One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[edwest2]

So can anyone list any sexually reproducing animal that produces viable offspring that are not their species?
And viable is an operative word here. I am well aware that there are hybrids, but I also understand these animals are a genetic dead end as they cannot reproduce.

Right. I believe that evolution supporters call this transition species.

method of gene transfer is important here. Not just gene transfer.

thanks.

Just following my experience with.
It has been my experience that no matter the genetic abnormality, the parent loves their child and considers the child a gift from God.
Of course, I know this is not a universal axiom.

An omnipotent God has no problem designing everything on the fly.

You think God allows randomness. Perhaps. I would not be opposed to that.
But I would disbelieve it as a vehicle of changes.
But I do not believe it possible to work out a grand design using randomness as a tool.
The two are mutually exclusive.

I understand.
And I agree with all that had to happen. And I see the hand of God in every step.

Like I stated before, it is elegant.
So let me throw something into the mix.
We simply do not have all of the information.
I am reminded of an interesting cartoon involving ice cores being used to study the climate. The scientists are all looking at their data in astonishment and alarm at what the climate was, and the next frame shows someone a few thousand years earlier relieving themselves in the place where the ice core will be drilled.
Or…
I watched an interesting show on the science channel purporting to show evolution.
They went into great detail describing one animal or the other, and then they showed the next iteration in the fossil record that apparently one had evolved into.
And I am left wondering…OK, what of the various animals between one and the other? Where are these fossils?
And also, what of the genetic code? How do we know these animals were related instead of simply looked alike?
So much is hung up onto a genetic code and genetic transfer and so much of the evidence has no DNA to show for it.

Some time ago, I took certain things scientists said about this subject at face value. Thanks to your (name removed by moderator)ut and that of a few others, it’s quite clear that very little is quite clear. I will no longer take statements about this subject at face value now that I’ve realized the bias that goes into it.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Want to buy a living fossil pine? You can.

rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/plant_info/wollemi_pine/age_and_ancestry

Peace,
Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I’ve seen this before. It really isn’t soft tissue. The media, just like they do with the Church, likes to hype things up way too much to the point of misleading people. There are cells, yes. But they are fossilized. The cool thing that scientists took note of was that fossilization was so perfect that they could see the cells. And when the scientists say “soft tissue”, they did not mean tissue that was still soft. They meant what would BE soft tissue in a modern creature - tendons, blood vessels, blood, marrow, etc., as opposed to bone. This is apparent in the papers published on these finds. But the media saw “soft tissue”, foamed at the mouth, and read no further.

Oh thank you for the correction. :blushing:

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Originally Posted by **buffalo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
They are dating the bones not the rocks. If a bone has soft tissue in it then it is not entirely fossilized.

But that’s the thing, fossils hardly ever contain soft tissue or organic matter of sorts,
because it is almost always replaced over time by sedimentary material, and that is
what makes a fossil a FOSSIL and long enduring. I’ve revised my position there (see
bold), for it appears that there are a few examples of soft tissue found in fossils like
from a T-Rex, but being 68 to 70 million years old, Green River Formation 40 million
years and older, and others.

In light to what Farsight001 told me, essentially it turns out that the soft
tissue is “preserved,” but that isn’t quite the same as “still soft tissue.”

And to think I was giving a little leeway to that soft-tissue bit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In a sort of way, yeah. According to the big bang, space itself expanded at the beginning of the universe. That’s kind of a big deal that needs to be covered.

That’s something you can calculate in the same way “the question of life, the universe, and everything” is a question. Its not really something with good parameters that can be tested. You really just kind of have to pull it out of thin air.

Yes, but why ELEMENTARY particles? Why not go deeper? Or higher?

Yes, which is why I know that sometimes you have to divide or add or subtract or use an exponent. Why did he decide to simply multiply it all?

I know what they do. But why THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER. Where did he get it from? Thin air.

And where is the numbers that factor in the forces of the universe such as gravity and weak atomic forces and such?

He needs to do something to formally and professionally determine what numbers he should and should not be using and why. Without it, he’s just musing.

Time and particles are important.

Providing formulas and having support for why they are the right formulas is two different things. I’m definitely curious to see his justification for not factoring in forces that would bring elementary particles together, considering it would obviously hurt his case to include them.

already read that part, thanks. Doesn’t really explain it enough, though.

Clearly, by your questions you don’t understand the point of what he was doing and the relevance of the numbers he used.

To focus on some questions, though…

"Yes, but why ELEMENTARY particles? Why not go deeper? Or higher?"

The “elementary” particles are THE most basic that constitute all levels of “particledom.”
They include the higher and deeper, by definition.

Yes, which is why I know that sometimes you have to divide or add or subtract or use an exponent. Why did he decide to simply multiply it all?

The probability of rolling snake eyes with two dice is 1/6 X 1/6 or 1 chance out of 36. It is mathematically determined by MULTIPLICATION not division, addition or subtraction. Each number on one die can be combined with each of the six numbers on the other - that is 6 combinations for each number, so 6X6=36 and since rolling one on both dice is only 1 of the 36 possibilities the probability is 1/36. Multiplication is the shortened process (algorithm) for determining probability.

The fact that you had to ask is quite telling.

 

[Crossbones]

Clearly, by your questions you don’t understand the point of what he was doing and the relevance of the numbers he used.

To focus on some questions, though…

"Yes, but why ELEMENTARY particles? Why not go deeper? Or higher?"

The “elementary” particles are THE most basic that constitute all levels of “particledom.”
They include the higher and deeper, by definition.

Yes, which is why I know that sometimes you have to divide or add or subtract or use an exponent. Why did he decide to simply multiply it all?

The probability of rolling snake eyes with two dice is 1/6 X 1/6 or 1 chance out of 36. It is mathematically determined by MULTIPLICATION not division, addition or subtraction. Each number on one die can be combined with each of the six numbers on the other - that is 6 combinations for each number, so 6X6=36 and since rolling one on both dice is only 1 of the 36 possibilities the probability is 1/36. Multiplication is the shortened process (algorithm) for determining probability.

The fact that you had to ask is quite telling.

What is ‘particledom’? I’ve never heard that before.

Why 10^45 possible interactions per second? Do you accept this?

 

[Farsight001]

Clearly, by your questions you don’t understand the point of what he was doing and the relevance of the numbers he used.

Of course I don’t. He came up with them arbitrarily, which is what I’ve been trying to get you to understand.

The “elementary” particles are THE most basic that constitute all levels of “particledom.”
They include the higher and deeper, by definition.

He said 10^80, right? That’s the estimated total number of atoms in the universe. why go with atoms? why not protons, electrons, and neutrons? Or what about quarks and neutrinos? Or why not go the other way and do molecules? This is not explained. He decided that he should go with atoms for no apparent reason.

The probability of rolling snake eyes with two dice is 1/6 X 1/6 or 1 chance out of 36. It is mathematically determined by MULTIPLICATION not division, addition or subtraction. Each number on one die can be combined with each of the six numbers on the other - that is 6 combinations for each number, so 6X6=36 and since rolling one on both dice is only 1 of the 36 possibilities the probability is 1/36. Multiplication is the shortened process (algorithm) for determining probability.

The fact that you had to ask is quite telling.

And? Not all probabilities deal with only multiplications, as I already said. The probability of rolling snake eyes is 1/36, yes. But what if you roll the dice once a second for 20 seconds. What is the probability of rolling snake eyes then? What is the probability of getting the same result twice after five rolls? You don’t simply multiply to get the answer. Likewise, he simply multiplied by his arbitrary number for time. Why?

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is ‘particledom’? I’ve never heard that before.

Neither have I.

Why 10^45 possible interactions per second? Do you accept this?

It represents the number of Planck time units (smallest possible unit of time) per second roughly 10^−43 seconds.

Dembski is accounting for every Planck moment in a second 10^45 multiplied by the number of seconds since the Big Bang 10^25 times the number of all particles in the universe 10^80 to arrive at the total number of possible interactions since the universe began.

10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.

At least part of his reason for doing this is to determine the likelihood of any event (such as forming one functional protein from a chain of amino acids in a cell) compared to the total possible events since the Big Bang.

If the chance of, say forming a functional protein, far surpasses the total number of theoretically possible events (UPB), in the universe since t=0 then such an event taking place would be almost impossible.

So for example,

… the probability of getting a functional protein composed of 100 amino acids is 1 in 10^125. Even if you fill the universe with pre-biotic soup, and react amino acids at Planck time (very fast!) for 14 billion years, you are probably not going to get even 1 such protein. And you need at least 100 of them for minimal life functions, plus DNA and RNA.

Source: winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/doug-axe-explains-the-chances-of-getting-a-functional-protein-by-chance-3/

 

[Crossbones]

Neither have I.

It represents the number of Planck time units (smallest possible unit of time) per second roughly 10^−43 seconds.
,

What’s a Planck time unit? How is that determined to be the smallest possible unit of time?

 

[Farsight001]

Neither have I.

It represents the number of Planck time units (smallest possible unit of time) per second roughly 10^−43 seconds.

Dembski is accounting for every Planck moment in a second 10^45 multiplied by the number of seconds since the Big Bang 10^25 times the number of all particles in the universe 10^80 to arrive at the total number of possible interactions since the universe began.

10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.

At least part of his reason for doing this is to determine the likelihood of any event (such as forming one functional protein from a chain of amino acids in a cell) compared to the total possible events since the Big Bang.

well that’s the thing then, isn’t it? If he’s looking for the chances of any event and factoring in each possible moment in which this “event” could occur, then he should be dividing by that number, not multiplying by it. Giving more time would, of course, increase the chances for the event to occur. That makes sense, right? If I give you 5 seconds to roll snake eyes or 5 years, your chances are much greater with 5 years. Why then does his multiplication of time/possible moments into his “formula” decrease the chances? Obviously, that is completely backwards.

If the chance of, say forming a functional protein, far surpasses the total number of theoretically possible events (UPB), in the universe since t=0 then such an event taking place would be almost impossible.

Almost doesn’t mean impossible. Something had to happen, right? If you roll the dice SOME number is going to come up. It doesn’t matter if you roll 1 dice or a googleplex of dice. You will get a result.

 

[samiam1611]

I know this may be a ludicrous question, but I am willing to bury my pride and risk derision.

Why would “populations” not have splintered apart into more and more differentiated groups that would have been less and less compatible, reproductively speaking?

Are you referring to species or taxa that have been unchanged for millions of years like jellyfish?

After all, it is changes in individuals that “power” changes in populations. By what mechanism have stable populations been kept intact over billions of years?

Maybe it is not so much a mechanism as it is a lack of mechanism. If there is no selection pressure from the environment there might not be much change.

Why haven’t these just become “differentiated” out of existence, so to speak?

If a species is the last/only of its taxon and is not the ancestor of other species, and it becomes extinct, isn’t that being differentiated out of existence? That could be said for lots of organisms I would think.

What would forestall a kind of biological entropy from occurring to dissipate genetic “commonality” to the point where speciation would slowly break down from genetic dissolution?

It may not be a matter of forestalling, it may just be the pace that it happens.

I don’t really know for sure. I think you may be asking about [slow/lack of] molecular evolution. Information on “molecular clocks” may be of interest to you and contain the answers to your questions… I’m afraid I am not the right person to ask about that but perhaps knowing the technical term will help.

 

[Peter_Plato]

He said 10^80, right? That’s the estimated total number of atoms in the universe. why go with atoms? why not protons, electrons, and neutrons? Or what about quarks and neutrinos? Or why not go the other way and do molecules? This is not explained. He decided that he should go with atoms for no apparent reason.
?

No, he didn’t use atoms, he used every elemental particle - all the particles individually that together comprise other particles to the most elemental level (no substructure.)

See

physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html
Scroll down to second last item

Elementary Particle (or Fundamental Particle)
A particle with no substructure (i.e. not made up of smaller particles) and which is therefore one of the basic building blocks of the universe from which all other particles are made. Quarks, electons, neutrinos, photons, muons and gluons (along with their respective anti-particles) are all elementary particles; protons and neutrons (which are made up of quarks) are not.

The unit 10^80 is a number representing the number of elementary particles in the universe. Elementary particles are believed to have no substructure, this would include: quarks, leptons, and bosons.
The unit 10^45 is measured in hertz, which represents alterations in the states of matter per second. The properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This universal bound on transitions between physical states is based on the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.
Source: sententias.org/tag/dembski/

Crossbones: The above gives a more detailed depiction of how 10^45 was arrived at. Still based on Planck time it refers to transitions between physical states that can only occur at the highest frequency constrained by Planck intervals.

Dembski says this…

Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 10^45 times per second. This frequency corresponds to the Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What’s a Planck time unit? How is that determined to be the smallest possible unit of time?

It is a cosmological constant that is the smallest possible time interval calculated by the time one photon would take to cross one Planck length (smallest theoretical interval of space) at the speed of light.

This is accepted without question according to current dimensional analysis within mathematical physics.

The details…

One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change. As of May 2010, the smallest time interval uncertainty in direct measurements is on the order of 12 attoseconds (1.2 × 10−17 seconds), about 3.7 × 1026 Planck times.[4]
The Planck time comes from a field of mathematical physics known as dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement and physical constants. The Planck time is the unique combination of the gravitational constant G, the relativity constant c, and the quantum constant h, to produce a constant with units of time. For processes that occur in a time t less than one Planck time, the dimensionless quantity tP / t is greater than one. Dimensional analysis suggests that the effects of both quantum mechanics and gravity will be important under these circumstances, requiring a theory of quantum gravity. All scientific experiments and human experiences happen over billions of billions of billions of Planck times, making any events happening at the Planck scale hard to detect.
Source Wikipedia see Planck Time

 

[Crossbones]

No, he didn’t use atoms, he used every elemental particle - all the particles individually that together comprise other particles to the most elemental level (no substructure.)

He used the number of quarks? How does he know the number of quarks? Does his calculation include dark matter? Does it include gluons or photons that interact with matter? If not, why not? If so, how does he calculate the number of these? Does this seem reasonable?

Crossbones: The above gives a more detailed depiction of how 10^45 was arrived at. Still based on Planck time it refers to transitions between physical states that can only occur at the highest frequency constrained by Planck intervals.

Dembski says this…

So, he says that’s the minimum time for a transition between states. How does he determine states using the principle of quantum mechanics, where many aspects of a state of matter is unknown until measured? Does using the Planck time seem reasonable to you? If so, why?

 

[Crossbones]

It is a cosmological constant that is the smallest possible time interval calculated by the time one photon would take to cross one Planck length (smallest theoretical interval of space) at the speed of light.

This is accepted without question according to current dimensional analysis within mathematical physics.

The details…

Who says it is accepted without question within mathematical physics? Even if it is, shouldn’t we examine it on our own and determine if it passes our standard? After all, we don’t accept biologists explanations on evolution, so why are physicists special? Does it pass your standard?

What does the length of time determined by travelling the speed of light across a Planck length have anything to do with the time a state of matter can transition?

Matter can exists in undetermined states until measured. If a Planck time is the maximum a measurement can happen, then how does it represent an upper limit on the number of transitions that can occur?

 

[Peter_Plato]

He used the number of quarks? How does he know the number of quarks? Does his calculation include dark matter? Does it include gluons or photons that interact with matter? If not, why not? If so, how does he calculate the number of these? Does this seem reasonable?

This was answered previously.

See

physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html
Scroll down to second last item

Elementary Particle (or Fundamental Particle)
A particle with no substructure (i.e. not made up of smaller particles) and which is therefore one of the basic building blocks of the universe from which all other particles are made. Quarks, electons, neutrinos, photons, muons and gluons (along with their respective anti-particles) are all elementary particles; protons and neutrons (which are made up of quarks) are not.

I don’t have the time to do all your research. I don’t think its fair to keep asking these questions or continue to be critical of Dembski if you are unwilling to look into the matter yourself. Your prima facie questions have been answered. Do some reading in a fair minded way and you will get your answers. If you want to remain critical just because you want to remain critical then that is a mindset I refuse to help you with.

If you want the truth, seek the truth. If you want to reinforce your own views then do that, but from here on you are on your own regarding UPB.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Who says it is accepted without question within mathematical physics? Even if it is, shouldn’t we examine it on our own and determine if it passes our standard?

My thinking exactly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

well that’s the thing then, isn’t it? If he’s looking for the chances of any event and factoring in each possible moment in which this “event” could occur, then he should be dividing by that number, not multiplying by it. Giving more time would, of course, increase the chances for the event to occur. That makes sense, right? If I give you 5 seconds to roll snake eyes or 5 years, your chances are much greater with 5 years. Why then does his multiplication of time/possible moments into his “formula” decrease the chances? Obviously, that is completely backwards.

Nope. And I’ll leave you to work it out.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Maybe it is not so much a mechanism as it is a lack of mechanism. If there is no selection pressure from the environment there might not be much change.

Exactly.

There are examples going on right now that we can witness where pressure from the environment is changing a species. One of the more interesting ones, IMHO, is the percentage of elephants not having tusks. This is directly due to environmental pressure, and would not be occurring without it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly.

There are examples going on right now that we can witness where pressure from the environment is changing a species. One of the more interesting ones, IMHO, is the percentage of elephants not having tusks. This is directly due to environmental pressure, and would not be occurring without it.

Doesn’t that mean their chances for survival are lessened? That elephants are less fit? In response we should see more genetic change, is that right? So the elephant species should begin to “splinter” in terms of likeness. Perhaps giving rise to many new species. Which leads back to my question.

So why hasn’t genetic change led to more divergence? Less and less of each population until numbers dwindle out of existence.

After all, evolution can’t be purposeful in selecting new traits or the rate at which they arise. It can only use selection to determine which will actually survive. It cannot strategize to meet new pressures so there is no way of governing the changes that do occur nor their frequency.