Part 2 - The Big Bang Theory Wrong?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Big Bang Theory don't explain nutin.

The Idiot

If it doesn't explain nothing then that doesn't mean it doesn't explain something.

Originally posted by humy
If it doesn't explain nothing then that doesn't mean it doesn't explain something.

Indeed, a double negative yields a positive.

Originally posted by humy
If it doesn't explain nothing then that doesn't mean it doesn't explain something.

That something is not the answer to - What exploded?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
That something is not the answer to - What exploded?

The Idiot

That's like asking "what exploded before I blew air into a party balloon?" -It wasn't an explosion. Space itself expanded and with no combustion or noise.

Originally posted by humy
That's like asking "what exploded before I blew air into a party balloon?" -It wasn't an explosion. Space itself expanded and with no combustion or noise.

No noise?
Ergo there was no big bang.
(You played straight into Ron's trap)

And if no big bang then no evilution.
Therefore god exists.

Halley-Loo-Yah!!!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No noise?
Ergo there was no big bang.
(You played straight into Ron's trap)

And if no big bang then no evilution.
Therefore god exists.

Halley-Loo-Yah!!! Praise-Pure-Logic!!!

No noise?
Ergo there was no big bang.

you are performing the logical fallacy of equivocation

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

THE “big bang” is a misnomer because it wasn't a ' big bang'! So you are in logical error by equivocating the two possible meanings of the words “big bang”. And the first people that proposed it never said it was a 'big bang'! The term “big bang” was actually originally coined by people who were attempting to ridicule the theory by the implied straw man claim that it is supposed to be just one huge “big bang” by calling it such but then, unfortunately, that erroneous term stuck.

And if no big bang then no evolution. (spelling corrected)

false inference: Where is the logical contradiction in there being no BB and evolution? Hypothetically, if somehow (cannot for the life of me imagine how ), despite the evidence, BB is false and, say, the steady state theory was correct, that would not in any way prevent evolution of life.

Therefore god exists.

again, false inference. Where is the contradiction in there being no evolution and no god? Hypothetically, if somehow (again, cannot for the life of me imagine how ), despite the evidence, both evolution and BB was false, then you could conclude without contradiction that all species of modern life could have always existed ( albeit only if you also ignore the fossil evidence and the evidence for BB but, since you would ignore all that anyway to deny evolution and BB, that can be permitted here ) thus no need for a 'god' to explain where modern species came from.

Guys. You are all missing my point.

About Evolution.

(Wish I could back this up with links. Perhaps someone can do that?)

"Still alive today criteria"
Regarding evolution then there are a scientific criteria about successfulness. Criteria for "successful" evolution is defined like "all species that that have survived until todays date". Meaning. It is a tie! [Luckily this is not a football game. Tie in all matches would make football the worlds lamest sport ]. Meaning, according to the scientific criteria; then all species that is existing today is equally successful.

"Special case - Cheetah"
[[ Then there are some special cases here. Species like Cheetah, in wich the evolution is going in the wrong direction. But. They are still alive. Meaning "equally successful" as every other species that passes the criteria "still alive". If, in the future, the Cheetah species dies. Then Cheetas do no longer pass the criteria "still alive".

"Scorpions - atomic war"
I will take another example. There are only a few species that would survive an atomic war. One of them is "scorpions". Scorpions live in desserts where it is very hot and sometimes scorpions are beeing boiled. Almost every animal known can't survive boiling, their protiens denaturates. They are also losing wather. BUT. This do not apply to most scorpions! If you put a scorpion in a bowl of cooking wather. Then take the scorpion out. Your scorpion has survived! - Very very unusual. Hence they can survive things like "atomic wars" where the atmosphere is ignited.
In a future scenario of "global atomic war" then the only ones likely to survive is scorpions! Then only scorpions would pass the criteria, "still alive". I.e. a successful species according to evolution.]]

About Big Bang - OUR MAIN SUBJECT HERE

"No time before BB - at event BB time started (Stephen Hawking)"
My point was this. (Now I will talk some regarding "time" ). According to Hawking "time" started at the Big Bang. (Even though that is hard to beleve). Hawking used this as a counter argument against "God started BB" argument, said by, the Pope of rome. The Pope wanted to have a "God", starting the Big Bang. No time existed before BB. Then "started" the BB argument becomes meaningless.

"[0]x[0]x[0] - space possible?"
The point I was making. According to BB (at least to my knowledge) there whas an event, called BB, in which everything was compressed in a small space of something like (if 3 dimensions) [0] times [0] times [0] meters. (Unsure about wether this means a mathematical zero. You understand what I mean). My point beeing. Many physics BB scientists have a hard time fitting a [0]x[0]x[0] start event to their theories. Some of them beleve this is not what really happened. Perhaps we could discuss this?.

"My new thread"
Since all threads tend to diverge.... I hereby start NEW THREAD for this subject. Called "Fitting [0]x[0]x[0] space, into the Big Bang theory".

Originally posted by bikingviking
Guys. You are all missing my point.

[b]About Evolution.

(Wish I could back this up with links. Perhaps someone can do that?)

"Still alive today criteria"
Regarding evolution then there are a scientific criteria about successfulness. Criteria for "successful" evolution is defined like "all species that that have survived until todays date ...[text shortened]... t NEW THREAD for this subject.[/b] Called "Fitting [0]x[0]x[0] space, into the Big Bang theory".[/b]

…. scientific criteria about successfulness. ….

there is no such generally scientifically accepted criteria. You are free to define “successfulness” however you want but it isn't a scientific concept.

Species like Cheetah, in which the evolution is going in the wrong direction

There is no 'wrong' or 'right' 'direction' in evolution. All evolutionary occurrences of processes and outcomes are equally valid.

"still alive". I.e. a successful species according to evolution.

False. Evolution theory doesn't define nor imply in any way which species are “successful” because that is not what the theory is about. You can define “successful” however you want. If you like, you can say the dinosaurs where 'successful' because they lived for many millions of years more than how long humans have lived so far and, depending on exactly how you define “successful”, may be able to claim and without contradiction that the fact that they are not “still alive” is 'irrelevant' at least according to your definition of “successful”.

No time existed before BB. Then "started" the BB argument becomes meaningless.

Correct. At least, unlike some here, you got that part right 🙂

Originally posted by humy

......there is no such generally scientifically accepted criteria. You are free to define “successfulness” however you want but it isn't a scientific concept. ......

Then that "successfulness" is called something else. I assure you. This criteria exist. Then comes also that in Biology we have less rigorous definitions than in i.e. Physics.

Almost no criteria in Biology is "generally accepted". Take the definition of a "speice" for example. There are something like 60 (round number) criterias for how to define what a "specie" is. One definition is; "we have found some bones" here, they look similar.

But normally (most common) a specie mean, "two individuals wich can breed a non sterile offspring". But then suddenly, what happens? I.e. we have Albatrosses. Albatrosses have spread to all sees around the globe. They started in one place on the globe. Then they spread in two directions. Both to the west and to the east. Between Russia and Canada the two kinds of Albatross, (same specie!) met. But here they can't breed a fertile offspring. Hence that criteria can't be used? No it can be used (everyone is using it). It just don't apply to Albatrosses.

You can't just say that it does not exist only because you have not heard about it. Perhaps you have not read about this. But so have I. This was in a book about evolution in mammals. Can we continue? Please. It is not part of the main discussion. 🙂

Originally posted by bikingviking
Then that "successfulness" is called something else. I assure you. This criteria exist. Then comes also that in Biology we have less rigorous definitions than in i.e. Physics.

Almost no criteria in Biology is "generally accepted". Take the definition of a "speice" for example. There are something like 60 (round number) criterias for how to define wh ...[text shortened]... k about evolution in mammals. Can we continue? Please. It is not part of the main discussion. 🙂

Then that "successfulness" is called something else. I assure you. This criteria exist.

Sorry, it doesn't exist, at least not in evolutionary biology terminology. Don't know where you got that from! If you don't believe me, just try and look it up over the net and see what other name science calls "successfulness" (in respect to evolution ) and then, if you find it (which you won't ) , tell me what this other name is.
I have intensively and comprehensively studied evolution theory and I can tell you it is definitely NOT about a species "successfulness", whatever exactly that is supposed to mean! NONE of it is about that! You need to study evolution theory a bit first to see what it actually says before making assumptions of what it is all about.

read this to start with:

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

although it mentions the word "success" many times, this is mainly about "reproductive success" and never about the "success" of a species as a whole! So you see evolution theory says/implies absolutely nothing about the 'success' of a species and isn't about that at all! What the theory of evolution IS about is a theory on either how some of one species can change into another species (macroevolution ) or how a species or at least some in a species develops new inheritable adaptive traits (microevolution ) -there is a gray area between those two things and it is often about both but, no mention of "successfulness" of a species there!
If all of a species dies out, that is not defined as "evolution", that is defined just as "extinction"!

Originally posted by humy

Then that "successfulness" is called something else. I assure you. This criteria exist.

Sorry, it doesn't exist, at least not in evolutionary biology terminology. ......... ...of a species dies out, that is not defined as "evolution", that is defined just as "extinction"!

I say that you are wrong. You may be very sure that you are right. But you are not. I have this from a discussion with a professor in Biology. He's area was Zology and he had devoted his lifetime to it. I have a a hard time beleving that this man is wrong. He knows his area. Perhaps he simplified a little to make it more understandable. (I can look up his name if you want to, then you can ask him by email). He said (quoting from memory, i.e. not quoting): We can study animals and compare them. Some animal species do not survive. (For various reasons). Natural selection will result in that some species die out. Then We can measure the success of different species. If ...[hi said that he did not use scientific terms]... we study this we will conclude that all animal species surviving to due date, are equally successful.

humy wrote:

If all of a species dies out, that is not defined as "evolution", that is defined just as "extinction"!

No reason to be sarcastic. I am not.
I feel that this is below our dignity, besides, it makes you look bad. So don't be sarcastic here, otherwise you are a dick. 🙂 please?

Originally posted by humy

Then that "successfulness" is called something else. I assure you. This criteria exist.

Sorry, it doesn't exist, at least not in evolutionary biology terminology. Don't know where you got that from! If you don't believe me, just try and look it up over the net and see what other name science calls "successfulness" (in respect to evolution ...[text shortened]... of a species dies out, that is not defined as "evolution", that is defined just as "extinction"!

By "successfulness" I think he means the evilution idea of survival of the fittest. Any natural selection that allows successful survival could be termed "successfulness" instead of survival of the fittest.

survival of the fittest
n.

Natural selection conceived of as a struggle for life in which only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/survival+of+the+fittest

The Instructor

Originally posted by bikingviking
I say that you are wrong. You may be very sure that you are right. But you are not. I have this from a discussion with a professor in Biology. He's area was Zology and he had devoted his lifetime to it. I have a a hard time beleving that this man is wrong. He knows his area. Perhaps he simplified a little to make it more understandable. (I can look up h ...[text shortened]... besides, it makes you look bad. So don't be sarcastic here, otherwise you are a dick. 🙂 please?

Natural selection will result in that some species die out.

yes but that is not what defines evolution. Evolution can both be defined (the theory ) and would work (the process ) even if NO species die out! What you seem to be implying is that evolution is a theory about (as opposed to merely a process that can cause ) survival or 'success' of a species, which it is not. What evolution IS about (without going into extraneous details for this particular discussion ) is how certain changes can occur within a species but regardless of what effect, good or bad, those changes would make on either the survival or 'success' of the species as a whole -if you don't believe me, just look it up on the net for yourself right now! Excluding all of the vast number of Creationist anti-science propaganda links out there (so allow only true science links -Creationist links count for nothing ) , try and find a link, ANY link, that describes evolution but contradicts what I just said there! I can guarantee that you will fail!

No reason to be sarcastic.

That wasn't sarcasm. I thought that was seriously what you where trying to say. If that wasn't then I apologize if I offended you -seriously, no sarcasm.

Originally posted by humy
Natural selection will result in that some species die out.

Yes but that is not what defines evolution. Evolution can both be defined (the theory ) and would work.......

Appologize noted. I am not a creationist, not at all (no one has said so either).

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 Beware! This is a very long post.
Probably since I personally, find this subject very interesting
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Later on I will talk about. Evolution. Note that have my own definition of this. It is because I am a layman, a "hobby scientist". My definition of evolution is wrong, excuse me but I was only "talking", not writing a scientific text.

I will start with going over my main message (I say this twice, then people don't have to read everything). { Start of main message }
What I know about evolution. (I am here talking of evolution in a layman way. I.e. life started once. Therfore cheationists are wrong. They are also wrong for other reasons, here not mentioned). ... (text continues .. now hop to that if you want, by pressing search of cource). { End of main message }


I start by saying that I live in Sweden. Here we do not have any creationists (or maybe less than 1 percent). Therefore I take "people do not beleave in creationism for granted. Perhaps other people do not, i.e. here at chess at work. Perhaps they state that in there presentations as provoking people "beeing trolls", I don't know.


I am educated in Uppsala, Sweden, and have taken courses here.
http://www.ibg.uu.se/?languageId=1
I have also noted that wikipedia is very much so lacking in cell and molecular -biology articles. They don't exist or say the wrong things, but mostly don't exist.

Here is some of wich I have learned "about biology in general" i.e. "the biological world" consisting of cells.

History of earth.
First the life started (I don't want to go into details here, but first some kind of lipids wich form spontaniously, then RNA was used as a molecule for passing on biological traits. Then RNA was preceded by DNA). We have stones outside Australia wich shows fossils of the oldest known cells. (Some kind of mitochondria-like algies, not sure). These old fossiled stones are called "stromatolites". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite


""""""So first life started. Then life exploaded, lots and lots of life on earch (i.e. in the sea).
""""""Then come a process in wich almost all life on earth disappered. The theory of why this happened is called "Snowball earth". It became much colder. Thick ice across the entire planet. Some life survived deep in the sea. No one knows what happened but this is the theory I was tought, i.e. "earch like a snowball", called "snowball earth.
""""""Then it got warmer and the ice melted. Things in the sea and things on land (now we have land, I guess we always had it, almost. Only that land was uninhabited). The things on land developed to what we call plants. (I know of ancient things like "lumber trees", but not much more. BTW we still have lumber but not as trees). Flowers did not exist yet. Carbon oxide rate in the atmosphere was very high.
""""""Then the "plants" started to produce lots of oxigen. So the atmosphere changed. This led to a massive extinction of "living things" to which oxigen was dangerous. (Educated guess, 70 percent, perhaps more, of all species died because of oxigen).
""""""Then fishlike things appeared and they crawled up on land (quite recently in a geological time perspective). Wikipedia has a say on "history on earth" but I find that article lacking. Confusing also. (All the names, you dont remember names anyways, at least I don't). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
""""""Then flowers happened. It turned ot that "flowers" was very successful and they became the vast majority of "plant" species (educated guess, 97 percent).
""""""The "non stationary things" called animals. (I.e. not plants). (I am talking of "on land" here, in wather things are different). Changed many times during the period of "animals have been living on earth".
""""""Note this as well. We are talking about a makro perspective. We have tons of very very small things living on our planets. F.e. in "Domain" Eukaria we have the "Kingdom" Protista. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-domain_system .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protist
""""""Protist is very divers things wich actually have nothing in common with eachother. ( In all the other "Kingdoms", things are related with eachother ), but not so with Protist, perhaps Protists in plural. It is a kingdom for "small things" wich are hard to classify and not very well studied (I assume). Scientists are working on a new "list of Kingdoms", but that is new list is i.e. new. Not univerally accepted.

""""""What I know about evolution. (I am here talking of evolution in a layman way. I.e. life started once. Therfore cheationists are wrong. They are also wrong for other reasons, here not mentioned).



I have learned of [b]two things wich most biologists (cell-biologists, researchers who studies proteins) regard as "proof" for evolution. 1. ATP synthase. 2. Conserved domains in ribosomes.

ATP synthase.
""""""Commonly refeered as "the ATP mill" or F0-F1 protein. I was looking for pictures of ATP synthase and found this page. ( They have used the same textbook as I have, "Lodish"😉
http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/bil255/bil255goods/16_mito.html
""""""pictures on ATP synthase:
http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/protected/MCB6/ch12/12-24.jpg
http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/protected/MCB6/ch12/12-25.jpg

"Proof 1 - ATP synthase."
""""""I take it from this page.
http://mmbr.asm.org/content/72/4/590.full

""""""ATP synthase is present in all living organisms and is located in the membranes of mitochondria, bacteria, and chloroplast thylakoids as well as on the surfaces of various cell types, including endothelial cells (269, 270), keratinocytes (58), and adipocytes (206).

""""""ATP synthase is an exceptionally complicated protein complex. It is divided into two sectors, a soluble globular F1 catalytic sector and a membrane-bound F0 proton-translocating sector (Fig. 1) (304, 305).
""""""Even the simplest form of ATP synthase, found in nonphotosynthetic eubacteria, contains eight different subunit types, while the chloroplast and photosynthetic bacterial ATP synthase each consists of nine different subunit types (42, 331).
""""""The ATP synthase from mitochondria is much more complicated and, excluding regulators, is reported to date to consist of 15 and 17 different subunit types in animals and yeasts (or fungi), respectively (305, 413).

......................

IN SHORT - ATP synthase is present in all living organisms - it gives them energy.

......................

[ATP MILL , A PROTEIN , FOR A 5 YEAR OLD], i.e. very very short.
Read answer to the question """"""""""""- "How is ATP synthase, like a molecular mill?""""""" """"""- http://quizlet.com/13148908/mastering-biology-section-94-flash-cards/
[END OF ; ATP MILL, A PROTEIN....]

ATP synthase is often referred to as "the ATP mill". It "mills" (I am trying to be non-scientific here I know that) ATP molecules, which is used as energy. ........
""""""Why is ATP synthease present in all living things?"""""" Because all living things have a common ancestry. I.e. life started once, then diverged. Hence this molecule is seen as "proof" for that.[b]

2. Conserved domains in ribosomes. - As proof of evolution - Meaning, as proof of that "life started once".
..........
""""""We have something which is called ribosomes. "Protein factories".
""""""Making proteins is a very very very complicated process (into which much biological science is devoted to) - why? - because we know very little about the process - the process is very fast - "living things" is hard to study. Because they "die" when you study them ( could go into details, but I won't ).
""""""In humans we have 2 kinds of ribosomes. Normal ribosomes - refered to as "ribosomes" - AND - the other ribosomes "mitichondrial ribosomes" i.e. ribosomes in the mitochondrias. ............ why - am I talking so much about ribosomes? - Because they form the foundation of cell biology. - Kind of the "backbone" of that. - You hear about ribosomes again and again. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

About ribosomal domains.
""""""Ribosomes is constituted of many "domains", big separate parts - function together with other - big separate parts (I am simplifying here). Ribosomal domains are referred to according to size. Some domains are (55S), (70S), (80S).
""""""
- What is S? - S is called "Svedberg".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svedberg
Svedberg was a man (Swedish btw).
""""""
""""""Svedberg is "sedimentation rate - for protein domains" meaning time (no rate) for them to pass a "gel". ( A "gel" is a thing you put proteins through, commonly by using electricity. There are different techniques for building gels, but I won't go into details ). Proteinal domains are 3 dimensional you see - therefore things like weight is not that important.

""""""All cells have ribosomes - One part of one (do not remember which one, sorry) domain (like a 70S domain) have a "universally conserved core". Meaning. The DNA code for this is the same (or nearly almost) in all cells we know of. - The same DNA code - (ATGC) - Since if that very code would change a specific "tRNA" could not "bind" to the ribosomes - then no proteins would be produced.
""""""( There are like 30 different RNAs, your teacher in biology perhaps simplified things and said that there was only 3 of them, teachers at elementary level do that - say that there are 3 RNAs )
""""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

""""""Conservation of the "Ribosomal" universally binding site is used as. Argument 2 - for proving that ...... [b]life started only once.
""""""Why? - because it is the same, the same DNA-code for that - in all cells we know of - hence. Life started ...

This post broke the posting word limit !! Yay. Plus 2 to my self (sarcasm).