Big Bang(or other evolution theories) vs. Creator. Which do you think is reality and which one is dreamy. I think the world has to have a creator. I think the Big Bang theory is a very small concentrated bunch of atoms expanded and made the universe.(Little more complicated though...) This CAN'T be right... What made the small concentratd bunch of atoms? Also, if earth was slightly closer to the sun or slightly futher, life could not exist. (Plants won't grow, nothing to eat, ect.) Just look at nature and the human body itself. Nature is !crazy! and the human body itself is sooo complex if you understood it fully your brain would explode!!! or just be ver large. Also what are the odds that man and women would evole at the same time to make more of you. And lastly, how come we don't see gorillas in zoos and stuff evole? (really, answer that if you can)

Ignorance overload...systems melting down.

Okay, first off, your understanding of the Big Bang theory is worse than most 3rd grader's. Also, the Earth obviously CAN be further or closer, being as it moves in a fucking ellipses (and has an exponentially generating radii). When I look at nature, I see a lot of complex shit, and I also see lots of simple shit. Complexity does not necessitate a creator, merely an observer to label something as complex (For example, you think the Universe is complex, I think it's fucking simple...just different labels).

And to answer the question about the sexes evolving simultaneously...well, it couldn't happen any other way, or the species would die out. Any mutation that prevents asexual or sexual reproduction would cause the host of the mutation to die, leaving behind the healthy ones that CAN reproduce.

Also, your last question...if you even ASK something like that, my assumption is that you don't even understand what I'm saying....but fuck it, I'll continue. We don't see gorillas in zoos and shit evolving because evolution is punctuated; short period of rapid mutation alongside long periods of little to no mutation. Short being from 5-500 generations, long being 500-millions of generations.

If you want examples of animals that have evolved (not into new species quite, but certainly with distinguishing traits) look at fucking whales with GOD DAMNED LEGS.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

Big Bang(or other evolution theories) vs. Creator. Which do you think is reality and which one is dreamy.

I belive in the big bang theory but wouldnt be that suprised if there was some type of creator.

quote:I think the world has to have a creator. I think the Big Bang theory is a very small concentrated bunch of atoms expanded and made the universe.(Little more complicated though...) This CAN'T be right... What made the small concentratd bunch of atoms?

The theory is that the Universe expands than contracts together into one point and then a big bang. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm



quote:Also, if earth was slightly closer to the sun or slightly futher, life could not exist. (Plants won't grow, nothing to eat, ect.) Just look at nature and the human body itself. Nature is !crazy! and the human body itself is sooo complex if you understood it fully your brain would explode!!! or just be ver large. Also what are the odds that man and women would evole at the same time to make more of you. And lastly, how come we don't see gorillas in zoos and stuff evole? (really, answer that if you can)

Now here you are wrong. The odds of us existing is 1/1 other wise how am i typing this if i dont exist. The odds of it happening AGAIN are astronomicle. While you are right about Humans not existing if we were closer or further away (well it depends on how far away or how much closer.) from the sun that doesnt mean that life wouldnt exist. Look at it like this we couldnt survive in the arctic naked and without things while penguins do. Its a matter of how your body has evolved to suit your enviroment. Why do men and woman evolve at the same speed. Thats a stupid question, And im hoping that it was a joke. And to why dont we see monkeys and such evolving in the zoo because evolution takes millions of years not a week.

[This message has been edited by Fai1safe (edited 02-19-2005).]

Evolution is different to the big bang as potatoes are to the sun. How you can link them is beyond me. And by little if you mean in the order of astronomical then yes atoms are "little" different to what happened in the big bang. Now comes probability, everything is possible given a large enough time period, I mean anything. So your argument about the earth being closer of further is irrelevant as we would have not been here to discus this. Nature the whole of the physical world we see around us is comprised of the types of basic particles, their interactions determine everything and the uncertainty principle gives the illusion of unpredictability. As for the rest it is simply bad logic. If I were you I would read a book or two before talking ever again.

Universe to expand for ever: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2748653.stm

if the universe is expanding, then doesn't it have to have an end? And again, what created the particles/atoms whatever before the Big Bang.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

if the universe is expanding, then doesn't it have to have an end? And again, what created the particles/atoms whatever before the Big Bang.

Multi dimensional branes collisions. Read up on string theory.

Well your thread started badly, and it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was brilliant.

Spelling 0/10

Content 0/10

Grammar 2/10

Punctuation 3/10 (nice use of the exclamation mark)

F+

I feel as though the issue of Creation/Evolution is irrelevant to our lives today.

If we ever (Which we wont) find out that either of those are true, or we find out how we got here...it changes nothing. We have only answered one question.

The fact of the matter is, we are here, right now, in this moment. We don't know why, but we are. We have to live with it. So stop worrying about it, and worry about now.

Now-The only thing we know for 100% exists.

I would recommend the most recent issue of Scientific American, it has just the article for people who don't know much about the big bang.

Krispy, then you feel wrong. Evolution has helped us advance medicine and although the big bang is mainly about our past, we can use the studies about it to learn more about light, spacetime, energy, etc.

one question john_deere, how old are you, and are you currently in school? if you say 16 and no, your a dumbass, if you say 25, whats school, your more of a dumbass, and finally, if you say 13 and yea, well just wait and sign up for advanced biology, all these questions will be clearly answered in due time.

if you cant wait that long, find a advanced bio book, and read the damn thing, it will line you out on all the assumptions you have and some. while most text in print only states theories, some are very well articulated and are quite easy to grasp.

The truth is no one knows anything about creation and the big bang and stuff. Sure, the string theory is captivating and all but its based on our infinitely small knowledge of anything. And besides, who the fuck cares.

Mate, you may not care but we do. Thats why were here arguaing about it. As to Krispy... What are you retarded, of course it would effect everyhting. If we found out that a religion or belife was correct it would change billions of people lives. Governments would collapse riots and all that kind of shit.

And i dont no about you but i no that i 100% exist so speak for yourself.

Evolution exists. Natural selection exists. I can prove it too!

http://dllab.caltech.edu/research/

You can download this software and have little mini-digital organisms evolve on your computer!

http://sourceforge.net/projects/avida

I downlaoded thta program but i cant get it to work?

Does it work for you? What program do you use to run it?

when i said what are the odds the men and women evole at the same, THE ODDS ARE STILL PRETTY SMALL! if u have a chance of rolling a 2 on a dice is 1/6, u roll the two.Now the odds stay the same, the odds of rolling the 2 again are 1/6.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

when i said what are the odds the men and women evole at the same, THE ODDS ARE STILL PRETTY SMALL! if u have a chance of rolling a 2 on a dice is 1/6, u roll the two.Now the odds stay the same, the odds of rolling the 2 again are 1/6.

Two things, upon which I will elaborate only one:

1) The odds of the genders of a species evolving at the same time are 100%

2) What did the dice thing have to do with the topic?

Alright, upon the first, let us use ape-human as an example. A silverback didn't just one day slam out a human, over an incredibly long time, small changes compounded with small changes, compouded with yet more small changes, produced humans.

So, an ape produces a (male) ape(A) with a mutation, it can still reproduce, but is either better suited to it's environment somehow, or, at least, is not worse suited. Now, female ape(B) does not have the mutation, so this (incredibly tiny portion) of the evolutionary process took place at different times. However, when that A ape reproduces with B ape, there is the chance that the children, be them male or female, will have that same genetic mutation, hence, both males and females mutating/evolving at the same time.

Oh, one other thing, I too must ask the question. How old are you? Your spelling and grammar is subpar at best, and I am a little curious as to your age, as well as perhaps your ethnicity. Not for racism, but Im curious as to if english is not your first language.

EDIT: Forgive me if any part of that was rambled, or incomprhensible. Right now I'm a little perturbed about a few things, and I have taken about 40 mg hydrocodone, and I have been off opiates for so long, my tolerance is nothing. But that is a story for BLTC.



[This message has been edited by Karik (edited 02-27-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karik:

1) The odds of the genders of a species evolving at the same time are 100%

only 100% after asexual reproduction evolved into two sexs, but before two sexs had been reached, then i would think that it could not be 100% which would be his point of the dice

small changes compounded with small changes, compouded with yet more small changes,

How small are these changes? They can not be infinitly small. Can the mutations each be a change of just one amino acid in a protein? The minimum change in a genome is a change in one nucleotide but that gives less freedom as a change of an amino acid of a protien. A change in a single nucleotide can change an amino acid to one of at most 3 others.

From an NDT point, what is the chance of the whole series of steps occurring? What are the chances of getting one mutation? (how accurate is the DNA copying process?) Of those mutations, how many have a selective advantage? (i.e. The organism with the mutation has to survive and reproduce in order to pass it on. Also, the mutation has to be benificial or nuetural {in general} to be passed on.. unlike something like progeria) How many replications are ther in each step of the chain of cumulative selection? How many of those steps are needed to achieve even one new species?

Note that not any copying error can serve a typical step in cumulative selection. To be part of a typical step, a mutation must have a positive selective value and add a little information to the genome.

I think these question mean that too many dice have to roll and all come up heads, for evolution, over only billions of years, to have occured.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I think these question mean that too many dice have to roll and all come up heads, for evolution, over only billions of years, to have occured.

Wow, my dice usually have numbers on them...

Now to back track a bit...

What are the odds of life exsisting? Ver little, which is why we haven't met other intelligent life...yet (and I doubt we ever will). You have to look at the big picture, the chances are minimal (lets be optimistic and say .001%) for sentient being to evolve on a planet. Go out at night and look at the stars. Our star has 9 planets around it, each one of those stars has planets around them too. An overwhemling majority do not have life.

Why don't we see evolution in the zoos? There are a couple (that others didn't say) that jump out at me. Medicine. Animals don't die from diseases or wounds nearly as often in the zoo as they would in the wild. There is no survival of the fittest when modern technology can help the runt survive. Also, there are no predators in the zoos. Animals evolve to survive longer. They can evolove to go on land, run faster, blend in with their surroundings, and so on. When the gorialls don't have to worry about predators the little runt I mentioned earlier could be bright pink and still live long enough to reproduce.

That brings me to xtreem... That would be the point of evolution to survive longer. The small changes are quite large in perspective to the genome, but small in physical changes. Such as a darker shade of fur that helps the gorilla blend in with the shaded jungle better. This particular gorilla will live a bit longer then the other gorillas. Living longer means more mating, which (assuming the mutation is a dominant gene) means more baby gorillas with the same mutation. Now the male:female ration won't be exactly the same, but they will remain fairly close. It is not going to get anywhere near caveman and chimp intercorse...

xtreem, i'm 14 and greek and canadian, jus too lazy so i type faster than i can.

quote:Originally posted by NewRage:

You have to look at the big picture, the chances are minimal (lets be optimistic and say .001%) for sentient being to evolve on a planet. Go out at night and look at the stars. Our star has 9 planets around it, each one of those stars has planets around them too. An overwhemling majority do not have life.



True, but assuming the universe is indeed infinite, then there are an infinite number of other planets with sentient life.

I forget exactly where, but there was a formula to figure out the chances of life.

But I digress, while we are a one in a billion chance, being modest, in infinity, even one in a billion is easy to overcome.

Then again, playing my own devil's advocate, while space might be always expanding, and infinite, the amount of matter in that space is not, so there are only a certain number of planets, and only so many chances for life.

I have just contributed a point(+1), and its own counter point(-1). Thusly, I just contributed nothing (0) wonderful.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

xtreem, i'm 14 and greek and canadian, jus too lazy so i type faster than i can.



That's ok. I didnt ask, and for the most part the spelling and grammer on totse doesnt bother me... i suck at spelling and grammer, not because i type fast but because i suck at them.

Anyway, it was Karik that asked you about it.

quote:Originally posted by NewRage:

What are the odds of life exsisting? Ver little, which is why we haven't met other intelligent life...yet (and I doubt we ever will). You have to look at the big picture, the chances are minimal (lets be optimistic and say .001%) for sentient being to evolve on a planet. Go out at night and look at the stars. Our star has 9 planets around it, each one of those stars has planets around them too. An overwhemling majority do not have life.

Why don't we see evolution in the zoos? There are a couple (that others didn't say) that jump out at me. Medicine. Animals don't die from diseases or wounds nearly as often in the zoo as they would in the wild. There is no survival of the fittest when modern technology can help the runt survive. Also, there are no predators in the zoos. Animals evolve to survive longer. They can evolove to go on land, run faster, blend in with their surroundings, and so on. When the gorialls don't have to worry about predators the little runt I mentioned earlier could be bright pink and still live long enough to reproduce.

That brings me to xtreem... That would be the point of evolution to survive longer. The small changes are quite large in perspective to the genome, but small in physical changes. Such as a darker shade of fur that helps the gorilla blend in with the shaded jungle better. This particular gorilla will live a bit longer then the other gorillas. Living longer means more mating, which (assuming the mutation is a dominant gene) means more baby gorillas with the same mutation. Now the male:female ration won't be exactly the same, but they will remain fairly close. It is not going to get anywhere near caveman and chimp intercorse...

You are looking at the big picture alright, but my questions were aimed at the details. Those mutations that you mention, have to be very small. The questions were aimed mostly at that level. But another question that i forgot to ask is:

population size? lets use your gorilla example. If the population of the flock of gorillas is big, it would have a better chance of preserving the mutation, but a slimmer chance of overcoming the population.

And the obverse is true, if the population size is small, the mutation has a bigger chance of taking over the population, but a smaller one of survival in the first place.... meaning if the flock of apes has 10 individuals and the coconut grove that they live in burns down due to faulty wiring or lack of smoke detectors, there is a bigger chance that the one ape with the good mutation dies or atleast cant mate cause his mate melted, then the mutation is gone also.

sorry, getting tired and dorky.. the step-kids werent around this weekend so i have all this sillyness built up

good night and God Bless

quote:Originally posted by Karik:

But I digress...

Digression is 9 tenths of the flaw

or is it?

i was a defendant in a quart of slaw

first sorry xtreem, and jus thinking, science is always learning about things, science didn't know 10 years ago what it knows now. In 300 years what we think today is going to be the stupidest thing they've ever heard of. Agree? this means its PROBABLY going to be wrong. point: science=wrong, god=right p.s not very strong point jus posted to get thsi topic to top