Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (Edgar_Herrera, VoroneTZ, Akow), 973 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 34 of 54 1 2 32 33 34 35 36 53 54
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Pappenheimer] #69101
05/13/06 11:35
05/13/06 11:35
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

"It makes predictions about modern biology that we can observe in the modern world. Nearly all of its predictions come true"

Have there been examples within the discussion in this thread? I must have missed them.




Well unless they come up with more amazingly vague quotes, I doubt there are even predictions like that.

@Irish Farmer: About the dna thing, eventhough repeating patterns (that's basically what they've discovered) where found, doesn't mean it has been proven that it has a purpose at this time. It can still be simply junk, but there was definately more randomness expected. Again, what are statistics, when talking about 6 billion figures and a limited amout of different sequence fragments? The processes which formed that DNA parts are probably not so random at all, finding such small similarities wouldn't be unlogical then.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69102
05/13/06 12:51
05/13/06 12:51
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman Offline
Senior Expert
Dan Silverman  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
... and in all this bantering I see that no one is really answering my questions. One member did by speaking of the octopus' intelligence, but that does not explain things from an evolutionary perspective. That only leaves us with the age-old question of, "Where did its intelligence come from?" The other questions were basically left alone.


Professional 2D, 3D and Real-Time 3D Content Creation:
HyperGraph Studios
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Dan Silverman] #69103
05/13/06 17:08
05/13/06 17:08
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Well, basically I don't see anything in those questions that would really make an evolution unlikely or questionable. There are tons of examples of symbiotic relations between lifeforms, infact are there any that could survive without specific other species? Every animal's presence has it's effect on the foodchain. Take one or a few species out, and some others could die out pretty soon too. Those kind of relations do not need an adaptation to happen simultaneously, at least it's not a necessarily required thing. Just look at species that migrate into other areas (for example because there habitat got destroyed, or a climate change made them push on further, or something like that). Those animals will claim their territory in one way or another, or they will dissappear.
As for the tube worm, at this time it could not survive without the bacteria, but it could very well be that there wasn't always a symbiotic relation. What if at first the worm did have a mouth, anuses and means to survive on it's own? What if the bacteria came along later and the symbiotic relation grew, mutations causing the worm to loose certain features, which he didn't needed because the newly acquired benefits from the co-existing bacteria replaced them fully? We didn't know very much about that worm untill recently, but symbiotic lifeforms fit inside the evolution theory, and yes there are many more examples and all types of symbiotic relationships, some less dependant than others.

As for behavior, animals act upon their environment and off course are limited to what they can do. Simple as that. Some creatures can outswim their predators, others can hide themselves, whatever there physical features allow them to do, they will behave upon that.
Remember that the mimic octopus and octupusses in general are already very very old species, which had lots of time to develop themselves into what they are now. The mimic feature is something amazing and advanced, and I'm not sure what science thinks of it in respect to evolution, but remember eventhough we might think of it as something amazing, aren't we very subjective? Bird wings are common, why should more uncommon things disprove evolution? Besides, the feature isn't really uncommon at all. The octopus's adaptation to it's environment by mutations and natural selection over the acquired benefits could very well after a very long time cause such a species to evolve into what it's now. Also marine animals like the octopus are radically different from most land creatures, but even on land we've got species who have mimic features (more or less the same).

Quote:

Evolution must not only account for the vast variety of species on planet Earth, but must also account for the animals behaviors. For example, many animals have defensive and offensive capabilities. If evolution is true, then these abilities must also have evolved as it is certain that the original protein did not have these abilities (i.e. camoflage, mimicing other animals, etc). The basic question I have is how does evolution account for these "acquired" behaviors that many animals display.




For any behavior to occure, there's a long road of building up experience through trial and error and also mimicking others and parents. The highest chance of survival of any species, is to know how to behave best, making use off all their features to survive plays a keyrole.
Humans have eyes, when nothing went wrong in developing them during our growth and stuff, does having them make us understand how they work instantly? No definately not, it involves a learning process. Babies will learn amazingly fast, but it will take a while before they recognize and can distinguish certain things as being what they are.
Young birds will make their nest like their parents did because they see how they build them, and because lateron they will try to make them theirselves. A process of trial and error. Off course there is some gene information passed on too, but I personally think animals learn the most out of mimicking others and trial and error. There's a need for a nest? Then the creature needs to find a way to make it, wether or not it makes it in exactly the same way as their parents will have to do a lot with a.) gene info, b.) did it witness how it's parents build it and c.) his own physical abilities (clumsy? clever? strength?) and d.) the environment.
Learning to use a creature's own features to it's maximum benefit is pretty much vital for survival, natural selection would make sure that any beneficial mutation will survive and the creatures who can live with that change the best will pass on it's genes. Again, these questions are good ones, but I think it doesn't really question evolution, especially the part about behavior, there is so much that any species need to learn to be able to survive. Physical capabilities like the mimic feature will only be beneficial when creatures who have it, quickly learn how to use it.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69104
05/13/06 17:45
05/13/06 17:45
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis


Who did this baby mimic to learn to suckle? But animals do learn to do things by mimicking behaviors, that is true.

Oh yes and happy mothers day!!!

The evolution of instinct would have to occur the way any other evolution occured, through mutation in DNA and natural selection. The evolutionist would postulate the actual instinctual "intelligence" occuring in the neurons of birds, or the primal mechanisms which propel bacteria flagellum towards food sources.

Natural selection would be the method of arriving at these species and behavior Dan has mentioned, as I already said in my first reply.

Of course HOW natural selection actually works is another question altogether, but the theory looks great when its simply accompanied with the wave of a hand. The fact that we dont even know anything about how a worms brain works fundamentally shouldnt stop anyone from believing that evolution has caused sophisticated instinct in all creatures.*sarcasm* According to the evolutionists, nothing can really falsify the theory.

Since nothing can falsify evolution, and macro-evolution is not observable, evolution is nothing but a tautology, the first US state funded religion in history, and definately not a scientific theory.

These ducks think that this guy is their mommy.

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: NITRO777] #69105
05/13/06 18:18
05/13/06 18:18
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Why are physical evolution and intelligence linked at all? A mutation which as a result affects an arm or leg, doesn't mean the being suddenly becomes stupid. Behavior, for a big part means using your brains, combined what's physically possible to do. Off course mutations and changes in intelligence happen too, and instinct could change because of that.

Quote:

The fact that we dont even know anything about how a worms brain works fundamentally shouldnt stop anyone from believing that evolution has caused sophisticated instinct in all creatures.*sarcasm* According to the evolutionists, nothing can really falsify the theory.




Like I said, we don't know much about that worm. For worms in general scientists have determined their behavior relies much on trial-and-error behavior, or at least experiments seem to suggest that. The amount of intelligence for the worm is not really relevant, it just lives for survival, take for example ants, they don't need to rely on their intelligence to survive. Sheer number and cooperation with eachother as one big 'animal', every little ant does helps in the survival of the colony. Yes, those ants must have sort of an instinct, and I do think evolution has it's effects on it. Like I said, these questions by Dan do not make evolution more or less unlikely in my opinion.

Quote:

sophisticated instinct in all creatures




Some creatures only react to direct things in their environments and don't actually need to think. An ants instinct won't be super sophisticated at all, because it doesn't rely on intelligence to survive. The only relevant part of intelligence for those kind of species would be pure being able to move around, smell and that kind of basic stuff.

By the way, as far as I know, there's not much known about the evolution of our brain, because for example it's size doesn't necesseraly indicate the amount of intelligence. For evolutionists it seems likely indeed that our brain has evolved too, and I doubt it has been constantly the same too. What other option do you suggest? *poof* and there the animal get's his instinct? LOL!

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69106
05/13/06 19:47
05/13/06 19:47
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman Offline
Senior Expert
Dan Silverman  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
PHeMoX,

In all you dribble you missed the point of my original post. I was not attempting to prove or disprove anything. That is what I said from the beginning. I simply asked how evolution accounts for the things that I brought up. It is really that simple.

These sorts of questions are important because, as I pointed out, evolution cannot only account for the development of a varieyt of species, but also for the behaviors of these same species. In other words, it is not just the different kinds of animals that we need to account for (i.e. their existance) but also their distinct behavioral patterns. There is more to a bird than he has feathers. As noted, they also build a particular kind of nest (or none at all ... in some cases). And they always build the same kind of nest. It never changes. From an evolutionary perspective, as these animals began to evolve from one kind to another, then instinctive behaviors would evolve with them. How does evolution answer these questions? How does it deal with instinct, behavioral patterns and other things that are unique to a species?

And, yes, I certainly pointed out in my original post that there are many examples of simbiotic relationships. Just because they exist does not mean they don't mean anything or that they prove or disprove anything. I was simply asking how evolution would account for these simbiotic relationships. Many of these relationships, like that of the Giant Tube Worm, are so close knit that the one cannot possibly live without the other. Not only that, but both the Giant Tube Worm and its bacteria live in a place where there is no chace for either of them to live apart from one another (i.e. there is no other "host" for the bacteria, no other bacteria for the tube worm and no way or time for either to develop another simbiotic relationship). How could this relationship have come about in evolutionary terms. Again, I am not using this to prove or disprove anything. I am simply looking for a logical answer from an evolutionary perspective.


Professional 2D, 3D and Real-Time 3D Content Creation:
HyperGraph Studios
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Dan Silverman] #69107
05/13/06 21:01
05/13/06 21:01
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Quote:

... and in all this bantering I see that no one is really answering my questions. One member did by speaking of the octopus' intelligence, but that does not explain things from an evolutionary perspective. That only leaves us with the age-old question of, "Where did its intelligence come from?" The other questions were basically left alone.




Sorry, Dan, my answers were way too short. One reason for this is that quite complicating theory of self-referential systems which is IMO quite important.
Okey, but there are other points that could be explained easier.

#1 The evolution of a species doesn't happen isolated. Their environment doesn't 'stand still'while the species are changing. The environment consists not only of geologic and climatic circumstances. That means anything in evolution develops itself within a companionship with other species, wether animals, plants, or bacterias. They develop in 'co-evolution' within an 'ecotop'.

#2 The evolution is seldom a prozess of perfectionizing or a prozess which is 'aiming' at completeness. The 'popular' sentence "surving of the fittest" is not correct. And there are evolutionists who accuse Darwin that he only stressed this sentence, because it rectified the colonization politics of the european nations at that time.
The main sentence IMO is that evolution happen within mainly two mechanism: variation and selection.
I say that evolution is seldom a prozess of perfectionizing or a prozess which is 'aiming' at completeness, that means it produces an overplus of features that are not necessary for surviving, but comes in with the development of needed abilities. Maybe, with a further change in the environment this unneeded can come in handy and give an advantage to survive. This means in addition that the known creatures are not the only possible species but that one which 'happened' to appear and got there niche in the ecotop to exist for while.


About connection of instinct and evolution in short: in the DNA is saved how a body is build up, this means it contains the information about how the nerves, neurons and "hardcoded" behaviours are build up, as well. This is part of the neurobiology whereof I don't know much.


I hope that this explains at least a bit of your questions. Tell me were you see a gap which needs further explanation.

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Dan Silverman] #69108
05/13/06 21:38
05/13/06 21:38
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
@Dan
Quote:

From an evolutionary perspective, as these animals began to evolve from one kind to another, then instinctive behaviors would evolve with them. How does evolution answer these questions? How does it deal with instinct, behavioral patterns and other things that are unique to a species?


I think I understand what you mean here. If a robin builds a certain nest, what would happen to that instinct if the robin evolved to a new species? I think its a good question and adds a new dimension to all of evolutionary claims. I think its interesting because every species has behavior, even bacteria have behaviorial instinct. Now not only does it add complexity to the issue of HOW evolution happens(because now new behaviors have to be coded in DNA as well as physical features), but it also forces a new way of looking at taxonomy. For example, a species might be another type if it differs in instinct-it really adds a new set of questions in every area of evolutionary theory because everywhere a species changes physically, it also must change behaviorally.

@Phemox
Quote:

Why are physical evolution and intelligence linked at all?


Well because of neurons(brain cells) if my understanding of science is correct. For evolutionary theory to be correct, the precise architecture of thought is found within the network of neurons. According to evolutionary theory, these neurons which provide instinct must be hard-coded into the genome(set of genes). As I illustrated before, if you put your finger into a baby's mouth he(she) will try to suck because of the instinct placed within him. Without the instinct, the baby would fail to understand what his mouth was for. Our understanding of the brain will not allow us to see the complexity of such a simple instinct. The brain would require millions of interconnected cells to formulate a simple suckling instinct. Evolution forces us to believe that these cells are not only brought about by random mutations, but as Dan points out that instinct must be passed along in the gene pool for evolution to be correct. What happens when an instinct from one species interferes with an instinct from a further evolved species?



Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Dan Silverman] #69109
05/14/06 10:55
05/14/06 10:55
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
The evolution of instincts is indeed fascinating. Heritable instincts can evolve and change very fast - within a few generations.

I remember having read about crows. They eat walnuts that they usually drop on stones for cracking them open. Since the second half of the 20th century, crows living close to streets were observed to wait at crossings until the traffic lights turn red. Then they place nuts in front of vehicle wheels. When the lights turn green, they fly away and vehicles drive over the nuts. At the next red time the crows pick up the cracked nuts.

This is quite a complex behavior developed in a short time, not more than a century. Evolution explains this by a mutation or gene shift (= one crow develops a new hereditary instinct) followed by natural selection (= crows with this instinct have an evolutionary advantage). Of course, creationists have certainly a different explanation (= God has foreseen vehicles and traffic and made crows already with this instinct).

Astronomy for creationists [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69110
05/14/06 11:05
05/14/06 11:05
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
Here's the promised brief introduction into the age of the universe.

Until the 20th century, astronomers believed that the universe was eternal, unbounded and unchanging. It had no beginning and no end. This world view was shaken in 1929 when Edwin Hubble measured the spectra of distant galaxies.

Hubble observed that the spectra are shifted to the red. The darker the galaxy was, i.e. the more distant, the more its spectrum was shifted.

Hubble (wrongly) assumed that the red shift was caused by a light doppler effect due to a movement of galaxies. Some sort of central explosion must have caused all galaxies to move away from each other. The more distant a galaxy, the higher its speed. This seemed to him a simple way to calculate the distance of galaxies from their red shift... if he only knew the relation between red shift and distance!

Unfortunately, for getting that relation he needed to know first the distances of some galaxies independently of their red shift. However, in the 1930s astronomy could only directly measure the distance of close stars, up to several thousand light years, with the parallax method. There were some tricks and approximations available for star distances up to several hundred thousand light years, but no precise method to measure distances greater than a million light years.

However, the red shift has another consequence: When all galaxies are moving away from each other, there must have been a time when they all were together at the same position. The universe had a beginning. As Hubble assumed some kind of explosion, the beginning was dubbed "Big Bang".

In the 1950s with the development of the hydrogen bomb, astronomy began to understand in detail the nuclear mechanism of a sun, which is nothing else but a hydrogen bomb under gravity pressure. During its life span - our sun is 5 billion years old - a star characteristically changes its brightness and temperature depending on its initial mass. Now astronomy had a quite reliable method to calculate the distance of stars from their directly observed temperature-brightness-relation.

They found that the farthest galaxies known at that time were several billion light years away. From their speed, one could calculate that they all were close together at a point about 10 billion years ago. This was the first rough approximation of the age of the universe.

More precise distance measurements and comparisions with supernova records led to the discovery that the red shift was not caused by a doppler effect, as Hubble assumed, but by an expansion of space itself. Thus the galaxies are not moving, it's the space between them that is permanently widening. This leads to a slightly different distance-redshift relation than a Doppler effect (which is still wrongly mentioned in some school books as the cause of the red shift).

In 1950..1960, quantum electrodynamics was largely understood and allowed to calculate a model of the Big Bang. The model predicted that 400,000 years after the the Big Bang, radiation escaped from the initial dense plasma. This radiation would cool off with a predictable rate, and should still be observable today. If we only could measure it's today's temperature, we'd know precisely the date of the Big Bang and the age of the universe.

This happened 1964. Two US physicists discovered the cosmic background radiation. This was considered the final proof of the Big Bang. The background radiation has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin, which puts the age of the universe at about 10..20 billion years.

Later, the Hubble space telescope and other advanced telecopes allowed the measurement of far galaxy distances with higher precision, especially from the analysis of supernovae. This led to the discovery that some galaxies were older than the 10 billion years assumed so far for the age of the universe. This puzzle was solved by the discovery that the universe is expanding with increasing velocity. Until then, it was believed that the expansion velocity was decreasing. The new data put the age of the universe at 13.8 (+/- 0.4) billion years.

This is the formula used today for the Distance / Red Shift relation in an accelerated expanding universe:



where D = proper distance, z = red shift, c = light speed (ca. 300,000 km/s), H0 = Hubble constant (ca. 22 km/s per light year), Omega0 = proportion of Dark and Baryonic matter in the universe (ca. 0.27) and OmegaLambda = kosmologic constant, i.e. proportion of Dark Energy in the universe (ca. 0.73).

In the 1990s the age of the universe was again calculated with a complete different method, measuring uranium isotopes. Uranium came into existence through the nuclear process in the first stars. This put the age of the universe at 14.5 (+/- 1.1) billion years.

Finally, also in the 1990s the COBE and WMAP satellites did a high precision measurement of the background radiation, resulting in 13.7 (+/- 0.2) billion years for the age of the universe.

So we have three different methods for calculating the age of the universe, all producing the same result and thus giving creationists a hard time. By the end of the 20th century, the Big Bang model and the age of the universe was accepted by all main religions (unlike evolution theory that is still not fully accepted by Islam). In 2007 the PLANCK space probe will again measure the background radiation, and is expected to determine the age of the universe with an accuracy of about +/- 50 million years.

The above stuff is from my website. If you find something unclear or wrong, please ask - I'll check and go further into details.

Page 34 of 54 1 2 32 33 34 35 36 53 54

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1