My ramblings on evolution with some side-views

[TheRapingDragon]

Warning: This thread will probably make no sense but I thought I may put it down in words in order to see what anyone wants to say. This isn't an "I'm right you're wrong" kind of thread, nor is this me wanting an "evolution vs creationism" thread.

Recently Krissy watched a show on evolution and when we were out she asked me what my views on evolution were. I started talking and somehow came out with a whole slew of my thoughts and theories that probably don't even relate to evolution. Seeing as how it was all spoken I'm not sure how well I can put it down in words but lets see how this goes.

To start, I feel that evolution is entirely possible. I have always felt that the strongest part of a species will be prevalent and will eventually edge out the weaker species or members of that species. This in turn leads to the strongest lasting longest and from breeding will eventually cause changes due to the strongest parts always being present. In this way I feel evolution is possible over time (however much) to allow a complete change in characteristics such as that from an ape to a man. I am aware that man and ape may not be direct descendants but I am only using that as an example of possibility, rather than fact.

Based on this I believe that it's entirely possible for all life to have evolved from single celled organisms. The most basic lifeforms can eventually strength to form any entity really. Now, and this is where I start to deviate a little. My theory of evolution does not limit itself to simple organisms. I try to look at how everything is comprised of some form of energy. Humans, for example, are carbon-based lifeforms. In this sense the stars, the sun, everything is a life-form if it comprises of some form of energy. In this sense I try to assume that evolution can be energy-based. Is it not entirely logical that the strongest aspects of energy can evolve to create the dominant energy source. In my views it is entirely possible for single celled organisms to have evolved from energy from the sun, which in turn has evolved from energy throughout the universe in order to display the strongest attributes of energy itself, comprising of solar systems et al. Eventually having to evolve from whatever the most base energy started the universe.

As an aside, I went on to say that I felt that the universe was constantly expanding, but as we all know energy itself cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. I believe that eventually the universe will stretch enough to pull all of energy to such an extent that it eventually has to "spring-back" in the sense that the universe will eventually have to start shrinking again, until all of energy has regressed to the single-state of the beginning of the universe. Where all energy will be as one again. Then the big bang will start again (or whichever evolution of energy that occurred at the beginning) and things will start to grow again.

If we continue to look at things this way then we can say that the universe is cyclical. Evolution is only part of the equation to getting the universe to the size at which energy (source of evolution) cannot continue and must regress again.

I have two problems with my own theory. One is that, again, energy cannot be created or destroyed; so how did the initial energy source begin? If energy is the base building block of evolution then how did energy exist in the first place in order to be able to evolve?

The second problem I have is that energy can be changed to a source to which no logical evolution can take place. For example, I am aware that eventually the sun will run out of energy. If this is the case then the energy will not be able to evolve in any way around the universe (such as other suns) and that would, by my theory, end the universe itself. If there is no possible evolution then the universe will either keep expanding or keep rebounding at quicker and quicker intervals, eventually becoming just the initial "big-bang" forever due to insufficient energy to begin evolution to allow the universe to expand.

So anyway, that's just some ramblings that I said to her when she asked and I thought I'd share them.

[tsugomaru]

Recent scientific theories state that matter can be destroyed. And by recent, they've been in the works for almost a hundred years.

Don't be so quick to think that scientific theories and even laws are 100% true and correct forever. As we continue to explore and discover new things on our planet and in our universe, new light will be shed on old theories to either completely destroy them or support them.

~Tsugomaru

[TheRapingDragon]

As I said, this question was asked to me and what I have wrote there is what I replied. As such when I quoted things I was going with what I knew off the top of my head. Recent scientific theories are not my forte I will admit so I didn't know that energy could be destroyed or that this was in the works.

The only thing that changes in my theory if you say energy can be destroyed is that the energy that becomes destroyed (i.e. sun etc.) will reduce the amount of energy needed for the entire universe to evolve, allowing it to start to rebound quicker each time. As less and less energy evolves the universe expands less fully each cycle and the cycles get shorter each time before the eventual "becoming just the initial "big-bang" forever due to insufficient energy to begin evolution to allow the universe to expand."

[Reach]

Originally Posted by tsugomaru

Recent scientific theories state that matter can be destroyed. And by recent, they've been in the works for almost a hundred years.



~Tsugomaru

Sure, you can destroy matter, but you convert it to energy by doing so. Welcome to the fundamental realization that created our favorite buddy the atomic bomb (though here we split it rather than destroy it. I'm not aware of any techniques for destroying matter unless you want to consider fusing matter and antimatter).

You cannot however, destroy energy itself. Not sure what you're getting at here.

have two problems with my own theory. One is that, again, energy cannot be created or destroyed; so how did the initial energy source begin? If energy is the base building block of evolution then how did energy exist in the first place in order to be able to evolve?

You kind of answered your own problem. You said energy cannot be created or destroyed. If I do not require a creator then do I not always exist?

It's a problem trying to wrap your head around something existing without cause, but I think you're probably thinking about energy the wrong way. You're thinking about it as a 'thing', when it really isn't. Instead, it's a property of a system, or more specifically, potential of a system. Again more specifically dealing with the kind of energy you're talking about, it is potential of a system to do useful work. This isn't a 'thing', but rather, exists almost by necessity from the fact that a 'system' or a 'space' does exist in the first place.

From here really, you can ask yourself the question of why is there something rather than nothing all that you want, but really, I think the answer might be simpler than our brains would want to accept - nothing can't exist. Even complete emptiness is something; it requires space, and with a little physics and some energetic potential who knows what strange things could start to happen over time.



I think your ideas are good though. You're seeing the big picture. I don't think 'evolution' in the sense of the word only applies to living organisms, but rather everything changes over time, and selection processes act on everything in the universe. I can even go as far as saying I think a form of universal evolution could explain why we are here if there are in fact multiple universes that exist.

Near the end you talk about useful energy turning to useless energy, and the eventual death of the universe. I don't think only living organisms die, but rather, everything dies, including the universe. It's a vicious cycle of which we are only a tiny, tiny part of. But in the end, everything runs back into the system in some form, and another universe and possibly something beyond will begin anew. Change is the reason we're here, and death is just a part of it.

I believe that eventually the universe will stretch enough to pull all of energy to such an extent that it eventually has to "spring-back" in the sense that the universe will eventually have to start shrinking again, until all of energy has regressed to the single-state of the beginning of the universe.

This is what everyone thought until relatively recently when we discovered the expansion rate of the universe was increasing. It looks like it's going to continue to expand more rapidly indefinitely, again destroying everything in it. The reason behind this is a mystery - we just know there has to be something generating a force exerted on the universe to cause this. Right now we call this dark energy.

[1961casey]

Is evolution probable? It has been speculated that the odds of an amino acid, such as thymine, being spontaneously created are one in one times ten to the power of fourteen thousand. That is a 'one' with seven pages of zeros behind it. The significance of this is that thymine is one of several basic building blocks of a DNA molecule. Thymine has to be paired with adenine in order to create a single rung of a DNA molecule. Of course the odds of its spontaneous creation is also approximately one in one time ten to the power of fourteen thousand. Basic logic tells us that it is probable therefore that the odds that these two acids, or any other complementary amino acids, being spontaneously created are therefore one in one times ten to the power of twenty eight thousand. This also assumes that the conditions necessary for the creation of one acid is not counterproductive to the creation of its complimentary acid. It also assumes that two amino acids could possibly be created somewhere in close relation to each other and therefore able to combine.

Now that the odds have been established, one has to look at them and analyse its significance. The problem is that it has been estimated that there are one times ten to the power of eighty four atoms in the universe. That is a one with a sentence and a half of zeros behind it. What that means is that if you take the odds of spontaneously creating a part of a DNA molecule, which would be one in one time ten to the power of twenty eight thousand, the entire universe could not support the possiblity of its occurance. Would it be logical to assume that the odds which would cover fourteen pages of zeros, can be significant when the number of atoms are comparatively miniscule. And this is just for the creation of a DNA molecule. What are the odds for the next step, and the next and the next? It just boggles the mind that under these circumstances the odds are impossibly stacked against evolution thousands of times over.

Even modern day writers such as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein have conceded that evolution cannot work on it own. They have admitted that there had to be some kind of outside influence needed to nudge evolution along. In other words they have rejected the closed system model of the universe, in which every cause has an effect and that everything can be explained scientifically.

The bottom line is that there has to be a logical point at which probabilities simply outweigh the possiblities. And that point is reached much too long before evolution can be considered as a logical outcome.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by 1961casey

Is evolution probable? It has been speculated that the odds of an amino acid, such as thymine, being spontaneously created are one in one times ten to the power of fourteen thousand. That is a 'one' with seven pages of zeros behind it. The significance of this is that thymine is one of several basic building blocks of a DNA molecule. Thymine has to be paired with adenine in order to create a single rung of a DNA molecule. Of course the odds of its spontaneous creation is also approximately one in one time ten to the power of fourteen thousand. Basic logic tells us that it is probable therefore that the odds that these two acids, or any other complementary amino acids, being spontaneously created are therefore one in one times ten to the power of twenty eight thousand. This also assumes that the conditions necessary for the creation of one acid is not counterproductive to the creation of its complimentary acid. It also assumes that two amino acids could possibly be created somewhere in close relation to each other and therefore able to combine.

Now that the odds have been established, one has to look at them and analyse its significance. The problem is that it has been estimated that there are one times ten to the power of eighty four atoms in the universe. That is a one with a sentence and a half of zeros behind it. What that means is that if you take the odds of spontaneously creating a part of a DNA molecule, which would be one in one time ten to the power of twenty eight thousand, the entire universe could not support the possiblity of its occurance. Would it be logical to assume that the odds which would cover fourteen pages of zeros, can be significant when the number of atoms are comparatively miniscule. And this is just for the creation of a DNA molecule. What are the odds for the next step, and the next and the next? It just boggles the mind that under these circumstances the odds are impossibly stacked against evolution thousands of times over.

Even modern day writers such as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein have conceded that evolution cannot work on it own. They have admitted that there had to be some kind of outside influence needed to nudge evolution along. In other words they have rejected the closed system model of the universe, in which every cause has an effect and that everything can be explained scientifically.

The bottom line is that there has to be a logical point at which probabilities simply outweigh the possiblities. And that point is reached much too long before evolution can be considered as a logical outcome.

Well, let's start with a citation for the probability of creating thymine. The claim in and of itself is ridiculous; it's not possible to calculate the probability of thymine formation without making a myriad of assumptions. That's also one of the most absurd numbers I've ever seen.

Even with the ridiculous probability aside, you are assuming that thymine did in fact appear 'spontaneously'. Fabricating explanations to things we don't have answers to is not a good idea, especially when you're going to base your entire argument around a made up probability.

As such, I don't think anyone is going to take this argument seriously. Evolution is not probable, it is the reality we're faced with every day. Speciation can be demonstrated in the laboratory; evolution is something you depend on for many modern day medical advancements we take for granted. It's an incredibly logical outcome, supported by mountains of scientific research. It's not the 'random' process you seem to depict it as; the driving force of evolution is ultimately random, but selection processes are not random. It is not by 'chance' that we are here. A very long and complex interaction of many non random processes take responsibility for that.

[Cavernio]

1961casey: I agree with Reach here. Why start with thiamine? There's things smaller and less complex than an amino acid that have to made first. Atoms for instance, and before that all the atomic particles. What are the chances of those being created? How do you measure that? How long of a time span are you thinking about? Evolution the way theRapingDragon has described it, and which I totally agree with and which I've thought a lot about before, says that it works not only for what we call life, but also describes the very fabric of the universe: energy.

[Bolth mannn]

i believe that evolution can happen, in fact, theres proof of it: look at dogs, there used to be only a few different breeeds but turned into cross-breeds...thats the kind of evolution i believe in, the whole 'evolution was how earth was created' is just stupid, how did the energy resource get there in the first place, just as dragon said.

i find it wierd that the guy who first mentioned the possibility of evolution, stated a few months later, that he didnt believe evolution was possible at all. yet scientists kept on working on the theory even though the idea guy told them all that it was pretty much impossible.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Bolth mannn

i believe that evolution can happen, in fact, theres proof of it: look at dogs, there used to be only a few different breeeds but turned into cross-breeds...thats the kind of evolution i believe in, the whole 'evolution was how earth was created' is just stupid, how did the energy resource get there in the first place, just as dragon said.

i find it wierd that the guy who first mentioned the possibility of evolution, stated a few months later, that he didnt believe evolution was possible at all. yet scientists kept on working on the theory even though the idea guy told them all that it was pretty much impossible.

Dog breeding is a good example of evolution, driven by artificial selection.

However, with respect to your next point, how did *anything* get there in the first place then? At some point, the universe has to be fundamentally irreducible; otherwise there would have been nothing, and we wouldn't be here. If energy is an irreducible component of existence then you have your answer.

Also, Charles Darwin never started that his theory wasn't possible. He believed in evolution entirely.

[MeaCulpa]

Originally Posted by 1961casey

an amino acid, such as thymine

Thymine is a nucleic acid, not an amino acid. Before you scoff at this comment, it's a VERY important distinction:

http://www.unificationtheory.com/bio...O%20cells.html

The enzymes that we currently have in our bodies to make nucleic acids (purines and pyrimidines) actually use 'simpler' molecules such as water, bicarbonate, formate and amino acids such as glutamate, glutamine, aspartate and glycine. All of these molecules are believed to have come into existence before nucleic acids (in the 'primordial soup').

Waaaaay back in time (even before we had enzymes in the first place), is it not possible that a series of 8 to 10 chemical reactions could have occurred between some amino acids, water, and bicarbonate to form nucleosides? Considering the amount of energy that must have been present in the primordial soup, it's not that hard to fathom that these reactions could have occurred.

I also think your 'calculated probabilities' aren't based on these reactions, but on having each individual atom in a nucleic acid come together at once (which I agree is highly unlikely, but is a preposterous claim).

Basically, I believe that everything (after the Big Bang) started with a few very simple molecules that underwent several kinds of chemistry to eventually make more and more complex macromolecules. From sugars to fats to amino acids to nucleic acids, we eventually obtained complex enzymes, and of course, RNA (eventually DNA). From this, the genetic code was born (not gonna bore you with details, especially if you've already taken biology).

Eventually, primitive organisms formed from the combination of these macromolecules around a membrane. I'm skipping a lot of the details, but it makes sense biochemically in terms of obtaining increasing complexity over time. Finally, through symbiosis, these early organisms engulfed other simple organisms such as aerobic prokaryotes (our mitochondria) or cyanobacteria (chloroplasts) to create eukaryotic cells, which eventually gave rise to plants, animals and fungi. From there, random changes over time led to evolution of these organisms into the many species (extant and extinct) that have lived.

Originally Posted by Bolth mannn

i find it wierd that the guy who first mentioned the possibility of evolution, stated a few months later, that he didnt believe evolution was possible at all. yet scientists kept on working on the theory even though the idea guy told them all that it was pretty much impossible.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see some proof of this. Are you talking about Darwin? As far as I know, the only doubts he had were regarding the inheritance of acquired characteristics in evolution. He never, ever doubted evolution after writing the Origin.

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by TheRapingDragon

To start, I feel that evolution is entirely possible. I have always felt that the strongest part of a species will be prevalent and will eventually edge out the weaker species or members of that species. This in turn leads to the strongest lasting longest and from breeding will eventually cause changes due to the strongest parts always being present. In this way I feel evolution is possible over time (however much) to allow a complete change in characteristics such as that from an ape to a man. I am aware that man and ape may not be direct descendants but I am only using that as an example of possibility, rather than fact.

The problem with some people's perspective about evolution is that they view our current existence as the goal of our inherent development. Our current form, as well as the form of our entire universe and everything therein, is simply a result of conditions that were present. There is no goal or destination of evolution, only results based on environmental factors (natural selection). Our existence is strictly a matter of chance based on an infinite number of variables. Had these variables been different, it does not mean life or evolution would not occur, it would simply occur, or have occured, in a different fashion, just as it can most likely be observed in other realms of our universe.

Originally Posted by TheRapingDragon

As an aside, I went on to say that I felt that the universe was constantly expanding, but as we all know energy itself cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. I believe that eventually the universe will stretch enough to pull all of energy to such an extent that it eventually has to "spring-back" in the sense that the universe will eventually have to start shrinking again, until all of energy has regressed to the single-state of the beginning of the universe. Where all energy will be as one again. Then the big bang will start again (or whichever evolution of energy that occurred at the beginning) and things will start to grow again.

Regarding energy and mass, e=mc2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2). You're somewhat incorrect in your assumptions.

A great book which answers a lot of your questions (and corrects a lot of your assumptions) is "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. There is an amazing amount of information dummied down so the rest can understand the general theories of the universe (and its physics).

Cheers!

[devonin]

You're somewhat incorrect in your assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch

It was a workable potential theory for a while, though as the entry makes clear, it certainly doesn't look like the acceleration of universal expansion is slowing at all, but as it also says, "since the nature of the dark energy that drives the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a rapid collapse"

[1961casey]

I have been brought to task on the distinction between nucleic acids versus amino acids and on the probablilities used to estimate the likelihood of its spontaneous creation. However, I had used it as a basic example on a molecular level of the difficulty of excepting chance as a driving force for evolution. Even if the odds were ridiculous, what are the odds for any other steps to occur? Any estimation of any degree would very quickly spin into an astronomical number that would preclude the possibility of chance as a driving force for the creation of life.

In order to except evolution as a reasonable theory for the creation of life it would require a dogmatic and close minded view of the world; a situation untenable for an open-minded scientist.

[devonin]

Any estimation of any degree would very quickly spin into an astronomical number that would preclude the possibility of chance as a driving force for the creation of life.

Just because the odds are staggering doesn't mean they are necessarily impossible. While I agree that past a certain point, the severe unliklihood of an event makes the suggestion that an outside force was involved -more likely- it IN NO WAY constitutes any kind of actual proof that the thing that occured could not have occured by chance.

[Loverofstories]

Originally Posted by TheRapingDragon

Warning: This thread will probably make no sense but I thought I may put it down in words in order to see what anyone wants to say. This isn't an "I'm right you're wrong" kind of thread, nor is this me wanting an "evolution vs creationism" thread.

Recently Krissy watched a show on evolution and when we were out she asked me what my views on evolution were. I started talking and somehow came out with a whole slew of my thoughts and theories that probably don't even relate to evolution. Seeing as how it was all spoken I'm not sure how well I can put it down in words but lets see how this goes.

To start, I feel that evolution is entirely possible. I have always felt that the strongest part of a species will be prevalent and will eventually edge out the weaker species or members of that species. This in turn leads to the strongest lasting longest and from breeding will eventually cause changes due to the strongest parts always being present. In this way I feel evolution is possible over time (however much) to allow a complete change in characteristics such as that from an ape to a man. I am aware that man and ape may not be direct descendants but I am only using that as an example of possibility, rather than fact.

Based on this I believe that it's entirely possible for all life to have evolved from single celled organisms. The most basic lifeforms can eventually strength to form any entity really. Now, and this is where I start to deviate a little. My theory of evolution does not limit itself to simple organisms. I try to look at how everything is comprised of some form of energy. Humans, for example, are carbon-based lifeforms. In this sense the stars, the sun, everything is a life-form if it comprises of some form of energy. In this sense I try to assume that evolution can be energy-based. Is it not entirely logical that the strongest aspects of energy can evolve to create the dominant energy source. In my views it is entirely possible for single celled organisms to have evolved from energy from the sun, which in turn has evolved from energy throughout the universe in order to display the strongest attributes of energy itself, comprising of solar systems et al. Eventually having to evolve from whatever the most base energy started the universe.

As an aside, I went on to say that I felt that the universe was constantly expanding, but as we all know energy itself cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed. I believe that eventually the universe will stretch enough to pull all of energy to such an extent that it eventually has to "spring-back" in the sense that the universe will eventually have to start shrinking again, until all of energy has regressed to the single-state of the beginning of the universe. Where all energy will be as one again. Then the big bang will start again (or whichever evolution of energy that occurred at the beginning) and things will start to grow again.

If we continue to look at things this way then we can say that the universe is cyclical. Evolution is only part of the equation to getting the universe to the size at which energy (source of evolution) cannot continue and must regress again.

I have two problems with my own theory. One is that, again, energy cannot be created or destroyed; so how did the initial energy source begin? If energy is the base building block of evolution then how did energy exist in the first place in order to be able to evolve?

The second problem I have is that energy can be changed to a source to which no logical evolution can take place. For example, I am aware that eventually the sun will run out of energy. If this is the case then the energy will not be able to evolve in any way around the universe (such as other suns) and that would, by my theory, end the universe itself. If there is no possible evolution then the universe will either keep expanding or keep rebounding at quicker and quicker intervals, eventually becoming just the initial "big-bang" forever due to insufficient energy to begin evolution to allow the universe to expand.

So anyway, that's just some ramblings that I said to her when she asked and I thought I'd share them.

The philosophy treats you with a picture that a sun burns the same as any other sun, for it exists merely as gas and energy and solar fusion. All suns equal the same sum - a sun (think of it like you're looking at one part of the picture). So much energy may be found between an electron and the nucleus, equal to one hydrogen bomb (there exists billions in YOU alone).
Adam has been proven to fathered all six billion humans (No other human has accomplished ANYTHING of the same - so tough luck for your evolution theory).

[devonin]

Adam has been proven to fathered all six billion humans

Welcome to the Critical Thinking forum. Please read and review the rules of this forum before posting here.

To save you at least some time and effort, I can clear up one rule for you right now: Claims require evidence.

Prove it.

[Sol_Solis]

Originally Posted by devonin

Welcome to the Critical Thinking forum. Please read and review the rules of this forum before posting here.

To save you at least some time and effort, I can clear up one rule for you right now: Claims require evidence.

Prove it.

I saw a program on it on national geographic a while ago. It goes into lengthy explanations and descriptions with all the details about what happened

[devonin]

I'm afraid that isn't going to be enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and "The man Adam is the direct progenitor of all humanity" is an -exceedingly- extraordinary claim.

"I saw it on TV this one time" is not going to be sufficient.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by 1961casey

I have been brought to task on the distinction between nucleic acids versus amino acids and on the probablilities used to estimate the likelihood of its spontaneous creation. However, I had used it as a basic example on a molecular level of the difficulty of excepting chance as a driving force for evolution. Even if the odds were ridiculous, what are the odds for any other steps to occur? Any estimation of any degree would very quickly spin into an astronomical number that would preclude the possibility of chance as a driving force for the creation of life.

In order to except evolution as a reasonable theory for the creation of life it would require a dogmatic and close minded view of the world; a situation untenable for an open-minded scientist.

An example that failed, given it was not at all relevant.

Evolution isn't about chance at all, so we don't have to accept chance as a driving force for evolution...!

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at at the end of your post. Are you trying to say that, for example, there are a ridiculous amount of other ways things could have happened? If so, this is entirely irrelevant. There still has to be some outcome of this process, and we are that outcome. Just because it could have happened any number of different ways is meaningless, aside from the fact that this tells us life on other planets could be vastly different than it is here...


Also, with respect to the post about adam...if there were in fact only 2 humans that went on to birth everyone else, our species would quickly inbreed with everyone else in the species and we wouldn't be here. It's simply not possible.

I think you have vastly misunderstood the point of what was said on national geographic (which was probably about a common ancestor of all species on earth).