Things evolutionists can't (or can???) explain?

messenjaH these things have nothing at all to do with Evolution.
As far as Evolution is concerned A God could have created the first life form and it has Evolved. I think you are focused at atheist not Evolutionists. as Many Evolutionists are theist and Agnostics.
Evolution Only has to do with Organisms changing over time nothing else.

Batter? Feeling a little hungry Mark?Not too completely undermine what you said, but I think it's a little misleading to say these pairs can be created without energy input. If that were true they wouldn't need those humongous energy consuming particle accelerators to do their experiments.I think you may be confusing energy and charge.And here's an interesting question for the science crowd... since matter and anti-matter pairs are created at the same time, how did we end up with a matter universe?Something had to happen to the anti-matter that was initially created, or for some reason the rates of creation between matter and anti-matter are not completely equal.While I find this an interesting natural phenomena to investigate, those of the religious bent could always cite this as evidence God had a hand in removing anti-matter so that we could exist.Or maybe he seperated the matter from the anti-matter and the anti-matter universe is where the devil lives? Man I really loved the movie "Prince of Darkness".------------------
holmes

Hopefully someone who knows more will post, but I *do* know that physicists are searching for evidence of a small asymmetry in the laws of physics that would give preference to matter. My recollection is that they've found evidence consistent with this possibility, but nothing so certain as to confirm it.--Percy

You are just about correct. It's not an asymmetry in the laws, but apparently the laws may allow for an asymmetry.Last year I took a course specifically on this subject from one of the physicists at Fermilab investigating this phenomenon.It was quite interesting but it was hard for him to get everyone to understand, much less agree with what he was talking about. Some in the class started trying to bring the supernatural into the equation, and some simply refused to believe there were anti-matter particles at all.I came out uncertain if they had proven anything. While he promised that how they handled the data precluded possible errors from experimental procedures, that registered pretty high on my bullshit detector. How could they ever be certain that their statistical method would take into account possible experimental errors regarding totally new experimental methods.I was also disheartened that he was not only disinterested regarding, but actually somewhat vicious in his assessment of Swiss physicists who were attempting to "capture" anti-matter particles for more careful study. Jealousy in science? Oh yeah.The evidence, if it is to be trusted, does suggest an asymmetry in production of anti-matter to matter. Very very small, but that builds up on the scales we are talking about in Universe creation.Unfortunately, even pegging this as the cause of us living in a matter universe, does nothing to suggest a cause. Maybe the Swiss will figure that one out and really piss off the Fermilab crowd.------------------
holmes

I believe that the particle accelerators use electro-magnets to manipulate the path of particles inside the accelerator. The energy does not go into the actual reaction but rather into making sure they hit each other. Falls into the God of the Gaps category. What we can't explain is proof of God. It is a very weak argument from a logical standpoint, but still interesting. However, you would first have to show evidence of God manipulating matter/anti-matter for this to have any validity. You might as well say it was humans that traveled back to the first seconds after the big bang with knowledge of how to manipulate matter in order for us to live in a better world. No evidence supports either case, or rather the same weak argument supports both.On a separate note, best wishes to the John Ritter and Johnny Cash families. We lost two of the greatest people in this world, we will all miss them.

quote:

---

I believe that the particle accelerators use electro-magnets to manipulate the path of particles inside the accelerator. The energy does not go into the actual reaction but rather into making sure they hit each other.

---

It is correct that the electro-magnets direct the particles, but the magnets also accelerate the particles-- ie. feed them energy.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This is almost correct. In addition to manipulating the path of particles the accelerators do exactly what their name implies... accelerate.They add energy to the individual particles so that when the impact occurs the amount of energy involved is quite large.When I took the course on this stuff I was startled to learn many things about the accelerator process. The most startling to me--- though logical once I thought about it--- is that you can create more matter than went into a reaction, just by adding energy. Duh, energy and matter are really interchangable!It's the subatomic equivalent of banging two billiard balls together hard enough that a piano falls out.So in this case lots of energy goes in and many products came out. I guess it could be said that the energy cost to produce a proton is X and you get an anti-proton for free. But I'm not sure how you differentiate that from saying it costs X/2 to produce a proton or anti-proton (and since they are always tied together it always costs X). I totally agree, just recognizing what is the likely outcome of this (current) natural mystery. Totally. This is not a cool day.------------------
holmes

I agree with those points. The gist I was getting from earlier posts was that energy was being added directly into the reaction at the time of impact. More along the lines of the strong implosion that triggers nuclear detonation in H bombs. I am not an expert, so feel free to criticize, but I guess it comes down to this question: Are the velocities in particle accelerators equal to or less than those found outside the accelerator. For example, are gasses in a sun given enough kinetic energy (velocity) from heat so that matter/anti-matter are created due to their impact with each other? If so, the results from the particle accelerator are valid with respect to natural events. Validation for E=MC^2. Hmm, creation of matter and no supernatural entity involved. Wonder how creation theory handles this one.

quote:

---

Are the velocities in particle accelerators equal to or less than those found outside the accelerator.

---

You mean, immediately outside where we have access, or somewhere we don't-- like within an exploding star? The velocities are much much greater than anything that occurs in most parts of space.But it doesn't matter. The accelerator still accelerates the particles inside it. Scientists don't capture a fast moving particle. They grab one from an ion source-- part of the machine-- and speed it up.

quote:

---

For example, are gasses in a sun given enough kinetic energy (velocity) from heat so that matter/anti-matter are created due to their impact with each other? If so, the results from the particle accelerator are valid with respect to natural events.

---

Whatever the answer to the first question, conclusion does not follow.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

It depends. Around earth, there are cosmic ray collisions are about 100 per m^2 per year for energies > 1e15eV, and 1 per km^2 per century for > 1e20eV. Most of the very high energy particles are extrasolar in nature. The sun accelerates particles during sunspots to the lower GeV range (around 1e12). Rarely ever do they exceed 10GeV (1e13). Particle acceleration by the sun is generally accepted to be due to a process known as "reconnection"For comparison,CERN is working on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), an accelerator due to activate in 2007 that will reach energies of 1.15e15 TeV by smashing lead nuclei together.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

messenjaH these things have nothing at all to do with Evolution.
As far as Evolution is concerned A God could have created the first life form and it has Evolved. I think you are focused at atheist not Evolutionists. as Many Evolutionists are theist and Agnostics.
Evolution Only has to do with Organisms changing over time nothing else.

---

Yes but every theory needs a beginning of things. The big bang is evolutions attempt, obviously some things are unexplainable, that does not mean however that you can just brush it off and say that's not evolution when ALL THEORIES NEED A BEGINNING. The big bang goes hand in hand with evolution as one whole theory does it not?------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

quote:

---

I personally have no idea how we'll do this; I'm not a Physicist. However, when an expert in their field tells me something is so I tend to believe them.

---

What did they tell you exactly, their theories on these unexplainable things?------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

It does not. What does the formation of the universe have to do with changes in allele frequencies over time?

No it doesn't! you just do.... right now evidence points to Evolution..... It doesn't matter where the Universe came from, as far as Evolution itself is concerned. The great thing about science is we can say we don't know something. The Big bang or anything else you mentioned have nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. Again you are assuming all evolutioniest are Athiest

The theory of evolution does indeed obey things like inertia, light, gravity in so far as they are the physical laws that all things are subject to.How the universe began only affects how life evolves in the manner in which the laws are manifest.It is a puzzle to some that the laws appear to be such that had they been different life would not have began.I have heard this is called the fine tuning of the unverse and if things were just a tiny bit changed in any of a lot of the physical constants then the universe would not be hospitable to life.I have always found that odd since a quick look around space outside of Earth shows a damn inhospitable place.
Evolution is not that hard a concept.The individual elements themselves are possesed of properties that are amazing in themselves.Water is made up of two of them and the range of attributes that water has are incredible.Just two atoms linked and repeated over and over produce all the phenomena of water.Is it so surprising that multiple combinations of elements, interacting under different pressures, temperatures ,bathed in different frequencies of radiation from all the events that occur in nature over vast stretches of time that once,just once,organic life was produced?