Evolution.

Before I answer your questions, let me explain to you why phyicists came up with the big bang theory.Right now, the observable universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Why it is accelerating rather than deccelerating is another matter. So, physicist tried to see backward in time by making the model of the universe going backward from where they are going now. This simulation ends up with the entire visible universe going back to a single point. Of course, that is the easy way of saying it. Behind that is a lot of math, which I'm not at the level to fully understand all of it yet.Anyway, that is why they proposed the big bang model of creation. You have to understand something about the big bang model that most people don't pay attention to. When everything exploded, it wasn't just mass and energy that expanded. Space-time itself also expanded to almost the size of the visible universe today in 10^-100th of a second. That's .00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second. Again, in order to make sense of all the data people have gathered so far, they had to make the big bang model that way, with space-time expanding like that, in order for the data to fit together. Everything there is purely theoretical.Another thing I want to go over is the string theory, because I can't really explain anything without touching on the string theory.We know that everything that has mass is made of atoms, which can be broken down to subatomic particles like electrons and protons, which can be broken down to quarks, which can be further broken down to ups and downs, etc... So, does matter keep breaking up to smaller and smaller parts, or does it finally end somewhere if you break things down small enough?The string theory proposes that matter DOES break down to a unit where it can't be broken down any further. This infinitesimal unit is like a rubber band looking shape that vibrates. Now, the frequencies of vibration actually tell us what the particular matter is, say a gold atom or a hydrogen atom.When you vibrate a string on a 2 dimensional plane, you only get a certain number of possibilities for the frequencies of vibration. If you add in a 3rd dimension, then you get more possibilities for the vibrations. This is all math by the way. If you put everything we know about the universe into account, you need to put 10 dimensions in the equations in order for the string theory to hold and the universe to exist like we know it today. Again, this is lots and lots and lots of mathematics, not just speculations.Therefore, mathematicians and physicists concluded that the universe that we live in actually have 10 dimensions rather than 4, like Einstein proposed.Ok, 1-D is a dot, 2-D is a plane, 3-D is space, and 4-D is space-time. That is the limit of our perception of the universe. What the heck do the other 6 dimensions look like???Now, onto your questions.

quote:

---

so, at first there was nothing in the universe, exept for a very small amount of dust or dirt or some matter, and for some reason it all came to one piont in the universe, first question, y?

---

This aint the big bang theory at all. I don't know where you got this from.

quote:

---

and was a little smaller than a "." on this page, and for some reason it started to spin at a high rate of speed, second question, y?

---

Scientists hope to find out one day why this little point of space-time exploded into the universe we know today by figuring out what the other 6 dimensions look like. Trust me, we will be able to answer a lot of questions if we ever discover what the 6 missing dimensions look like.

quote:

---

and from a very small spec of dust came HUGE planets, the entire solar system, and moons, and stars, and the sun wich is to my understanding not much diferent from a star, how did a speck of dust create all that?

---

Again, this ain't an accepted version of the big bang theory.The big bang theory said that all the matter in the universe was contained within this little point of space-time. Then, it exploded, releasing all the energy and matter of the universe into a 4 dimensional space that we know today.If you are wondering how everything in the universe was condensed in a little dot, take some physics classes or read some books. I can't really explain it on here... or I supposed I could try... but that's for later.

Since I'm still somewhat of a newbie to this forum, I completely forgot that there are sections for cosmology and stuff. I came from a forum where everything was put into a single section.Anyhow, I apologize for that long post that explains nothing about evolution.

quote:

---

anyways back to evolution, evolution is when one thing becomes another right? so how long does this process take? is the creature born diferent or does it wake up one day with a coulple extra arms and legs?

---

The creature is born different because of some kind of error in the genetic transmission process. Most errors result in "junk genes" that really doesn't do anything. Some ends up being harmful to the individual. Some actually help the individual outcompete with its parents.Refer to this thread for some examples of this happening, including the tetraploidy rat on page 3.

quote:

---

so evolution is when an error occurs in our gene pool, does that happen often? cuz it hasnt happened for ove 5000 years with humans, i know this because they found a mummy that old and he wasnt any different from us.

---

It happens all the time! Just nothing big enough to create a new species.Based on the pedigree of the English royal family, we know for a fact that a mutation occurred in Queen Victoria that resulted in hemophilia in the family. A mutation occurred and a new allele came to be, causing hemophilia in the male members that happened to catch that allele.

quote:

---

ok, heres another question, have ever found a fossilized man? and what r the conditions for something to be fossilized?

---

Do a google search. I'm not a big fan of google search, but I do think that this kind of information can be found on the internet without much effort.As far as fossilized man goes, no. They have only found fossilized footprints of primates that CAN very well be man's ancestors.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-02-2004]

quote:

---

yeah but thats because they all inerbread was it not?

---

You've been misinformed on what causes genetic diseases.Interbreeding doesn't cause genetic disorders. Interbreeding only increases the chance for genetic disorder to occur, IFF (if and only if) the parents are carrying the alleles for the genetic disorder.

quote:

---

i know for a fact that fossilized human footprints were found right next to dinosaur foot prints, and they were huge! prooving that humans were on earth at the same time as dinosaurs, thats y i wanted to know if we ever found a fosilized human.

---

For one thing, that supposed footprint have never been confirmed by mainstream science. For all we know, it could be nothing more than a rock that shaped similarly but bigger than the human foot. I have often found rocks that have the same shape as the states. It doesn't mean anything.By the way, science doesn't prove anything. It only present logical and consistent evidence for people to come up with theories. Science *ain't* math or philosophy.

quote:

---

if we came from monkeys, how come there r still monkeys running around?

---

Wanna tell me where you got that totally unscientific information?

quote:

---

We gave you the definition of species. Is there are reason you refuse to apply it?

---

This is a problem that I've seen over and over. We give these people enough to think about, but all they do is throw everything we tell them out the window and go back to their original misconception.Take the tetraploidy rat for example. I already told them that the tetraploidy rat has twice as many chromosomes as the rat that they came from. Yet, we somehow managed to get a question to how the tetraploidy rat be a different species than the normal rat. I've also pointed out that genetic testings have shown that the tetraploidy rat came directly from the native rat in that region, yet somehow we got the question to how do we know the tetraploidy rat came from the native rat. And finally, I have pointed out that studies have been done on the tetraploidy rat and they've shown that the species only came about the last few decades or so, that they have an advantage over the native rats, and that there are evidence that they may eventually outcompete the native rats. After all of these, we somehow managed to get the question to how do we know it wasn't already there like 20 times.People really need to absorb facts and learn to apply them.By the way, I just talked to my professor about it. I asked him why he thinks the discovery of the tetraploidy rat hasn't made headlines or anything like that yet. He told me that a lot of studies are still being done with the rat, including genetic testings and population studies. He thinks that the reason people are reluctant to report this is because over 80% of the American people are religious and creationists. It is the same reason why important parts of the translations of the Dead Sea Scroll, especially the parts that mention Jesus through first hand account, was quickly suppressed shortly after it became public.

quote:

---

The best you can do is beat them over the head with it. Sad but true. If you don't want to repeat the same thing over and over and over, you're in the wrong kind of argument. Take up Mock Trial.

---

True. I am president of the student philosophy club here. I plan out the time and place for debates of these kinds of thing, and I have to attend every one of them. Usually, the scientists have to keep repeating themselves when talking to preachers. Sometimes I wonder if these preachers ever graduated from high school, since you're required to at least remember some stuff from lecture.

I tend to snap at people for misrepresenting science. I never try to misrepresent religion, and all I ask is that religious people try to do the same for science. Unfortunately, I've seen too often "science is proven wrong... creationists are right" reworded and repeated a thousand times without a single premise to this "logic."

Sorry. That last post was meant as a general statement and not to direct toward any individual.

Before the Miller experiment, and after as well, the creationist's main slogan is "life can't come from non-life." The Miller experiment blew that out of the water. There are 2 main reasons why the experiment can't be a fake.1) It has been repeated thousands of times by thousands of scientists around the world. Unless this is a world wide conspiracy, the experiment ain't fake. You could probably perform this experiment by your self.2) It hasn't been demonstrated by anyone that the presence of oxygen absolutely prevented the formation of organic molecules from happening.I am absolutely 100% sure that if God suddenly appear all around the world and told everyone that the Miller experiment was not a fake, you would still find some creationists that would completely ignore the overwhelming evidence and continue to preach their lies.

---

The Laminator

​