• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I am talking about speedy gradualism, which is a form of saltation where they change the time period required for gradual changes from millions of years to tens of thousands of years. Here is a blurb about it:

Speedy Gradualism. Another attempt to resolve the contradiction between neo-Darwinian theory and the fossils is the "speedy-gradualism" argument: If change occurs rapidly during a single time period, but not for millions of years thereafter, the pattern might seem saltational. But what if this "short" period of change lasted 20,000 years? Wouldn't it be reasonable to simply change the meaning of "gradual" and say that while 20,000 years is not a million years, it's still a very long time, plenty of time for gradual selection and everyday genetic phenomena to take their course and create a new type of organism?
This argument was proposed as an explanation of one of the best-documented cases of saltation, the Turkana mollusks described by P. G. Williamson (1981). The speedy gradualists say some shift in the environment forced Williamson's mollusks to change, that the changes occurred "gradually" during a relatively brief (20,000-year) transition period, with the environment stabilizing thereafter, maintaining the new types unchanged for millions of years. But this is not the picture painted in the Origin. There, Darwin explicitly states his views:
natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she [i.e., Nature] can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps.3
In this kind of evolution, variation arises randomly over time, and is not concentrated in a single, brief interval. But the fact that fossil types appear to come into being abruptly is not the most serious difficulty confronting neo-Darwinism. As Williamson (1981) points out,
The principal problem [with the available paleontological data] is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of the evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record.
http://www.macroevolution.net/peripheral-isolates.html

The fossil record and an evolutionary theory without some form of saltation do not match. In other words, evolution without a form of saltation fails to predict the changes we see in the fossil record. As such, it is a failure. With saltation, specifically speedy gradualism, the theory matches the fossil record, so its predictions are valid and the theory is no longer invalid.

That paper explains, then dismisses, the use of speedy gradualism and advocates a completely different theory. They could be right, but for now the evolutionary theory with punctuated equilibrium and speed gradualism (a form of saltation) rules the roost.
 
Last edited:

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
I am talking about speedy gradualism, which is a form of saltation where they change the time period required for gradual changes from millions of years to tens of thousands of years. Here is a blurb about it:


http://www.macroevolution.net/peripheral-isolates.html

The fossil record and an evolutionary theory without some form of saltation do not match. In other words, evolution without a form of saltation fails to predict the changes we see in the fossil record. As such, it is a failure. With saltation, specifically speedy gradualism, the theory matches the fossil record, so its predictions are valid and the theory is no longer invalid.

That paper explains, then dismisses, the use of speedy gradualism and advocates a completely different theory. They could be right, but for now the evolutionary theory with punctuated equilibrium and speed gradualism (a form of saltation) rules the roost.
The fossil record is incomplete; it takes very specific conditions to create fossils. That's not to say that speedy gradualism doesn't happen. As geologists/biologists learn more the evolutionary theory can be updated.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,947
8,640
146
Saying you don't know is a sufficient answer I suppose. But, the fact that you display "faith" that it will one day be discovered is very telling I think.



The ancients weren't as naive as you believe. Mankind has been envisioning aircraft in one form or another for centuries, or even thousands of years.



I can't say for certain that no such natural force or law exists. But I can say that there is no KNOWN natural force which would allow lifeless matter to self organize itself into far more complex and orderly structures and then gain consciousness.

Also, circumstantial evidence is on my side. Life forms are very distinct from regular inorganic matter.

Why does that distinction exist? Surely if there was a natural force capable of such feats, then it would affect inorganic matter much more readily as it wouldn't discriminate, since natural forces act upon both organic and inorganic matter alike.



Nothing material comes from nowhere. Everything in material existence has a source. On the other hand, if there is a Divine Creator, then It has always existed.

It would be the Immaterial Primal Cause from which all Existence originated, and thus would by necessity be beyond causality.

How can I say this? Because infinite regression is logically unsound and ridiculous. Questions like who or what created God, and who or what created that God and so on and so forth into oblivion is nonsensical..



At least you can admit it. :)
By known you mean other than abiogenesis and it's follow on evolution, right?

And as to your pile of metal rubber making an air plane:

Did you know if you leave a whole bunch of hydrogen sitting around its gravity will condense and heat it becoming a star?

Did you know that that star will fuse that hydrogen into helium, then lithium and berilyium, all the way up to iron?

Did you know that a star can't fuse iron to support itself so it goes nova creating the rest of the table of elements?

And then the gravity of all these atoms will coalesce again into a star and planets. Where all 92 of those elements will combine in a quadrillion quadrillion different reactions over the next billion and a half years to form huge numbers of chemicals including the basic organic building blocks of RNA & DNA.

And then trillions of organic chemical reactions across millions of different environmental factors will eventually lead to single cell life. Life made from inanimate materials that came from a star.

And that life will evolve though the non-random process of natural selection of organisms with inheritable traits until 3 billion years later humans mine a bunch of aluminum created by a star and build an airplane.

You were wrong about a pile metal becoming an airplane. You needed to start with hydrogen.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The fossil record is incomplete; it takes very specific conditions to create fossils.
Agreed. But asking me to assume the fossils required by a theory exist and simply will never be found is stupid. If the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory, we should not assume the creatures existed but did not leave any record of themselves in order to allow the theory to work. Science is diminished by this.


That's not to say that speedy gradualism doesn't happen. As geologists/biologists learn more the evolutionary theory can be updated.
Agreed, which is why they are now including it. The term "saltation" has gained a bad rap, so they have to use another term for it if they want it accepted. I do not care what they call it as long as they continue to tweak the theory to match the data instead of saying we must pretend the data matches the theory like they used to do.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
By known you mean other than abiogenesis and it's follow on evolution, right?

And as to your pile of metal rubber making an air plane:

Did you know if you leave a whole bunch of hydrogen sitting around its gravity will condense and heat it becoming a star?

Did you know that that star will fuse that hydrogen into helium, then lithium and berilyium, all the way up to iron?

Did you know that a star can't fuse iron to support itself so it goes nova creating the rest of the table of elements?

And then the gravity of all these atoms will coalesce again into a star and planets. Where all 92 of those elements will combine in a quadrillion quadrillion different reactions over the next billion and a half years to form huge numbers of chemicals including the basic organic building blocks of RNA & DNA.

And then trillions of organic chemical reactions across millions of different environmental factors will eventually lead to single cell life. Life made from inanimate materials that came from a star.

And that life will evolve though the non-random process of natural selection of organisms with inheritable traits until 3 billion years later humans mine a bunch of aluminum created by a star and build an airplane.

You were wrong about a pile metal becoming an airplane. You needed to start with hydrogen.
Well said sir, but you're talking to a brick wall.

We could get in a time machine and go back to the point in time where life started and watch abiogenesis happen, but these religious nuts would just say 'That's god at work. That's a miracle' or some other nonsense.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
By known you mean other than abiogenesis and it's follow on evolution, right?

And as to your pile of metal rubber making an air plane:

Did you know if you leave a whole bunch of hydrogen sitting around its gravity will condense and heat it becoming a star?

Did you know that that star will fuse that hydrogen into helium, then lithium and berilyium, all the way up to iron?

Did you know that a star can't fuse iron to support itself so it goes nova creating the rest of the table of elements?

And then the gravity of all these atoms will coalesce again into a star and planets. Where all 92 of those elements will combine in a quadrillion quadrillion different reactions over the next billion and a half years to form huge numbers of chemicals including the basic organic building blocks of RNA & DNA.

And then trillions of organic chemical reactions across millions of different environmental factors will eventually lead to single cell life. Life made from inanimate materials that came from a star.

And that life will evolve though the non-random process of natural selection of organisms with inheritable traits until 3 billion years later humans mine a bunch of aluminum created by a star and build an airplane.

You were wrong about a pile metal becoming an airplane. You needed to start with hydrogen.
I wish there were a more official way to recognize exceptionally well written and insightful posts on this forum because this one absolutely deserves it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Did you know that a star can't fuse iron to support itself so it goes nova creating the rest of the table of elements?
Correct, a star creates iron as it is dying, which is the element that finally kills it off. I saw it on an episode of "The Universe" on The History Channel. The astrophysicist said something like "You know on Star Trek how they have a secret element that makes a star explode? We know what that element is...iron.

When a red giant star has changed all of its helium into carbon and oxygen, it then begins to turn the carbon and oxygen atoms into iron atoms. Iron is the heaviest kind of atom that a star can make, so when a star has made most of its carbon and oxygen into iron, it becomes a supernova and explodes.
http://www.historyforkids.org/scienceforkids/chemistry/atoms/iron.htm

Heavier elements are created as the star collapses in on itself due to iron not fusing easily. In stars smaller than a red giant, there is not enough pressure to go past iron. In the larger stars, as the pressure of the star's collapse increases, it causes fusion of the iron into the heavier elements. As the star explodes, this fusion continues for a few microseconds until the pressure is gone.

I highly recommend the show - it is both informative and visually stunnning. It looks GREAT on my 104" projected screen in my light controlled room. :)
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Well said sir, but you're talking to a brick wall.

We could get in a time machine and go back to the point in time where life started and watch abiogenesis happen, but these religious nuts would just say 'That's god at work. That's a miracle' or some other nonsense.
Why does it have to be one or the other?


As a side note, I hope humanity never creates time travel. If we do, it will certainly spell the destruction of us all.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Why does it have to be one or the other?
It doesn't. The problems start only when someone decides they must and so starts throwing away facts in favor of dogma. For example, let's take someone who assumes the Bible must be literally true and look at Ezekiel. Ezekiel describes how Nebuchadnezzar II will render Egypt uninhabited for 40 years. From archeological records, we know this never happened. It also says Egypt will never again rule over another people, which we also know is false because it has happened since.

There are points, like these, that preclude a literal interpretation from being accepted as the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean the source is valueless or even that it is wrong. It may simply mean it is being interpreted in an incorrect framework.

As a side note, I hope humanity never creates time travel. If we do, it will certainly spell the destruction of us all.
Don't worry about it. If humanity did develop time travel at any point that wiped us out we wouldn't be having this conversation. Either time travel never is discovered, is never used to wipe out humanity (at least to a point before present), or it just creates a parallel universe each time it is used and so the original universe continues on its merry way.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,947
8,640
146
I wish there were a more official way to recognize exceptionally well written and insightful posts on this forum because this one absolutely deserves it.
Thank You Sir.

The recognition from folks such as yourself and RockSteady is recognition enough. :)
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It doesn't. The problems start only when someone decides they must and so starts throwing away facts in favor of dogma. For example, let's take someone who assumes the Bible must be literally true and look at Ezekiel. Ezekiel describes how Nebuchadnezzar II will render Egypt uninhabited for 40 years. From archeological records, we know this never happened. It also says Egypt will never again rule over another people, which we also know is false because it has happened since.

There are points, like these, that preclude a literal interpretation from being accepted as the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean the source is valueless or even that it is wrong. It may simply mean it is being interpreted in an incorrect framework.
Some parts are literal, some are not. Usually, it is obvious which are which, at other times it is not. I personally view evolution as an example of just how amazingly powerful God is, but I explained that about 2233212 pages ago in this thread. ;)



Don't worry about it. If humanity did develop time travel at any point that wiped us out we wouldn't be having this conversation. Either time travel never is discovered, is never used to wipe out humanity (at least to a point before present), or it just creates a parallel universe each time it is used and so the original universe continues on its merry way.
At least we know to say the boss' wife always puts too much salt in her goulash.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,947
8,640
146
Correct, a star creates iron as it is dying, which is the element that finally kills it off. I saw it on an episode of "The Universe" on The History Channel. The astrophysicist said something like "You know on Star Trek how they have a secret element that makes a star explode? We know what that element is...iron.


http://www.historyforkids.org/scienceforkids/chemistry/atoms/iron.htm

Heavier elements are created as the star collapses in on itself due to iron not fusing easily. In stars smaller than a red giant, there is not enough pressure to go past iron. In the larger stars, as the pressure of the star's collapse increases, it causes fusion of the iron into the heavier elements. As the star explodes, this fusion continues for a few microseconds until the pressure is gone.

I highly recommend the show - it is both informative and visually stunnning. It looks GREAT on my 104" projected screen in my light controlled room. :)
Sounds like a good show. My son would proabably enjoy it although I'll have to make do with my 52" LCD. ;)
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,582
314
126
.



God is only illogical if you believe God is material, like Creation. But if God is to be God, then God would by necessity have to be beyond Creation itself, and thus "immaterial."

....
That is a horrible cop out.

"God exists beyond the rules of reality".

Well then, how convenient!
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
By known you mean other than abiogenesis and it's follow on evolution, right?
Well since abiogenesis isn't really a Scientific theory and more like a hypothesis, and evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of Life, then yes..

Did you know if you leave a whole bunch of hydrogen sitting around its gravity will condense and heat it becoming a star?
Yes I did know this, but that only happens in Space. We're talking about Life on Earth the last time I checked..

Unless you're trying to tell me that Life originated in Space o_O

Did you know that that star will fuse that hydrogen into helium, then lithium and berilyium, all the way up to iron?

Did you know that a star can't fuse iron to support itself so it goes nova creating the rest of the table of elements?

And then the gravity of all these atoms will coalesce again into a star and planets. Where all 92 of those elements will combine in a quadrillion quadrillion different reactions over the next billion and a half years to form huge numbers of chemicals including the basic organic building blocks of RNA & DNA.

And then trillions of organic chemical reactions across millions of different environmental factors will eventually lead to single cell life. Life made from inanimate materials that came from a star.

And that life will evolve though the non-random process of natural selection of organisms with inheritable traits until 3 billion years later humans mine a bunch of aluminum created by a star and build an airplane.

You were wrong about a pile metal becoming an airplane. You needed to start with hydrogen.
I don't see what your point was with posting all of this. All of what you said concerning Star formation is well known and Scientifically supported.

The laws of physics and chemistry easily explain how Stars are formed..

Life forms however, ARE ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRELY, and I think you are being disingenuous if you don't realize that.

Are life forms composed of materials found in Stars? Yes. But Life forms also require one other ingredient which is not found in Stars, and which does not adhere to the known laws of physics and chemistry.

INFORMATION. Life forms are vestibules of enormous amounts of complex specific information, in the form of a code.

Thats the key to life, and nothing of what you said acknowledges that truth.

Also, unless you can show one instance of inorganic matter and chemicals self combining to form into a living cell, then admit what you said about "trillions of chemical reactions and environmental factors" eventually leading to a cell is purely hypothetical.

People have been attempting to do just that for many decades now under lab conditions, and insofar, they have utterly failed..

There is no hard evidence whatsoever that Life can arise from inorganic matter...
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
That is a horrible cop out.

"God exists beyond the rules of reality".

Well then, how convenient!
How is that a cop out? That is the only logical explanation available..

If all material reality is subject to causation (and it is since we know the Universe had a beginning and a cause), then the source of material reality has to be beyond causation Itself, otherwise you end up with infinite regress which is nonsensical..
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,486
3,597
126
How is that a cop out? That is the only logical explanation available..

If all material reality is subject to causation (and it is since we know the Universe had a beginning and a cause), then the source of material reality has to be beyond causation Itself, otherwise you end up with infinite regress which is nonsensical..
Negative.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Negative.
Care to expound on that? Even if you don't believe in a Creator, Science tells us the Universe still had a beginning and a cause..

That is unless you believe in the unsupported Scientific theories such as the infinite Universe or a Multiverse.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,486
3,597
126
Care to expound on that? Even if you don't believe in a Creator, Science tells us the Universe still had a beginning and a cause..

That is unless you believe in the unsupported Scientific theories such as the infinite Universe or a Multiverse.
A Beginning, perhaps. A Cause, maybe. Either way, neither logically requires a god.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
A Beginning, perhaps. A Cause, maybe. Either way, neither logically requires a god.
Then how do you avoid infinite regression? It doesn't have to be God, but something outside of material phenomena to avoid the problems associated with causality.
 

insect9

Senior member
Jun 19, 2004
963
0
76
Then how do you avoid infinite regression? It doesn't have to be God, but something outside of material phenomena to avoid the problems associated with causality.
Your arguments for the most part seem to assume that science is finished, and we will not make anymore discoveries about ourselves, the world around us, or the universe. Just because something isn't explained NOW, doesn't mean it isn't explainable and we should just attribute it to god.

In other words, god in the gaps is a pretty poor argument.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,492
4,162
126
Then how do you avoid infinite regression? It doesn't have to be God, but something outside of material phenomena to avoid the problems associated with causality.
How do you avoid the Origin of god?
Causality is the result of thought about space time. But no space no time, no time no space. And time is relative. The greater the velocity the slower time flows. To become immortal, then, like God, you need a very fast mind, so fast that you can fully encompass the now, fast enough to take it all in, And to be that fast you have to be pure awareness, without any time for a single thought or reflection. Then you become at cause and you know who God is. But, of course, these are just words or thinking. To know what they mean you have to pick up the pace. Stop thinking. When you are you never think. No time for it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
That is a horrible cop out.

"God exists beyond the rules of reality".

Well then, how convenient!
Not a cop out, but a poorly worded statement of what it means to be omnipotent. By the very meaning of the word omnipotent, any being possessing that adjective would no be limited by the rules of our universe. He is not beyond the rules of reality, but beyond the rules of our universe. Reality is everything, which includes an omnipotent god.

One of the big differences between humanity and God is that we are temporal creatures and God is atemporal. God is not bound by time, but we are. God existed "before" time began (since time did not begin until the big bang happened). As a note, we are so time based that we do not even have a word for "before" time began...before is time based and there cannot be a "before" time starts, since there technically is no before yet...

If we simplify time to a river, we are on a log in the river, ever moving forwards. We know where we have been and where we currently are, but we can only see so far ahead and even then we are not sure what we see will come to pass (due to the currently in the river moving us about). God is on the bank of the river. He can clearly see the past, present, and all the potential futures. If He wants one specific future, He simply alters the flow of our log in the river to ensure it takes a specific path and therefor a specific future.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
How do you avoid the Origin of god?
I answered this, sort of, in my last post, but I will directly address it.

"Before" the universe started, there was no time. Without time the rule about cause and effect do not exist, since these are time based.

Logically, the same argument can be used for a purely naturalistic approach to the creation of the universe as there does not need to be a prime mover when cause and effect do not yet exist.

I want to know what offset the equal balance of matter and antimatter at the beginning, but I realize we are treading into VERY new ground with that question (where dark matter and energy came from, for example).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY