"The Dragon In My Garage," by Carl Sagan

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, science has asked why other life forms are here and it seems they all have a purpose which relate to each other. Bees have a purpose, no? If they started to dissappear (which is a current problem), we would have a serious food problem. But humans aren't necessary for nature and animals to go on, so the question of why are we here is a relevant one. And why are we the only ones who have the ability to even ask that question? If evolution put that into our intellect, wouldn't it have done so for a reason? Everything being random and not for a purpose doesn't really answer the question. Where did the big bang come from? The questions are endless. Something out of nothing doesn't even jive with what we know scientifically.

That just isn't true. Not only is it quite allowed, it is frequent and completely necessary for many of the phenomena we experience. The only reason the questions about the Big Bang are endless are because we have not fully determined its properties sub-Planck scale.

Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif According to quantum physics, there is a universe out there where both of those scenarios are currently taking place. I do get your point though, and your view is that things are random and that things aren't necessarily the way they are meant to be but all just space dust reacting from the initial burst, creating all the complexities of life.

Only one interpretation of quantum mechanics uses the many worlds theory to solve wave collapse, it is certainly not a theory representing the majority of the physics community.

 

[robm321]

So they come from other dimensions? Or nothing?

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif Only one interpretation of quantum mechanics uses the many worlds theory to solve wave collapse, it is certainly not a theory representing the majority of the physics community.

A theory is... according to Wiki ... oh never mind

So, what's the truth? Which of the many theories is right? I guess it comes down to which ones we believe or have faith in huh?

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So they come from other dimensions? Or nothing?

They came from nothing, due to uncertainty particles are being created and destroyed constantly on a Planck unit level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well put. The scientific theory of the origins of life and evolution (i.e., macro-evolution) is just a theory, a theory that more scientists each day are coming to doubt in one respect or another. And to believe in evolution and the scientific theory for the origin of life requires as much faith as to believe in many other things that are criticized as being based "solely on faith."

I'm sorry, but are you serious? "Is just a theory" is a quite meaningless statement born from misunderstanding. Yes natural selection is "just a theory", it is "just" a very powerful theory that is completely backed by all available evidence and and we have yet to find a single organism that contradicts it.

I have absolutely no belief in evolution, if an example comes along that violates it, I would have no problem saying that it is incorrect. Theories are something to be understood, not believed.

Definition of Scientific Theory

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif A theory is... according to Wiki ... oh never mind So, what's the truth? Which of the many theories is right? I guess it comes down to which ones we believe or have faith in huh?

I think you are confusing theory and interpretation. Quantum mechanics is not a theory, but a collection of laws and mathematics. There are many attempts to search for the theory behind quantum mechanics, e.g. string theory, quantum loop theory, etc; but so far none have gained full acceptance within the scientific community (and likely will not until observation backs of the mathematics of these theories). An interpretation fills in the non-observed pieces quantum mechanics (typically created through logic and math, not random guessing) , the biggest question being what happens to the second possible state during a wave collapse, these are certainly subject to belief for however long is no complete theory of quantum mechanics. An interesting subject to look up is the Copenhagen Interpretation which is the most widely accepted.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hurry before this thread is shut down

Why would it be? Everyone is having a good discussion and staying civil. There's only one guy who's getting all worked up, as usual (and I'm not talking about you.)

Anyway, I'm going to try to stay out of these 'high school' exchanges and just lurk for a while. It's an interesting and fun thread and I don't want to kill it. And I hope you haven't taken offense in any of our interactions here as none was intended (sorry about the 'science class' remark.

)

 

[ThePredator]

It also seems that Carl Sagan's essay is being completely misconstrued. Carl Sagan never attacked religion, he disagreed with many of the tenets of modern religions, but was always very civil about the matter. What Carl Sagan spoke out very vehemently against was psuedo-science, and as such the story is quite apt at explaining the OP's opinion on the cable debate.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry, but are you serious? "Is just a theory" is a quite meaningless statement born from misunderstanding. Yes natural selection is "just a theory", it is "just" a very powerful theory that is completely backed by all available evidence and and we have yet to find a single organism that contradicts it.

I am not talking about natural selection per se. I'm talking about what is sometimes referred to as macro evolution or, basically, the notion that life originated and evolved from a single-celled organism without being determined by a supernatural being, etc. I'm sorry if my terms are not precise, but, again, I think if you go back and look at the posts to which I was responding, my meaning was clear.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why would it be? Everyone is having a good discussion and staying civil. There's only one guy who's getting all worked up, as usual (and I'm not talking about you.)

I get annoyed at you because you regularly show a lack of respect for the rules of this forum -- and thereby show a lack of respect for others -- by discussing topics, often indirectly, that are off limits (and there are reasons they are off limits). You do have done this with DBT's on other occasions in forums where it's not permitted, and now with some of your posts on this thread, which intrude on religious issues.

And you also like to engage in guerilla tactics like the following:

ILikeMusic: [Statement about, or attacking, religious belief]

PhilS: We're not supposed to discuss religion

ILikeMusic: Nobody else has a problem with it, and you're not a moderator.

* * *

ILikeMusic: [Statement about or attacking religious belief.]

PhilS: Can you provide support for that?

ILikeMusic: We're not supposed to discuss religion.

There are lots of good reasons for the prohibition against religious discussions, and while much of this thread would seem to be fair game, some of it is not, and you are the primary offender in terms of crossing the line, IMO.

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not talking about natural selection per se. I'm talking about what is sometimes referred to as macro evolution or, basically, the notion that life originated and evolved from a single-celled organism without being determined by a supernatural being, etc. I'm sorry if my terms are not precise, but, again, I think if you go back and look at the posts to which I was responding, my meaning was clear.

The post you quoted cited no sources as to science saying evolution is impossible, so your meaning is still unclear, are you agreeing with him that it is impossible?

Either way I was arguing against the statement "evolution is just a theory" which is still completely misrepresentative of the nature of a theory. Evolution is an explanation for the fact that populations of animals, over time, adapt to their environment.

The differentiation between micro and macroevolution is weak at best; the same driving force that allows adaptations within a "species" does so without (I use "species" in quotations because it is a purely human definition). There are tons of evidence supporting the idea that adaptation over time differentiates what we would call species, and this has been supported both by post-dictions and predictions (e.g. Tiktaalik). The reason there is so little scientific objection to evolution is because it has never been wrong. Never have we found a single organism that violates the principles of modern evolutionary synthesis, and even the most rudimentary study of genetics will show as such.

[EDIT]: An excellent write-up on speciation and observations, be sure to look up the examples in other sources, the site is biased.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why would it be? Everyone is having a good discussion and staying civil. There's only one guy who's getting all worked up, as usual (and I'm not talking about you.) Anyway, I'm going to try to stay out of these 'high school' exchanges and just lurk for a while. It's an interesting and fun thread and I don't want to kill it. And I hope you haven't taken offense in any of our interactions here as none was intended (sorry about the 'science class' remark. )

I'm enjoying this thread too! I was just referring to the fact that many think that pointing out any of the gaps in evolution must be about religion and not simply because they are really there. That would cause the shutdown. It's actually been quite civil. I hope it stays this way.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif Only one interpretation of quantum mechanics uses the many worlds theory to solve wave collapse, it is certainly not a theory representing the majority of the physics community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you are confusing theory and interpretation. Quantum mechanics is not a theory, but a collection of laws and mathematics.

I was just stating what you called it, a theory. Some fuzziness going on here? And string theory is a theory right? Or is does it change based on how whether you believe it or not?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif The differentiation between micro and macroevolution is weak at best; the same driving force that allows adaptations within a "species" does so without (I use "species" in quotations because it is a purely human definition). There are tons of evidence supporting the idea that adaptation over time differentiates what we would call species, and this has been supported both by post-dictions and predictions (e.g. Tiktaalik). The reason there is so little scientific objection to evolution is because it has never been wrong. Never have we found a single organism that violates the principles of modern evolutionary synthesis, and even the most rudimentary study of genetics will show as such.

I don't agree, and many others do not agree. But I understand you and many others see it only one way. In any event, a full discussion of the particulars is beyond -- or should be beyond -- the scope of this thread, or any thread for that matter in the "sound science" forum. The purpose of this sub-forum is talk about the science of sound, isn't it?

P.S. And as to this continued semantical argument about the difference between a "theory" and an "explanation," one of the definitions provided by Webster's for the term "theory" is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." I was using the term "theory" in that sense, when I was referring to matters that I don't think have been established as matters of actual fact.

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was just stating what you called it, a theory. Some fuzziness going on here? And string theory is a theory right? Or is does it change based on how whether you believe it or not?

You are correct, there is some fuzziness because the many worlds interpretation is both a theory and an interpretation (though not all interpretations are). Given the context I should have used the term "interpretation".

String theory is a "theory" because it explains a set of phenomena and is both testable and falsifiable (we just don't yet have a particle accelerator powerful enough to do either yet).

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif P.S. And as to this continued semantical argument about the difference between a "theory" and an "explanation," one of the definitions provided by Webster's for the term "theory" is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." I was using the term "theory" in that sense, when I was referring to matters that I don't think have been established as matters of actual fact.

Considering that the thread is of scientific nature, using other definitions of "theory" is quite confusing, especially since "evolution is just a theory" is a common mistake used in an attempt to disprove it. If you were using a different definition I apologize for assuming, though most of my argument still stands.

I would love to continue the discussion in an appropriate forum because it is a highly debated topic even though, within the scientific community, it is has been established to as certain as any explanation can be.

 

[robm321]

I would disagree as well about macro evolution. It is about creating new species, not very minor changes to the same species over thousands of years. That is nothing subtle...

Quote:

They came from nothing, due to uncertainty particles are being created and destroyed constantly on a Planck unit level.

As far as we know. There could and most likely is more to it just appearing. We obviously just don't know yet or may never know.

 

[ThePredator]

Please continue evolutionary discussion here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as we know. There could and most likely is more to it just appearing. We obviously just don't know yet or may never know.

Yes, there could be more to it, but understand that our discussion has only covered an iota of the research and understanding of the topic and completely neglects most of the observations that these principles are derived from. It all comes down to the fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics espoused by an abstraction of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that the more you know about one quantifiable attribute, the less you know about the others. It is this uncertainty that allows energy to be "borrowed" so long as conservation is (mostly) preserved.