Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   But what about before that?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 21 (34335)
03-14-2003 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SIDEWALK
03-13-2003 7:30 PM


Hi Sidewalk, welcome to evcforum.
sidewalk writes:
Based on Evolutionary theory (again, my painfully limited understanding), I believe everything (life) all starts with the Big Bang theory, a single particle expanding or something like that. Where did this original particle come from? I don't know exactly what Evolutionary theory dictates as being the first of any sort of object, minute dust speck, etc, but it came from somewhere, right? How did it get there?
The sequence, as Paulk mentioned, is more like: cosmogenesis -> stellar genesis and nucleosynthesis -> solar system and planetary formation (specifically Earth) -> abiogenesis. At this point HERE there be life. From here forward, evolution takes over. So, what happened before life was chemistry, and before that nucleosynthesis/physics, and before that was the Big Bang. And before THAT was a lot of theory and speculation and abstruse mathematical formulae about which I have no clue. I'll be happy to pick things up for you from the abiogensis point forward, but not backward - this is where the Theory of Evolution comes in. It isn't intended to be a Theory of Everything. After all, it's quite possible to discuss the rise of the diversity of life without having to deal with the history of the universe back to the Big Bang.
Just one further point:
sidewalk further writes:
...it seems that both dedicated God followers and strict Science types must agree that based on either of their theories, something which we cannot understand came beforehand.
I would disagree with this statement. I don't think either side in the debate would concur here. Philosophically, theists claim that God came "before" - was eternal, in essence. They may not understand everything there is to know about God, but they do claim knowledge that He exists. Philosophical naturalists, on the other hand, claim that there is NOTHING that human intellect cannot ultimately understand, even if we don't understand it TODAY. So they would also reject the idea of the unknowable. And scientists - methodological naturalists - operate under the assumption that if something exists in nature, we will ultimately be able to understand it. In some sense this is sort of begging the question as to whether there is anything beyond nature, but science makes no call or claim one way or the other. "If it's natural, we can understand it. If it's supernatural, we can't, but it is unnecessary to postulate it." I'd say most scientists would consider the universe - and by extension its beginning - to be a wholly natural place.
(Edited to fix !@#%%^#$ ubb code.)
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SIDEWALK, posted 03-13-2003 7:30 PM SIDEWALK has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 21 (34609)
03-18-2003 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by SIDEWALK
03-15-2003 11:14 AM


Hi Sidewalk:
Good questions inre human diversity. There are a couple of outstanding books out recently on the subject, but basically it appears to be sum-up-able by saying "there haven't been enough generations". I would add that I personally think that once we learned to start using technology to overcome our physical handicaps, cultural evolution has taken over from biological evolution as the driving force in human development. As Paul said, our technology has trumped biology.
Having said that, there ARE a number of identifiable biological traits that are selection-based. Sickle cell heterozygosity as a trade-off for generations of living in malaria-endemic areas, metabolic and other cold-adaptive changes in Inuit, lactose tolerance in Europeans (from the invention of dairy farming), etc. In addition, we've had a fair number of MAJOR selection events in even recent history - such as European populations that were bubonic plague survivors being slightly more resistant to HIV/AIDS, or even the increase in the incidence of allergies in Western societies (my favorite explanation for which is the elimination of parasites which formerly "trained" our immune system to lessen its responsiveness - of course, there's environmental contaminants to which we have no evolutionary resistance to go along with that). In any event, I would say that human biological evolution IS continuing, but that cultural evolution works so much faster and has such far-reaching effects that biological adaptations are masked or rendered unnecessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by SIDEWALK, posted 03-15-2003 11:14 AM SIDEWALK has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 21 (34611)
03-18-2003 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
03-15-2003 11:56 AM


Skin color may not even be adaptive - Ehrlich, among others, seems to think it's more related to sexual selection reinforcing traits than UV exposure or vitamin D production. I'm still reading up on this one. Interesting, tho'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2003 11:56 AM PaulK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024