that human life does not begin until birth. Thus, ethically, a blastocyst is not a human in the legal and ethical sense. However, I respect the people coming from a different perspective even tho I disagree with them. Just because we can do something does not mean we ought to. Science accepts these ethical limitations. There are severe ethical limits on doing research on people. Yes, we can run studies on humans, say, where we don't treat a leg fracture at all for some people and treat it with adult stem cells in others. That would be the ideal experimental groups. However, we can't do that. We must compare adult stem cells vs the best medical treatment available. We must treat people with leg fractures. That's where we diverge. You are placing your ethics on how important you view the scientific research. That is a fallacious ethical system. I don't care how important a cure for AIDs is (and it is very important), but any research involving deliberately infecting people with HIV so you can have a study population for your proposed cure is wrong. Or, let's put another example: forcefully harvesting kidneys, corneas, bone marrow, and other organs from convicted felons to provide organs for other people is wrong. If you start with your ethical premise that a 5 day blastocyst is a human, then killing it to cure other people is wrong. The only justification is the ethical position that sacrificing one for the many is ethical. And that is the ethical argument used by ES cell advocates. Kill one blastocyst (or several) to provide cures for millions. But you can argue that, since the individual did not have an opportunity to consent, then that is wrong. My example above about harvesting organs from convicted felons is similar. We can't turn people into organ donors unless they agree. To forefully take the organs is unethical. Well, if your ethical premise is that the blastocyst is a human, then you are taking ALL of its organs -- forcefully. I, of course, avoid that by having a different ethical starting point. You, however, have no justification. Saying "scientific knowledge uber alles" doesn't work. You are still destroying the blastocyst. 1. Please don't use "paradigm shifts". Kuhn's view of science has been shown to be wrong for at least 50 years. 2. I don't approve of massive genetic engineering in humans. For the simple reason that natural selection is so much smarter than we are. It's just a stupid idea. If you mean suppressing some genetic diseases, maybe. But notice that anti-gays want to suppress the genes/alleles that make a person gay. Do you approve of that? That's part of genetic engineering becoming "fully realized". Now you are beginning to see the difference between truth and ethics. No, the public cannot determine whether or not a chimp-human hybrid exists. A chimp-human hybrid either is possible or not independent of what anyone thinks about it. BUT, whether we should do the experiment is an ethical issue that lies outside of science.

No, it isn't. And the research focuses on diseases, not evolution. IOW, the health of the mother can influence the health of the child. That is something to worry about if you are a doctor (or member of the family). It's not something that is going to be a major player in evolution. Only if the mother has a heritable variation to put her (or the embryo) in better health is it going to be useful for evolution. For instance, say the mother has a variation that produces an enzyme only in the placenta to deactivate cortisol. That is going to shield the embryo from the effects of stress on the mother. Thus, the baby is going to be healthier. So, women with that variation are going to have relative reproductive success compared to women without it -- because they produce healthier babies.

Thank you for the walkthru. Now we can clearly see the errors in your reasoning and logic. You made a strawman. I never did what you claimed. I stated that Christians accepted evolution. I also stated "If you are going to claim to deal with reality, then you must deal with the reality that Fundamentalism is not Christian and is certainly not all of "theology". " I never stated that Fundamentalism was outside Christianity because of its rejection of evolution. You read the "fallacy" into it; thus the "fallacy" exists solely in your imagination. Fundamentalism is outside Christianity for reasons independent of its rejection of evolution. See my posts to Sisyphus. Basically, Fundamentalism is outside of Christianity because it violates the First Commandment.

This is what you have to look out for: equating the theory to the people (Recapitulationists in this case) that advocate the theory. Those are different. There are two different statements: 1. The theory is refuted by contrary evidence. 2. The people advocating the theory admit the theory is refuted by contrary evidence. Those are not the same thing. #1 can be true but the people don't admit the theory is falsified and come up with all kinds of ways to avoid admitting the theory is refuted. I strongly recommend the book Theories on the Scrapheap by John Losee. He is a philosopher of science and wrote the book, obviously, for one of his classes as a textbook. But it is very readable. Theories ARE discarded. Science is littered with theories that are no longer considered valid. So the question for the philosophy of science -- and scientists -- is: how does this happen? How does the scientific community decide that a theory is wrong and discard it? How does the scientific community decide that a theory should be replaced with another one? BUT, not all the people advocating the theory have to admit that the theory is wrong. That tells us something about the personality of the people, but not about whether the theory is correct or incorrect. This isn't the issue. After all, mosaic evolution could be wrong. Just because a theory is "accepted" doesn't mean it is correct. Science is composed of theories that were once accepted and are now wrong. What you want to say is: "The evidence that supports mosaic evolution also contradicts AAH." The article I read by Gould -- discussing Haeckel's drawings -- made it clear that recapitulation was rejected by the consensus of the scientific community from the beginning. Scientists 1) knew that the data was faked and 2) made the potent argument that you couldn't line up evolution as a ladder. If we were looking at it from the pov of an elephant, then recapitulation would be different. I got this from one of Gould's essays and it post-dates the book Phylogeny and Ontogeny. It appears that Gould's position changed with time and new evidence. Define "big theories". What makes a theory "big"? How do we draw the line between "big" and "little" theories? What you are looking at with "big theories" is exactly what I pointed out above: people trying to avoid rejection of their pet theory. Thomas Kuhn advanced the idea that theory replacement happened by "revolution". He called the theories "paradigms". So, Kuhn proposed that there were "paradigm shifts" and that emotion or "theoretical outlook" was the critical determinant. Kuhn's proposal came under criticism. Some of the historical examples Kuhn used were shown to be other than Kuhn portrayed and other examples showed that theories were replaced solely on the data. In the philosophy of science, how science has worked in the past in particular examples is the data. So the data refuted Kuhn's idea of "paradigm shift". Kuhn modified the theory and said "paradigm shift" applied only to large, encompassing theories. And here we have your "big theories". It takes a while for new ideas to shift to the biological sciences. So 50 years philosophers of science have discarded "paradigms" and "paradigm shifts" you will still see "paradigm" in the biomedical literature today. There is also an idea put forth by Imre Lakatos that science works in research programmes (and no, that's not a misspelling). Lakatos' idea is that theories are not discarded until there is a replacement theory. That also seems to be part of what you are saying above. However, Losee shows several examples where theories were discarded without a replacement. Bottom line, when discussing theories it is always best to 1. Put forth evidence that refutes or falsifies a theory. 2. Never confuse the theory with the people who advocate it. In this thread I doubt Bombus is ever going to be convinced that AAH is invalid. But you and I don't care if Bombus is ever convinced. What we care about is AAH itself. By that I mean the collection of statements that is AAH. AAH advocates can modify AAH to the point that it doesn't contribute anything or deny the evidence. It may provide emotional comfort to them to do that. You and I don't care about that. What we care about is how humans evolved. If that means that mosaic is wrong, so be it. If that means that AAH is wrong, so be it. Right now, as you and I look at the data, strong AAH is falsified. Weak AAH might still be valid. And, we still don't have a theory with overwhelming data as to why humans are hairless.