The Beginning of the Universe

Originally Posted by Alucard

I am a born again Christian and I believe the Christian way of how everything was made; god created all. I do not believe in evolution at all and I highly disagree with it being taught in schools.

Does the Bible ever specifically say 'God did NOT create through evolution'? It doesn't does it?
If you would like to discuss evolution, then make a post in this thread or this thread (they aren't too old to revive right GDwarf?).

meh. you're a christian, huh? those are your views? well fair enough. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. personally, i believe in the multiple universe theory. basically, there are many universe's out there. when two collide, another is formed from the reaction. and yes, personally i agree with evolution. but at the same time, i have to reserve some questions. what started the entire system?

Originally Posted by Alucard

I do not believe in evolution at all and I highly disagree with it being taught in schools.

Like I've said before it's not a question of whether you believe it or not, it's a question of whether you understand it or not. Evolution is fact. But that's for another topic.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

Like I've said before it's not a question of whether you believe it or not, it's a question of whether you understand it or not. Evolution is fact. But that's for another topic.

I like evolution, as it does a nice job of explaining things, but you should not call it fact, just a theory with a good amount of evidence.

On THIS topic however, we should continue to discuss things like the big bang and if anything happened before it, whether creationist theories can coexist with the big bang theory, and other such similar matters.

Originally Posted by Sabbo

I say that the universe was created with intention, as most forms of creationism I know also say, but also brings forward how this can be possible without eternal existence. I say that beings from the distant future (distant enough as to be able to manipulate sub-atomic particles to cause any desired reaction) caused the beginning of the universe by travelling through time. Time travel has never been deemed impossible by the laws of physics as we know them mind you; The most common view of how to travel through time is to either approach the speed of light (which effectively would cause a person to travel forwards through time) or to go faster than light (which would make a person travel backwards through time). I believe that it was Einstien who stated that nothing can go at the speed of light, but never did he say that you couldn't go faster than light; although I am unable to explain how it would be possible for a person to do this, as if I were, I would probably have tried to go back in time by now.

So, what do you all think of my idea? I'm not completely set on it, but it is technically possible as I see it.



Oh, and as it is 2:30am where I live, I'm going to bed. I'll be back in the morning. I just wanted to get my idea here before I forgot it as I slept.

How can someone travel back in time when there was no beginning to start everything that caused everything that allowed them to go back in time?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

How can someone travel back in time when there was no beginning to start everything that caused everything that allowed them to go back in time?

This was already discussed at the start of the topic, and I have since gone back to being undecided on how the universe began.(If it ever did 'begin')

Originally Posted by Sabbo

I like evolution, as it does a nice job of explaining things, but you should not call it fact, just a theory with a good amount of evidence.

It is both fact and a theory. A good analogy would be that of gravity and gravitational theory. You would say that the existence of gravity is a fact, right? Gravitational theory explains the evidence we have of gravity, as well as how gravity fits in with other phenomena we also know to exist.
Right now there is a huge problem with gravitational theory, we have realised that the theory of general relativity is not compatible with quantam mechanics. This, however, has no bearing on the fact that gravity exists.

The same goes with evolution. It is a fact that the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a population will change from generation to generation, it is a fact that mutations occur, it is a fact that speciation occurs, it is a fact that DNA is inheritable etc.
These are facts which are not dispusted, the theory of evolution aims to explain the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

TalkOrigins explains it best here.

Originally Posted by MMKB

It is both fact and a theory. A good analogy would be that of gravity and gravitational theory. You would say that the existence of gravity is a fact, right? Gravitational theory explains the evidence we have of gravity, as well as how gravity fits in with other phenomena we also know to exist.

The mechanism which explains why gravity happens is to this day unknown, some very specualtive theories are out there abotu "gravitrons" and stuff, but at this point we don't know much.

Originally Posted by MMKB

The same goes with evolution. It is a fact that the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a population will change from generation to generation, it is a fact that mutations occur, it is a fact that speciation occurs, it is a fact that DNA is inheritable etc.
These are facts which are not dispusted, the theory of evolution aims to explain the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

TalkOrigins explains it best here.

Evolution is not a fact. YOu haven't listed what evolution is above, although you have listed facts. The theory of evolution is species changing over time to become other species. This is not a fact in any sense and won't be until we observe this at teh macro level, which won't happen untill we have a reasearcer that can live a million years to observe this happening.

I do believe in the theory of evolution btw.

Well we have done artificial speciation with flies. We have also observed speciation within Cichlids (a type of fish)

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but ring species may also be speciation.

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cichlid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Well we have done artificial speciation with flies. We have also observed speciation within Cichlids (a type of fish)

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but ring species may also be speciation.

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cichlid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said MARCO evolution has not been observed. And Artificail selesction is differnt than natural selection. Also the differneces between one species to another is arbitray. In order for Marco evolution to become and observable fact were are going to have to observe something more than reproducing mutations in fruit flies and crossbreeding turnips. I'm talking about things like the develpoment of the eye or something more major like that.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

I said MARCO evolution has not been observed. And Artificail selesction is differnt than natural selection. Also the differneces between one species to another is arbitray. In order for Marco evolution to become and observable fact were are going to have to observe something more than reproducing mutations in fruit flies and crossbreeding turnips. I'm talking about things like the develpoment of the eye or something more major like that.

Speciation, not selection.

What he had brought up might be close to what you're looking for, but his completely trustable and faultless source[/sarcasm] didn't explain what biological changes occured when the species changed, so it's hard to tell.

I agree with you though; evolution is just a theory until macro-evolution is observed.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

The mechanism which explains why gravity happens is to this day unknown, some very specualtive theories are out there abotu "gravitrons" and stuff, but at this point we don't know much.

And? Does that change the fact that gravity exists?
Darwin had no idea how traits were inherited from generation to generation, does that mean he should have thrown evolution out the window?

Evolution is not a fact. YOu haven't listed what evolution is above, although you have listed facts.

Yes it is.
Here is a decent working definition of evolution;
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Keeping it basic here- are you going to deny that DNA is heritable? Are you going to deny that mutations occur? Are you going to deny that mutations in DNA are heritable? Are you going to deny that the frequency of alleles in a gene pool change from generation to generation? To do so would be foolish, these are observed facts.
This is evolution, evolution has been observed, evolution is both fact and a scientific theory.

The theory of evolution is species changing over time to become other species.

Straw-man definition. Sure this what will occur through evolution, this is not the definition of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
You should read up on the modern synthesis. I do mean that, please read that page.

This is not a fact in any sense and won't be until we observe this at teh macro level, which won't happen untill we have a reasearcer that can live a million years to observe this happening.

Except that speciation has been observed.

Macro-evolution = evolution at or above the species level. It has been observed numerous times.

I do believe in the theory of evolution btw.

You don't seem to understand it though.

Originally Posted by Sabbo

I agree with you though; evolution is just a theory until macro-evolution is observed.

Don't tell me this way of thinking is popular in Australia too.
Do you understand what a scientific theory is? You obviously don't, otherwise you wouldn't be pulling out that tired line.
I think this page does a good job of explaining what a scientific theory is.
Scientific theories aren't just vague airy-fairy ideas thrown around that scientists think sound cool, a scientific theory is a model that explains the available evidence and is also used to make testable predictions. Scientific theories are backed up by evidence and are always falsifiable.

As for your other tired line, take a look at these two TalkOrigins FAQ pages;
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

They cite all the original papers, so you can go and read them too.

And here's the essential guide when it comes to common descent- 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent .

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

I said MARCO evolution has not been observed. And Artificail selesction is differnt than natural selection. Also the differneces between one species to another is arbitray. In order for Marco evolution to become and observable fact were are going to have to observe something more than reproducing mutations in fruit flies and crossbreeding turnips. I'm talking about things like the develpoment of the eye or something more major like that.

Originally Posted by PBS Website

Because for many species, humans included, evolution happens over the course of many thousands of years, it is rare to observe the process in a human lifetime. Usually only laboratory scientists studying quickly reproducing life forms, like single-celled creatures and some invertebrates, have the opportunity to see evolutionary change happen before their eyes. All of us can and do experience the indirect effects of evolution nearly every day, however. One of the more important evolutionary concerns facing humans today is the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes. A battle against bacteria that we have been winning with medicine for the last 50 years or so is now an even race, according to some scientists -- because of the rapid rate of bacterial evolution. Similarly, the use of pesticides in agriculture has driven the evolution of resistant insects that require more or harsher chemicals to be killed. Scientists studying Galapagos finches have seen evolutionary changes in beak size and shape in just a few years. Major evolutionary transformations take much, much longer.

What you want is probably unobservable directly since it takes millions of years. So how about, beak size and shape changes instead within finches.

Evolution

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Originally Posted by Sabbo

Speciation, not selection.

What he had brought up might be close to what you're looking for, but his completely trustable and faultless source[/sarcasm] didn't explain what biological changes occured when the species changed, so it's hard to tell.

I agree with you though; evolution is just a theory until macro-evolution is observed.

I found my original artical on the Cichlids. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...-2148-5-17.pdf

Originally Posted by The Article

Abstract
Background: The adaptive radiations of cichlid fishes in East Africa are well known for their
spectacular diversity and their astonishingly fast rates of speciation. About 80% of all 2,500 cichlid
species in East Africa, and virtually all cichlid species from Lakes Victoria (~500 species) and Malawi
(~1,000 species) are haplochromines. Here, we present the most extensive phylogenetic and
phylogeographic analysis so far that includes about 100 species and is based on about 2,000 bp of
the mitochondrial DNA.

Results: Our analyses revealed that all haplochromine lineages are ultimately derived from Lake
Tanganyika endemics. We find that the three most ancestral lineages of the haplochromines sensu
lato are relatively species poor, albeit widely distributed in Africa, whereas a fourth newly defined
lineage – the 'modern haplochromines' – contains an unparalleled diversity that makes up more
than 7% of the worlds' ~25,000 teleost species. The modern haplochromines' ancestor, most likely
a riverine generalist, repeatedly gave rise to similar ecomorphs now found in several of the species
flocks. Also, the Tanganyikan Tropheini are derived from that riverine ancestor suggesting that they
successfully re-colonized Lake Tanganyika and speciated in parallel to an already established cichlid
adaptive radiation. In contrast to most other known examples of adaptive radiations, these
generalist ancestors were derived from highly diverse and specialized endemics from Lake
Tanganyika. A reconstruction of life-history traits revealed that in an ancestral lineage leading to
the modern haplochromines the characteristic egg-spots on anal fins of male individuals evolved.

Conclusion: We conclude that Lake Tanganyika is the geographic and genetic cradle of all
haplochromine lineages. In the ancestors of the replicate adaptive radiations of the 'modern
haplochromines', behavioral (maternal mouthbrooding), morphological (egg-spots) and sexually
selected (color polymorphism) key-innovations arose. These might be – together with the
ecological opportunity that the habitat diversity of the large lakes provides – responsible for their
evolutionary success and their propensity for explosive speciation.