Q2 - Evolution, Recreating the big bang?

[sfg911]

One important thing about evolution that people have a hard time with is this..... populations evolve, not individuals. In a population, small changes happen and these differences build up in the genetic pot of available traits. Changes in the environment will favor some traits and those will become more and more common in the population over time.

[miiitymous]

Remember, they all put "theory" after the titles. Which means there is no proof. Stick with Creation. It at least gives some meaning for your life. Unless you like thinking you are related to a rock.

[dataloreforever]

@miiitymous Actually no that is not what the word theory means in science. I am not clear as to what being related to a rock has to do with anything? Is there something in your religion (or another) that claims humans are related to rocks?

[miiitymous]

@dataloreforever No, that is evolution

[Wordavee1]

@miiitymous

Nowhwere in the theory of evolution does it say we are related to rocks, that is a stupid strawman statement beloved by the Hovinds & Hamms of the creationist world.

Everything in the universe is made of the elements produced in the heat of the big bang, so the song line "We are stardust" is very true.

In your religion we have to believe a super-being with the power to create the universe by thinking it into existence just came from nothing. Rather unlikely I'd say.

[GeeKayKayGee]

@Wordavee1 "Everything in the universe is made of the elements produced in the heat of the big bang, so the song line "We are stardust" is very true."

More accurately (I think) the Big Bang produced mostly hydrogen and helium, some of which formed the first stars. Nucleosynthesis in those and successive stars creates all (mostly) other elements. Supernovas distribute those elements and create new star systems. Our sun is a Population I star a product of Population II and 'cont'

[GeeKayKayGee]

@GeeKayKayGee 'cont'

and probably of the theorized Population III stars.

It is a fascinating chain of events and in reading up on it while writing this (hopefully correct) correction I am once again delighted by the complexities of the universe, astounded by the huge amount of knowledge that science has generated and intrigued by the many questions that have yet to be answered.

[Wordavee1]

@GeeKayKayGee

Thanks for that correction, as you say, it is fascinating, and a much better story than "God did it".

[dataloreforever]

@miiitymous That is your uneducated opinion, to bad it is wrong.

[Wordavee1]

@miiitymous

You do not understand the word "theory" when it is used in the scientific sense. Scientists start with a hypothesis, an idea if you like, then they try to find evidence which would prove or disprove it, when they have proved by experiment the idea is valid they write it into a report & other scientists exmanine it, test their work & might approve it. only then is it a theory. Creationism has no evidence whatsoever.

[miiitymous]

@Wordavee1 There is no evidence for evolution, either.

[Wordavee1]

@miiitymous

Where did you get that little nugget of information? Answers in Genesis?

Evolution is one of the most researched & challenged theories in history, & in over 100 years Darwin's initial hypothesis has been reinforced by discoveries in biology, genetics, medicine and paleontology, & no-one, including the so called creationist "scientists", has ever made any discovery which could falsify it. Evolution is a fact!

[brad7ao]

got a problem with this guy? cum try it, il fold your clothes with you in em

[Lilmakse]

I personally believe in devolution rather than evolution i.e. loss of information rather than gaining information.

For example in "Prehistoric" times there was a creature called the Charadon Megalodon which was basically a Great White Shark (Charadon Carcharias) five times the size they are now; so to me the size difference is a loss of information not a gain.

Yes you could argue it had to adapt using "Natural Selection" but then it has to "select" traits it already has not create new ones.

[Wordavee1]

@Lilmakse

Well, you might "believe" that, but as I presume you are not a geneticist or a biologist your opinion is somewhat worthless. Size is not an indication of genetic information, it depends on the environment. some small animals have more chromosomes than much larger ones. If your giant shark was in a situation where there was a dwindling food supply, then evolutuion would favour a smaller body size, thus the species would change over generations.

[Lilmakse]

@Wordavee1 Correct, I am not a geneticist or biologist.

Agreed it would depend on the environment and agreed if the food supply was to dwindle then yes the predator would benefit from being smaller, which studies show this is the most likely case. So then my argument would be the food is getting smaller to survive a big predator but then the predator realises and too becomes smaller so then wouldn't the now smaller prey think 'I must become big again!" creating a pattern of big to small?

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse An ear of corn has far more genetic "information" than a human.

Many things will effect the size of any species. With more oxygen in the atmosphere and oceans many species find it easier to support a larger body size. Larger body size means more food for shark.... larger shark can catch more food and impress a mate. Then a big disaster hits and food is scarce. Now the smaller shark finds it easier to get all the food it needs and the big shark starves....

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 I agree with that completely. But that backs up the point against evolution because as you said the big shark would have less to eat and would die out, the smaller sharks have more to eat and so survive - meaning the bigger shark didn't evolve to the smaller shark; it's two species one survives and one didn't.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse No, you are missing the point. The environmental pressures on a species change. An environment full of plentiful and large food will cause the average size of a predator to increase. If the food supply dwindles then the smaller individuals have a better chance to survive and eventually the average size deceases. This is seen when large animals are stranded on islands with limited resources. Pigmy elephants.... It even happened to humans.

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 Again I agree with that but that's not due to 'Evolution' that's just the genetics. For example I am short and so is my brother due to my mother being short, my father however is tall but we're short, most probably, due to her genetics. If all tall people were to die out for whatever reason, then it's likely that most of the world from then on would be short, they didn't evolve to be short for survival of the fittest, it's just the genes it can select that's available from the parent...

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 My point being two Megalodons may have mated but if one, or both, of them had the genes to be smaller as well then their offspring may receive the smaller gene and therefore be small. To emphasise that is not evolution. Like you said, then if food was to dwindle the large Megalodons would die out leaving the smaller ones with the small gene being the most popular.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse Except mutations as well as other methods of change are well documented, so the great-great-great...... great grandchildren can and do have traits available to them that their ancestors did not. THAT is evolution. It doesn't take all that long in geologic time either. We have seen some good examples in just a few decades. See "Italian wall lizards" and also "Ring Species"

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 I had a look at your examples and these do not necessarily back evolution but rather adaption.

The Italian Wall Lizard had some changing characteristics, yes, but is still a lizard, evolution says it was a lizard and has now become a hippopotamus. Also who's to say the lizard didn't adapt using traits it already had - the fact it adapted doesn't mean it created new traits to survive...

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 The Ring Species is the same as well and an example would be a horse can breed with a donkey creating a mule but mules can not breed. Again I argue that somewhere in the gene pool the mule gets from it's parents, it looses information. A mule isn't a mutation or an evolved being of a horse or donkey, but rather a new species.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse The Italian wall lizard is a perfect example of new traits and new genes that did not exist before. There are plenty more examples. It's clear you don't WANT to accept the evidence. We don't need to see a lizard change into a cat to know evolution is true. Your argument was that all organisms get all their DNA from their parents. That's clearly incorrect. There is nothing stopping speciation and there is plenty of evidence proving it happened.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse ERV markers in DNA overwhelmingly prove common ancestry.

Your horse / mule example is NOT like ring species at all. A mule cannot produce offspring with even another mule.

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 Admittedly ERV is something I do not know a lot about or fully understand but from what I can comprehend of it, it does not prove we came from chimps it just shows we have the same abilities to catch diseases. Other species may have the same genomes as us but that does not mean me must have come from them...

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 Can you please explain how the Italian Wall Lizard shows/proves it gained genes it did not have before?

Also could you please explain how a creature receives other, rather than all, genes if not received from it's parents which came from it's parents etc?

I admit I do not fully understand the Ring Species theory - I understand how it works (I think) but don't understand how it proves evolution, maybe this is something else you could explain?

#Justtryingtolearn - which I am so thank you.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse The lizard grew cecal valves to help digest plant food, which were never seen in this species, including the source population. Also the head and jaw changed dramatically to handle tougher plants.

Humans are not all that different from chimps. We certainly don't have different digestive organs. If you consider humans and chimps a different species when we share almost every gene then this lizard is a clear example of species level evolution.

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 Ok you've explained to me how the lizard adapted but still haven't answered my question, how do we know the lizard did not already have the genetic information to adapt?

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse If there was a human with an alien like head, a new digestive system and drastically different behavior... would it still be a human? No.... Chimps and humans have more in common than the original lizard and the one found 30 years later.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse Most evolution works with genes that already exist. We share ALL the same genes with chimps with very minor differences. We have a gene for muscle weakness (why chimps are smaller but much stronger than us) causing a smaller jaw muscle and allowed a larger brain size. We have the same amount of hair as a chimp.. just smaller hair. Goosebumps are to make your hair stand up to keep you warm or make you look bigger when threatened. Completely useless now that we have no hair.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse Are you aware of the fused chromosome? All apes have one more chromosome than us. An organism cannot loose a chromosome and survive. We can't be related to apes with one less chromosome.... however when comparing genes we find humans have a fused chromosome that used to be two.

If you really want to deny evolution you can make the excuse that god designed us that way to confuse us. 

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse The lizard is still a lizard, yes. And humans are still apes.

Ring species are what we would expect to find in evolution. When a species changes from one distinct type to another it's via a spectrum. A dog does not give birth to a cat. Between blue and green you can have thousands of shades. It is impossible to pick out the color where it changes from blue to green. That is how evolution works too. If species were created we would not expect to see things like ring species.

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 Not necessarily, I do believe that from a male and female of a creature reproducing you can get a new creature.

If you have a male and female creature with let's say one hundred bits of information between them, when they reproduce, fifty bits of information comes from the male and fifty from the female but from the female may give ten of the same genes as the male did therefore ten bits of information are lost creating something new.

So the Ring Species could be interpreted that way too

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse A new creature in one generation? Impossible.

Ring species are a color spectrum, a rainbow of colors. You start with red and end up with blue but you can never pick the exact location where the color changes from red to blue.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse Well, in you are really interested in evolution you should look into ERVs. They are extremely rare yet we have over a dozen "recent" in our DNA and we share almost all of them with chimps. We have many more ancient remnants. The virus inserts it's code into a virtually random location in our DNA and there is an error in the implant that renders it endogenous. We share both the marker and the copy error in every case. There is no other explanation other than common ancestry.

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 I have read some articles about ERV and I'm sorry but I still fail to see the proof of it meaning we came from chimps. As I said in one of my two previous responses, all it indicates is that we have the same vulnerabilities to catch the same diseases, for example; HIV. Yes we have similar characteristics as chimps so yes it is possible we are made up with similar biological structures - still does not prove evolution.

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse These viruses can attach virtually anywhere along a 3 billion length code. They are in the exact same place. Also the copy error that broke them is also the same. To deny ERV evidence after "looking into it" in nothing more than desperation.

Also interesting is the apologists excuses for ERVs. They flat out lie and claim the viruses target specific areas. They also lie about the number. Why lie if it's not the proof they fear?

[Lilmakse]

@sfg911 To be honest I can't argue against or for ERVs because I honestly don't know enough about them. I will say in your last response you said, 'The virus inserts it's code into a virtually random location' and yet it's in the exact same place for us - backing evolution, but, let's say everything was created, as I said before we do have a similar build up structure as chimps so couldn't the creator have put the markers in the same place as for both to survive - seeing as we were made similar?

[sfg911]

@Lilmakse God inserting genetic code from a virus? This would be extremely deceiving and serve no purpose. We share something like 16 recent ERV markers with chimps and this same relationship is seen between any closely related species. The recent ERVs are from viruses that still exist so you can compare the code and see where the copy error occurred.

There is no other explanation. Along with all the other separate lines of evidence there is no honest way to denying evolution

[izovire]

Youtube search these:

For Evolution = Richard Dawkins Lecture (more about evolutionary biology)

For Big Bang = Neil Degrasse Tyson (this guy will keep you entertained)

btw cute intro

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@izovire Thanks for the direction..

[NotSoOldHippy]

ROFL! You shuitting insane fucking idiot cult savages are amusing. Good fucking grief, not a one of you fuck filled filthy cult savages have a clue, huh? Why didn't any of you shitting cult morons ever attend a fucking High School? Good bloody grief.

[GeeKayKayGee]

@NotSoOldHippy "You shuitting insane fucking idiot cult savages are amusing."

HaveYouGotTheAnswer has yet to prove himself as the 'cult savage' you seem to identify him as and that being so I consider your comment to be unwarranted and not worthy of you.

I've watched each of his video questions and none of them are blatantly religious. Until proven otherwise we can only say that he asking simple, albeit peculiarly slanted or seemingly leading, questions.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@luccaskunk thanks for clearing that completely up. I just heard colleagues at work talking about it and they were using these exact words "They are recreating the big bang." so now I know they are not doing that, there is no longer a question, the evolution and big bang mix up is all my mistake. I just assumed because they are always spoken of together they were the same thing but now I know they are not because so many people are unhappy with my question. thank you

[luccaskunk]

Uh, yesh. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a biological theory, Big Bang is Cosmological. Anyone who tells you they're related is full of crap.

As for recreating the big bang, no, that's not what they're doing. I don't know who told you that. They're trying to recreate the conditions that occurred just moments after the big bang to see what happens. It's a harmless experiment and they don't know what will happen, which makes it a very interesting experiment.

[dataloreforever]

Where do you work that people there are trying to recreate the big bang? As for evolution, you could try taking a college class on the subject.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@dataloreforever Sorry, i dont work anywhere where anything is trying to be recreated, it was a topic of conversation i over heard and found interesting. Thanks for the advice about taking classes but i was just wondering about things as i do and i thought it could be summed up but i guessed wrong and have opened some sort of can of worms. Thanks take care.

[dataloreforever]

@HaveYouGotTheAnswer Sorry I misunderstood what you said. Yes evolution can be summed up pretty easily. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

I was not trying to be an ass I simply think that a college class is your best bet to get real information about the subject. Reading a book on the subject is not necessarily as helpful if you do not understand the subject matter.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@dataloreforever Again - Thankyou for making things just that little more clear for me. Its a hard subject to even grasp for me because it is so intellegent and takes intelligent people to understand it as i see it.. Im trying to graps it slowly, and because of my lack of intelligence/laziness and overall non-attractiveness to books i have stayed clear of many subjects and only of recent have kinda taken an interest. So again thanks for trying now to make sense of it.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@dataloreforever Again - Thankyou for making things just that little more clear for me. Its a hard subject to even grasp for me because it is so intelligent and takes intelligent people to understand it as i see it. Im trying to grap it slowly, and because of my lack of intelligence/laziness and overall non-attractiveness to books i have stayed clear of many subjects and only of recent have kinda taken an interest. So again thanks for trying now to make sense of it.

[dataloreforever]

@HaveYouGotTheAnswer I do not think that you are not an intelligent guy. Personally I do not read a lot myself, I am dyslexic. However there are plenty of sources of information that do not involve reading. The fact that you are showing an interest just proves you have an intellect and an interest.

[NemoUtopian]

I think they are trying to use the super collider to give us insights into this big bang, not make another, and that has nothing to do with evolution.

[lazyperfectionist1]

I'm sorry to be blunt about this but if you and your co-workers understand the Big Bang so poorly as to believe it has anything whatsoever to do with evolution, it's a safe bet they were not trying to recreate it. The Big Bang is the answer to the question "Why is the Universe expanding?" Evolution deals with whether life is changing over time, and if so, what mechanisms drive it. The Big Bang is a concept of physics. Evolution is a concept of biology.

[Squagnut]

One though is that you should put at least as much effort into the content of your videos as you put into the opening credits.

Evolution? Please go to the library and ask them to recommend a good introductory book on the subject.

Unrelated to that is that some people at CERN are trying to recreate conditions of the very early universe. This is not the same as trying to recreate the big bang.

[Abzu93]

I don't know why all the negative press; but keep on asking questions. Yes, your questions on this subject are uneducated, juvenile, and ignorant -- but, the more you find out, the smarter and more well informed you'll be. In fact, you should probably thumbs down my comment for overstating the bleeding obvious and being redundant.

[Hereticbooks]

I guess I don't understand the question. You started off with "this evolution thing," then immediately switched to "the big bang." They are two separate fields of science. Tell us which are you interested in knowing about, and I can give you some citations to refer to.

[Wordavee1]

My thoughts? Buy a book on evolution, then read it, then you won't have to ask questions which can't be answered in 500 characters.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@Wordavee1 @Wordavee1 - So Evolution or the big bang is only ever going to be complicated and for the elite to understand?

[Wordavee1]

@HaveYouGotTheAnswer

I didn't say that. You need a certain level of intelligence & education to grasp the fundamentals, but nothing more than an average 15 yrs old could attain. However, to pioneer & research these sciences takes a higher level of knowledge & you have to study that specialisation. I'd say "the elite" is not the right term, it sounds rather like an exclusive club.

[Desertphile]

I shall make a reply video. Smirk.

[mobiltec]

@Desertphile I surely hope so. I really want to know what this evolution thing is all about. Perhaps after that you can tell us all about the gravity thing.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@Desertphile Thank you sir for your video reply, i enjoyed your sense of humour and i did learn something from it. Take care. Herb

[tomgwyther]

Evolution is - in a nut shell - the change in allele frequency in a population of living things over time.

The Atlas experiment at CERN is attempting to recreate conditions similar to that of the early universe.

[tomgwyther]

Evolution is - in a nut shell - the change in allele frequency in a population of loving things over time.

The Atlas experiment at CERN is attempting to recreate conditions similar to that of the early universe.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@tomgwyther Actually i get it now.. Thanks!



[DarkEmergence]

It's an important experiment. We can only see so far back into the beginnings of the universe, recreating the process will give us more information.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@DarkEmergence information to do what? If they do find a way to re create it aren't they in danger of killing themselves or can they make a smaller version???

[DarkEmergence]

@HaveYouGotTheAnswer They can only make it smaller. It's not something they put together overnight. There was a lot of fears at first, but I haven't heard of any large accident happening with it for years, so I doubt we're in danger.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@DarkEmergence Sounds rather exciting if i say so... I'd like to see what happens. Are they far away do you know from coming up with a conclusion? If they do recreate it, will it then build another earth? (I know i sound daft but its just the way i think) lol

[joelarnda]

@HaveYouGotTheAnswer It is happening at CERN just outside of Geneva switzerland. CERN is the organization using the Large Hadron Collider. So far they have not had any problems.

Things they have found is that the neutrino may possibly go faster than the speed of light (may change some physics theories or start a new branch altogether) They can also create the antimatter counterpart to hydrogen and sustain it for 15 minutes.

[HaveYouGotTheAnswer]

@DarkEmergence but will we know what to do with that info?

[NemoUtopian]

@HaveYouGotTheAnswer No, that is why we need the info. information informs future actions. No doubt we have all sorts of hypothesis and theories, information will eliminate some or all, and help us build better ones.