(April 4, 2010 at 3:06 am)Saerules Wrote:

(April 3, 2010 at 6:35 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I would like to read Miller's response to this article. My question to Luskin would be: How could chromosomal fusion within a population (at any time) not bring about a new species? Luskin suggests that at some point in the existence of Homo 'genus', there was a fusion that did not create a new species. More reasonably, Miller, if i'm not mistaken, suggests that there was a fusion in a population (of an ancestral species that of the Pan genus and the Homo genus) that created two new species, one which was probably the ancestor or our species. Later Luskin suggests that the fusion could have (no evidence involved) occurred 10,000 years ago in our own species without creating any physiological or morphological changes which doesn't make sense since such a fusion intuitively or logically should produce some change.

Rather... I question the notion of precisely what a 'species' is. Is not that description entirely subjective?

Those who understand nihilistic existentialism can just skip over this next part

---

Say we have in front of us 6 squares of equal size. One is blue, the next red, the third green, another purple, the fifth pink, and the last black. All of these are of the same classification of "square" and their equal size... but their colors are drastically different. Do we consider them as quite related, somewhat related, quite different, or quite related in a variety of attributes and quite different in others?

Now transcend this to us having 6 varying things similar enough to our understanding of what a "human" is to call them all humans. They may each posses a radically different height, but is not height ultimately meaningless as for what a "human" is? Perhaps they are colored each differently, but is not color ultimately meaningless in our consideration of their status as a human? Simply, it must be recognized that before there are classifications, there first are individuals. Something may make up individual subatomic particles, which make up atoms, which make up molecules, which make up a number of substances, which jumble together as a meaningless 'mess' that may or may not 'do' anything at all.

We in turn interpret this meaningless mess, and attempt to define some sort of order to it, which may or may not be true of it. We then look at two similar messes, see some similarities between them, and perhaps classify them as being the same in some aspects, maybe calling those aspects something like "hot" or "glass" or "yellow". We then might find that there are some things even more similar than that, and further classify them by their similarities to each other, such as a butterfly's similarity to a moth, rather than a butterfly's similarity to a bird. Eventually, we become extremely specific in our classifications, and "species" is just another classification like such.

---

Depending on how the classification of "species" is defined... a new species may or may not have been created by a "fusion" (and that may mean that the species has indeed changed, but not enough for us to stop calling them the same species, take for example the glass that has been chipped or cracked... not enough of a change for it to disbecome a cup, but a change to that cup nonetheless (for it is now a chipped cup or a cracked cup ))... and as long as were talking science without evidence I will say GTFO until he has some, or can provide some rational as to why it might have occurred... or more importantly: mattered.

I go by the definition of species

species
Members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed. In this sense, a species is the largest gene pool possible under natural conditions. For a more detailed explanation, see our resource on species in Evolution 101. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...rt=s&end=z

disbecome? haha nice.

Good point: the fusion didn't necessarily create a new species, but should the fusion still have created morphological changes? Where if this occurred in our species then there would be humans with fused chromosomes and humans without fused chromosomes... unless either the fused or unfused in the popular oddly died out. Luskin's hypothesis seems more complicated than Miller's where Luskin says the fusion could have taken place within our own species 10,000 years ago with no explanation as to what happened to those in the population without the fusion.

(April 4, 2010 at 2:49 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: ... no explanation as to what happened to those in the population without the fusion.

Same thing that happens to a competitor out competed in an ecological niche - extinction.

(April 4, 2010 at 4:36 pm)Synackaon Wrote:

(April 4, 2010 at 2:49 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: ... no explanation as to what happened to those in the population without the fusion.

Same thing that happens to a competitor out competed in an ecological niche - extinction.

True but Luskin didn't say anything about an extinction of a Homo (genus) species.

(April 4, 2010 at 6:03 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:

(April 4, 2010 at 4:36 pm)Synackaon Wrote:

(April 4, 2010 at 2:49 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: ... no explanation as to what happened to those in the population without the fusion.

Same thing that happens to a competitor out competed in an ecological niche - extinction.

True but Luskin didn't say anything about an extinction of a Homo (genus) species.

LOL. There has been plenty of extinctions in our genus. Tribe Hominini has truly had many offshoots. We are all that is left, however, of a rather large genus and tribe.

Irony that the most advanced species on this planet came from one of the most failure prone tribes.

(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: KCA: SHOWING counter examples of spurious deduction does not in anyway take away from the kca, accept maybe in your head. you have to tackle the kca on its own merits, because not all deduction is erroneous. you attempted to do by stating that energy had always existed and to give a boost to your statement you cited the law of conservation of energy. what this shows is your ignorance regarding the big bang.

This should be good.

(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: the big bang doesnt contravene the energy laws by holding that energy was created which you disagree with, because the energy laws only apply within the universe, just like gravity this is a physical law and has no application outside the physical universe.

And what exactly does this have to do with this discussion? I'm pretty sure the Big Bang only describes the rapid expansion leading from a super-dense initial condition. This has to do with this universe, not anything outside of it.

(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: the physical laws govern everything in spacetime, not the origin of spacetime itself.

Provide evidence for your claim.

(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: energy requires a medium e.g. vacuum. there was however no vacuum, no space prior to the the big bang.
there was a point when all the distances in the universe was shrunk to zero. thus in short the law is not violated by the big bang because the whole spacetime arena in which it holds came into being.

---

Your understanding is severely lacking, it's getting a bit discouraging to go on with conversations in which I need to explain how your assertions actually work.

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

* The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
* BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
* The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronom...#secondlaw

(April 4, 2010 at 6:00 am)roundsquare Wrote: The law only holds for isolated systems like the universe, which did not exist prior to the singularity, because there was no universe no isolated system, no system at all.

The universe WAS the singularity.

The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. The fact that we can't perceive what came "before" the Big Bang doesn't mean the universe didn't exist in a timeless state, nor does it necessitate a creator.

You're trying to demonstrate to me that conservation of energy didn't apply "prior" to the Big Bang, while simultaneously making the case that cause and effect did. I'm telling you that we don't know what, if anything existed before the universal expansion, therefore we cannot make a claim. To posit that something necessarily happened, and that it had specific qualities and traits, demands evidence.

TAVARISH Thanks for responding to my points, however by now your habit of misrepresenting my case has taken its toll. you outrightly declare that i have committed the following wrong assumption: that the big bang is an explosion of matter into existing space. this is a total misreading of my argument, infact i think i have been fairly consistent throughout in pointing out that spacetime had its beginning in the big bang, how then did you resolve that im guilty of making the above wrong assumption, in view of the foregoing i am compelled to conclude that you deliberately chose to malign my argument. ======'<><><''~~////=====<><>'''''

---

in an earlier post you argued that energy could not have been created as it would defy the physical laws governing energy, my paragraph dealing with this matter is relevant because it argued that the laws have no relevance outside of spacetime and thus are not defied when energy is created at the big bang. also a singularity is by definition a region of space that defy laws of physics, hence the creation of energy at the big bang creates no problem. the next links summarise the big bang.

---

http://space-about-com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm and http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

SINGULARITY: this is merely the boundary points of spacetime, that is to say the singularity marks the edges of spacetime. this means that if there is no spacetime you have no singularity. since spacetime came to be, there was a moment when there was no singularity. to use an example, it is meaningless to address the borders of N. America without N. America, because the borders of N. America rely on the existence of N. America. By the same token you cant talk of a spacetime singularity without spacetime. as for the time issue the link you provide seems to be saying that since time began with the singularity, we cant refer to a time before the singularity and as a result all talk of before is meaningless. this shouldnt be a problem for the theist. the link you provide says the singularity happened at t=0. a response has been formulated saying that the cause of the big bang also operated at the same time, at t=0. it didnt have to operate at a time t=0<t, which cant be because there was no prior time. to rephrase the response the cause of the big bang caused the big bang at the same time it happened. you may ask how can a cause and effect be at the same time? even on a mundane level we regularly experience simultaneous causation. to use kants example, a heavy balls resting on a cushion being the cause of the depression in the cushion. here the effect, the depression in the cushion occurs simultaneously with the cause, the ball resting on the cushion. so time poses no problem. we have to look always to causes because the causal principle has never been violated, being cannot come from non-being, somethiog cant come from nothing. the singularity contained all matter, energy, space so before the singularity by definition there was nothing. what may have existed cant be and material, spatial, because matter and space are products if you would of the big bang.

---

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

---

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

---

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

(April 5, 2010 at 7:41 am)roundsquare Wrote: TAVARISH Thanks for responding to my points, however by now your habit of misrepresenting my case has taken its toll. you outrightly declare that i have committed the following wrong assumption: that the big bang is an explosion of matter into existing space. this is a total misreading of my argument, infact i think i have been fairly consistent throughout in pointing out that spacetime had its beginning in the big bang, how then did you resolve that im guilty of making the above wrong assumption, in view of the foregoing i am compelled to conclude that you deliberately chose to malign my argument. ======'<><><''~~////=====<><>'''''

---

And you failed to realize I copied and pasted a point from the link I provided dealing with common misconceptions. I bolded the ones that were relevant to the conversation, but apparently you didn't get it. Next time I'll tell you that bold = more important.

(April 5, 2010 at 7:41 am)roundsquare Wrote: in an earlier post you argued that energy could not have been created as it would defy the physical laws governing energy, my paragraph dealing with this matter is relevant because it argued that the laws have no relevance outside of spacetime and thus are not defied when energy is created at the big bang.

You have provided no evidence for the "creation" of energy, or the relevance of laws outside of spacetime. I understand your point, but it's meaningless without something verifiable to back it up. Not to mention how this leads to a God is beyond me.

(April 5, 2010 at 7:41 am)roundsquare Wrote: also a singularity is by definition a region of space that defy laws of physics, hence the creation of energy at the big bang creates no problem. the next links summarise the big bang.

---

http://space-about.com/od/astronomybasic...iverse.htm and http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

1. Your first link had zero references.
2. None of your links made ANY reference to the creation of energy at the Big Bang. In fact, your second link (which referred to the Big Bang as an explosion, by the way) had this to say on the singularity:

At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

While it's not written completely accurately, it illustrates my point. We don't know what happened. How do you know that energy didn't exist in some other, timeless state? What is your evidence for asserting that energy was created?

---

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: SINGULARITY: this is merely the boundary points of spacetime, that is to say the singularity marks the edges of spacetime. this means that if there is no spacetime you have no singularity. since spacetime came to be, there was a moment when there was no singularity. to use an example, it is meaningless to address the borders of N. America without N. America, because the borders of N. America rely on the existence of N. America. By the same token you cant talk of a spacetime singularity without spacetime.

Evidence of your claim?

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: as for the time issue the link you provide seems to be saying that since time began with the singularity, we cant refer to a time before the singularity and as a result all talk of before is meaningless.

Exactly.

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: this shouldnt be a problem for the theist. the link you provide says the singularity happened at t=0. a response has been formulated saying that the cause of the big bang also operated at the same time, at t=0. it didnt have to operate at a time t=0<t, which cant be because there was no prior time. to rephrase the response the cause of the big bang caused the big bang at the same time it happened. you may ask how can a cause and effect be at the same time? even on a mundane level we regularly experience simultaneous causation.

Evidence for a cause needing to occur? Evidence for any of your claims thus far at all?

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: to use kants example, a heavy balls resting on a cushion being the cause of the depression in the cushion. here the effect, the depression in the cushion occurs simultaneously with the cause, the ball resting on the cushion. so time poses no problem.

What the hell are you talking about? it still takes time for the cushion to depress based on the laws of physics. This example is still bound by the forces of gravity, inertia and law of conservation of energy.

It also implies that at one time, the balls were not resting on the cushion, as physical causality is bound by physical laws. You're trying to describe an entity with unknown physical constructs, and then justifying it by making an analogy to a physical model. That is the very definition of comparing apples to oranges.

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: we have to look always to causes because the causal principle has never been violated, being cannot come from non-being, somethiog cant come from nothing.

And yet you try to make the case with your God. Special Pleading, anyone?

Something cannot come from nothing, unless God did it. Then it's ok.

...yeah.

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: the singularity contained all matter, energy, space so before the singularity by definition there was nothing.

Nothing observable within our understanding of physics.

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: what may have existed cant be and material, spatial, because matter and space are products if you would of the big bang.

---

Did I say anything bout matter or space before the Big Bang? I said there's no way of knowing whether energy was eternal or existed in a timeless state beforehand. Your assertion that energy was necessarily CREATED has yet to be demonstrated.

(April 5, 2010 at 8:57 am)roundsquare Wrote: SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

---

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

---

SO ONCE again the KCA withstands petty criticism its premises in tact. 1. everything that has a beginning has a cause. check. 2. the universe began to exist. check. 3. therefore the universe has a cause. check and check.

1. Repeating it three times doesn't make it any more valid. This isn't the Wizard of Oz.
2. The KCA still fails on all the initial points I listed, as it fails to establish that the laws of causality were in effect prior to the Big Bang, and reaches a conclusion that is logically fallacious.
3. You have failed to demonstrate that your God exists, as you haven't defined him or his attributes. Only after verification of his necessary existence can you apply him to certain models of the universe, and none of this can be accomplished without evidence.

It seems you're latching on concepts that seem to back up your belief, but not providing any evidence for the truth of such claims.

at this point you have completely shown your total lack of understanding of the big bang. i can safely say that the kca is intact. so much for your rumbling. you have not attempted to refute a single point i raised. what you did was dismiss my points which isnt the same as refuting them. now its time for me to ask a few questions. 1. does the standard big bang theory not say energy was created? 2. is the spacetime singularity not defined as the boundary point of spacetime. 3. if the singularity is not a boundary point of spacetime what is it. 4. despite your irrelevant rambling is the depression in my example not an effect of the ball resting on the cushion? 5. if your answer to 4 is no what then is causing the depression. if your answer is yes then you admit that the effect which is the depression in the cushion occurs simultaneously with the cause which is the ball.

(April 5, 2010 at 10:24 am)roundsquare Wrote: at this point you have completely shown your total lack of understanding of the big bang. i can safely say that the kca is intact. so much for your rumbling. you have not attempted to refute a single point i raised. what you did was dismiss my points which isnt the same as refuting them. now its time for me to ask a few questions. 1. does the standard big bang theory not say energy was created? 2. is the spacetime singularity not defined as the boundary point of spacetime. 3. if the singularity is not a boundary point of spacetime what is it. 4. despite your irrelevant rambling is the depression in my example not an effect of the ball resting on the cushion? 5. if your answer to 4 is no what then is causing the depression. if your answer is yes then you admit that the effect which is the depression in the cushion occurs simultaneously with the cause which is the ball.

1. No, it says no such thing. I'll also ask you what the "standard Big Bang Theory" is.

2. No, here's a definition:

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, some of which are a measure of the density of matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

3. I answered this in #2.

4. Yes, the cause and effect example was indeed an example of cause and effect. However, it did not demonstrate how such a cause and effect was A) Instantaneous and B) relevant to the discussion, in which you're equating applicable qualities in physics to a concept that did not necessarily rely on these qualities. You also did not cite your evidence for such a claim, or any evidence, for that matter.

5. I explained that the cause and effect example is an example of that alone - cause and effect that is dictated by the laws of physics. I don't agree that it's instantaneous and I contend that it is irrelevant, and it's a pretty plain apples to oranges comparison.

Do you have evidence for you claims - not just inferences and unfounded assertions?