Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Things evolutionists can't (or can???) explain?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 46 (55048)
09-11-2003 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MarkAustin
09-10-2003 7:34 AM


Re: Big Bang
mark writes:
The phenomenom of creating batter is well demonstrated in particle accellerators, where a particle and its complementary anti-particle can be created without energy input.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MarkAustin, posted 09-10-2003 7:34 AM MarkAustin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 09-12-2003 7:52 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 20 by Loudmouth, posted 09-12-2003 1:18 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 46 (55109)
09-12-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
09-12-2003 7:52 AM


give that man a cigar... maybe
percy writes:
I *do* know that physicists are searching for evidence of a small asymmetry in the laws of physics that would give preference to matter.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 09-12-2003 7:52 AM Percy has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 46 (55124)
09-12-2003 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Loudmouth
09-12-2003 1:18 PM


loudmouth writes:
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.
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).
loudmouth writes:
Falls into the God of the Gaps category.
I totally agree, just recognizing what is the likely outcome of this (current) natural mystery.
loudmouth writes:
best wishes to the John Ritter and Johnny Cash families.
Totally. This is not a cool day.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Loudmouth, posted 09-12-2003 1:18 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Loudmouth, posted 09-12-2003 7:52 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 46 (55858)
09-16-2003 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jadeshadow
09-16-2003 6:07 PM


Re: ok lets start over
jade writes:
How would a natulralist explain the prior laws of science,
By "prior laws of science"...
If you mean what scientists believe the universe was like prior to the laws of science we observe now (ie, before the "Bigbang"), then crashfrog has already done a good job. Scientists can, and must, say I don't know when they have no way of knowing.
That ability stops blank assertions moving on to wipe out future investigations.
If you mean why the laws of science are the way they are... then crashfrog has also already answered this question. We do not know, nor do scientists need to know in order to make observations of what the laws are.
jade writes:
Where does the "instinct" of morality and conscience fit into this strongest survive motto.
I would debate that there is an instinct of morality and conscience. If there was then we wouldn't have as many problems as we do regarding clashes of morality and conscience.
If you mean the prevalent human drive to conform, or to dominate/submit, then that probably comes from environmental pressures of having to survive in "groups". It's kind of a symbiotic pressure on any individual to fill a role, and properly adjust to cues from others on what roles need to be filled.
jade writes:
Darwin himself said that if the fossil record does not prove his theory in the next few decades, it will disprove it.
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?
Not only would such a statement be incorrect, if indeed he made such a statement, but your assertion that no species transformations have been seen is incorrect. Just check around the resources on this site, and through threads on such topics. Many have been stated.
jade writes:
What lie is given to account for the disturbing lack of fossil evidence.
Depends on what liar you happen to be talking to. I've heard many creationists lying about the disturbing lack of fossil evidence and giving false accounts of why such a thing might exist. But I wouldn't put much stock in those lies.
If what you are asking is how does science explain the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms between species, that requires no lies to answer.
The question itself was pursued by a scientist named Gould.
According to early evolutionary models, species change was slow and gradual, and the fossil record (which has few transitional species records) does pose a problem for such models.
According to Gould's model, individuals within a species may fluctuate due to temporary changes (like the beak sizes of birds on Galapagos due to rainfall) but center on a norm for the species itself until radical and fixed environmental change occurs. At that time fluctuations are actively and pointedly selected for by the static prerequisites of the new environment.
This new model means that speciation events take place over short periods of time during environmental upheavals, or if an organism finds its way into a new environment and gets isolated there.
Since fossilization is not easy, nor common, it is not surprising that transitional forms (which by this new model would not be around "long") are less likely to have had any of their populations fossilized. When an organism stays pretty consistent in form for longer periods of time, there is a much greater chance that one of their population will get fossilized, which is why we find more of them than any "tweener" organisms.
Hope this helps.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jadeshadow, posted 09-16-2003 6:07 PM jadeshadow 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