View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
dwonderful Star Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005 Posts: 1343
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: How and why is the Evolution theory considered plausible? (purely a science question) |
|
|
I am currently studying Human Anatomy & Physiology. The unfathomably intricate design of the human bodies is purely mind-boggling! The incredible complexity led me to wonder all this all evolved. How did something as complex as our nervous system, which somehow conducts electrical events to maintain our well-being just evolve from nothing?
Obviously, at some time, one must believe there was a state of nothingness. For me, at least, that is hard to comprehend. Nothing. No planets, no starts, even no atoms. How then, did the first atom come about? According to Dalton’s atomic law, atoms cannot be created or destroyed. The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation says that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed. These are universally accepted facts. How do scientists disregard these laws when accepting the possibility of evolution? When I asked my teacher, who firmly credits the world as we know it to evolution, this, he rambled on for a minute or two before claiming that this discussion was for another class. In his rambling, he said something regarding the Big Bang. However, I researched this, and the Big Bang, which is also referred to as the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", could HAVE ONLY OCCURRED IF AN ATOM/ATOMS WERE PRESENT. How then, does one explain the creating of an atom, if it is not even possible?
Secondly, imagining if the insurmountable had happened, which I am referring to atoms being created out of nothingness, I still find evolution not plausible due to these following laws. The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This again, universally accepted law, which 100% of the time has proven to be factual, would make evolution not possible. This atom, which already shouldn’t exist, would have nothing to do, nothing to react with. One would then have to assume that the unachievable was achieved not once, but hundred, possibly millions of times. And, even if it had, the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. However, in order for evolution to have truly occurred, this law would have also had to be broken. Imagine confining only atoms to a specific area, and eventually, a human, arising. This could not occur due to the second law of thermodynamics, which is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system, which is not in equilibrium, will tend to increase over time. Even if millions of atoms, and energy, had been created, these would not evolve into something more complex, instead something more disorderly. In order for the theory of Evolution to be true, it would then have to disregard the FOUNDATION of science itself. In my opinion, it is no more than a contradiction.
I would like to say this is NOT a Creationism vs. Evolutionism debate!! I merely would like to understand how and why the theory of Evolution was not disregarded as foolish by scientists. Thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lakersfreak Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Apr 2001 Posts: 12389 Location: Riverside Rescue
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Boggles the mind _________________ Forget carbon, reduce your government footprint |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ecksor Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008 Posts: 1266 Location: City of Angels
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your experience is similar to mine. The human body is truly amazing. Not sure what you are taking A&P for, but what you learn there is nothing compared to the things you read about in courses like Neuroscience, Pathology, or Pathophysiology. Then there is Psychopathology that is just so abstract.. its, well, confusing.
Your teacher said it is the subject of a different class because evolution does not seek to explain how things came into existence.
Darwin's theory of Natural Selection "explains" how the variety of life we see today came about. It is the supposed mechanism by which variety has happened.
Obviously, not everyone believes this since this still a heated debate. Personally, I wonder if Darwin would've come up with his theory of natural selection as the mechanism for diversity had he lived with today's understanding of medical science.
And that's all I'll say for now since this isn't a debate.
Dunno how long this thread will stay open, though... _________________ We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
- Winston Churchill
Who is my avatar? Kharunisia |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Our understanding of the universe changes over time, and things we understand as laws now may change as well.
That being said, I don't expect this thread to stay open too long. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shnjb Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2002 Posts: 13320
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 12977
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing slammed into nothing, and it caused a big BANG. Or was it a BAM? Maybe POW?
If the universe was created from nothings and no one was around would it make a sound? _________________ Think about how stupid the avg. person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
---George Carlin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 12977
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. _________________ Think about how stupid the avg. person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
---George Carlin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 6429
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: Re: How and why is the Evolution theory considered plausible? (purely a science question) |
|
|
dwonderful wrote: | I am currently studying Human Anatomy & Physiology. The unfathomably intricate design of the human bodies is purely mind-boggling! The incredible complexity led me to wonder all this all evolved. How did something as complex as our nervous system, which somehow conducts electrical events to maintain our well-being just evolve from nothing?
Obviously, at some time, one must believe there was a state of nothingness. For me, at least, that is hard to comprehend. Nothing. No planets, no starts, even no atoms. How then, did the first atom come about? According to Dalton’s atomic law, atoms cannot be created or destroyed. The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation says that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed. These are universally accepted facts. How do scientists disregard these laws when accepting the possibility of evolution? When I asked my teacher, who firmly credits the world as we know it to evolution, this, he rambled on for a minute or two before claiming that this discussion was for another class. In his rambling, he said something regarding the Big Bang. However, I researched this, and the Big Bang, which is also referred to as the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", could HAVE ONLY OCCURRED IF AN ATOM/ATOMS WERE PRESENT. How then, does one explain the creating of an atom, if it is not even possible?
Secondly, imagining if the insurmountable had happened, which I am referring to atoms being created out of nothingness, I still find evolution not plausible due to these following laws. The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This again, universally accepted law, which 100% of the time has proven to be factual, would make evolution not possible. This atom, which already shouldn’t exist, would have nothing to do, nothing to react with. One would then have to assume that the unachievable was achieved not once, but hundred, possibly millions of times. And, even if it had, the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. However, in order for evolution to have truly occurred, this law would have also had to be broken. Imagine confining only atoms to a specific area, and eventually, a human, arising. This could not occur due to the second law of thermodynamics, which is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system, which is not in equilibrium, will tend to increase over time. Even if millions of atoms, and energy, had been created, these would not evolve into something more complex, instead something more disorderly. In order for the theory of Evolution to be true, it would then have to disregard the FOUNDATION of science itself. In my opinion, it is no more than a contradiction.
I would like to say this is NOT a Creationism vs. Evolutionism debate!! I merely would like to understand how and why the theory of Evolution was not disregarded as foolish by scientists. Thanks! |
Not only is your science wrong, but it fails to take into account any other system, such as the presence of a God, which must have been created out of something. _________________ “It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 6429
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
_________________ “It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shnjb Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2002 Posts: 13320
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
It's really a sad reflection of how much deterioration American science has suffered. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
El Daddy702 Star Player
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 5648 Location: Costa Mesa
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Look at basketball players from the 60's, and look at basketball players of the present. evolution.
or it could just be steroids and supplements. lol _________________ KobeDunk wrote:
I say 50/50 chance somehting happens....
Drzucchini wrote:
Either something happens or something doesn't? Damn. Bold claim. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
shnjb wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
It's really a sad reflection of how much deterioration American science has suffered. |
Appropriately, just saw this pop up on Bad Astronomy
Quote: | Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, just wrote about a Texas state Representative who — you might want to sit down, or maybe even lie on the floor as you read this — wants the Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant Master of Science degrees. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
El Daddy702 Star Player
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 5648 Location: Costa Mesa
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sweet! i wanna be a Master of Science! how cool is that title? "sir, what do you do?" *darth vader voice: I Am A Master Of Science*
_________________ KobeDunk wrote:
I say 50/50 chance somehting happens....
Drzucchini wrote:
Either something happens or something doesn't? Damn. Bold claim. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
postandpivot Retired Number
Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 36822
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
you're skipping steps. the Op is starting from the beginning saying. it can't be 100% accurate because at some point evolution defies two many basic laws. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tlim Star Player
Joined: 26 Jun 2002 Posts: 6649
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Focusing only on evolution, let's ask a few questions.
1) Did homo erectus exist?
2) If it did exist, do you think, based upon its anatomy, that we are based upon that or perhaps something very close to it?
3) What was their body almost as complicated? What makes the sapien body so much more special than erectus?
4) What about other animals?
5) The human body in of itself is not "special" except for a larger brain than other species.
6) If you accept that erectus existed, what about others that erectus was based upon?
7) What about using genetics to prove how close we are to other primates? How one of our chromosomes actually is a splicing of two of theirs?
8) Do you accept that mutations occur all the time in nature?
To understand them, take the data a little bit at a time to recognize that it is true or false. Trying to understand the human body and all its complexities with ground 0 brings us to believing in some being and saying that person is responsible. Once we figured out that it wasn't caused by the deities, we throw it out. Gods chasing each other to create night and day? That's what people at the time "understood", and pointed to everything else in the world. Imagine what people will understand in another 1000 years. Evolution could be recognized by 100% of the population as fact, based upon the data that we see.
As for the theory of the Big Bang, that is hard for almost everyone to truly comprehend. So the question beholds.
1) Is the sun made mostly of hydrogen atoms?
2) Does the sun go through fusion?
3) If so, do you accept that fusion can occur up to iron internally within the sun?
4) Do you accept that when a sun goes nova that it could generate even more elements that are higher up on the periodic table?
5) For more information on the big bang, and possible reasons for it (as well as M theory), it's time to hop onto google and do some reading. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spflakers Star Player
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 4077 Location: New York, NY
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The theory of evolution isn't some abstract thing. It's tested over and over. Scientific theories aren't like my theories on why Farmar can't make free throws. Scientific ones are never proven correct, they stand until they are proven wrong. Evolution has remained through 150 years and thousands of scientific experiments. and every time there are advances in sciences - whether it's physics or chemistry or geology - they have expanded the theory.
Maybe Stephen Hawking posts here and will deliver a final verdict, since 150 years of science apparently isn't enough.
Last edited by spflakers on Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tlim Star Player
Joined: 26 Jun 2002 Posts: 6649
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | Nothing slammed into nothing, and it caused a big BANG. Or was it a BAM? Maybe POW?
If the universe was created from nothings and no one was around would it make a sound? |
How do we know that for a fact? How do you know the big bang wasn't caused by some sort of 'collision'? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
postandpivot wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
you're skipping steps. the Op is starting from the beginning saying. it can't be 100% accurate because at some point evolution defies two many basic laws. |
Which would be a logical fallacy, namely arguing from ignorance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 12977
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shnjb wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
It's really a sad reflection of how much deterioration American science has suffered. |
We can see micro evolution all day long. That isn't a big deal. _________________ Think about how stupid the avg. person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
---George Carlin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
postandpivot wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
you're skipping steps. the Op is starting from the beginning saying. it can't be 100% accurate because at some point evolution defies two many basic laws. |
Uh no, it does not. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ocho Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005 Posts: 53855
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shnjb wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
It's really a sad reflection of how much deterioration American science has suffered. |
It's staggering. I find it best for my sanity to stay away from debates with people of such beliefs. _________________ 14-5-3-12 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
It's really a sad reflection of how much deterioration American science has suffered. |
We can see micro evolution all day long. That isn't a big deal. |
Which is on a short timescale, true. But when you consider how old the earth is, it helps put evolution over a long period of time into perspective. We are a brief blip in our planet's long history. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ecksor Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008 Posts: 1266 Location: City of Angels
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spflakers wrote: | The theory of evolution isn't some abstract thing. It's tested over and over. Scientific theories aren't like my theories on why Farmar can't make free throws. Scientific ones are never proven correct, they stand until they are proven wrong. Evolution has remained through 150 years and thousands of scientific experiments. and every time there are advances in sciences - whether it's physics or chemistry or geology - they have expanded the theory.
Maybe Stephen Hawking posts here and will deliver a final verdict, since 150 years of science apparently isn't enough. |
I can agree that scientific theories are never "proven" correct. But that theories stand until proven wrong?
Theories shouldn't be accepted unless there is some evidence to support the notion. But science continues, in theory, to attempt to find more evidence than will either support or disprove a proposed hypothesis.
And just to satisfy my own curiosity, when you talk of scientific experiments supporting evolution, what exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to the Miller–Urey experiment? Haeckel's work with embryos? Darwin's tree of life? _________________ We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
- Winston Churchill
Who is my avatar? Kharunisia |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17251 Location: In a no-ship
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|