Evolution of Snow

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth. Origin of Species (1859) pp.281-282


"And [mention] when your Lord said to the angels, 'Truly, I will create a man from clay. So when I have completed him, and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down prostrate to him.' And the angels prostrated, one and all. Save for Satan, who was too proud to, and disbelieved. He said to him, 'O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I have created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or too exalted?' He said,'I am better than he; You created me from fire and created him from clay'" (Qur'an 38:71-76).

The first law of thermodynamics is equivalent to the principle of conservation of energy: the total energy of a closed system is constant; any energy change must be compensated by a corresponding inflow or outflow from the system.
Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.
However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

The simplest form of the Casimir effect was predicted in 1948 by H.B.G. Casimir and consists in the attraction between a pair of neutral, parallel conducting plates placed in the vacuum. This attractive force has a purely quantum origin and cannot be obtained using the classical description of electromagnetic field since it is a direct consequence of the existence of Zero-Point Fluctuations: a turmoil of virtual particles that come in and out of existence and that can violate the energy-momentum conservation of the system for very short periods of time, as described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The fluctuating virtual particles exert a "radiation pressure" on the plates which on average is greater outside the plates than between them - as shown in the diagram.
http://www.casimir.rl.ac.uk/

Other vids
Chaddag vid on retrovirus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKsMsz6dBac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5yYNkkgnBA

RabidApe's Vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKb1LXxKNHY

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Atheist
• snow3585

[Mr88playmaker]

The very use of the word "Evolution" is always applied to those things that evolve via intelligent means (such as evolution of a company or a screenplay etc). The ONLY time the word "evolution" is applied to mean the OPPOSITE is by Darwinists in connection to biological evolution i.e.; one genus (kind) evolving into another genus (kind) without ANY evidence as to how or why.

[KT45]

@Mr88playmaker There is a great video by cdk007 called MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution. In this video, gives a few examples speciation. Also a video by DonExodus2 called "How Evolution Works 7: Speciation" will give more examples. Have a great day.

[Mr88playmaker]

In the foundational document for Evolution theory itself, called: "Origin Of The Species By Means Of natural Selection / Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life", Darwin asserts that black people are the closest relatives to apes and that white people are at the top of the beast-into-man "genus to genus" evolutionary ladder. According to Darwin, mankind has achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization.

[KT45]

@Mr88playmaker in the origin of the speicies, evolution is described metaphorically as a tree, not a ladder. With a ladder one species is over the other to show dominance. However with a tree species branch off from each other showing that each branch continues to improve and evolve. No living species is superior to any other living species in this model. Only extinct species are found at the bottom of this tree of life.

[GhettoStarr23]

Light isn't as fast as they say...1 + 1= 3.. because you must count the light matter and the dark matter...the light is the 1 the dark is the plus in between just because you can't see doesn't mean it's not there energy cannot be destroyed only transferred.

[GhettoStarr23]

Everything is born out of the darkness, even light. I believe Einstein was wrong to say light is the fast moving...really is the the dark matter aka the god particle that the mainstream scientist are scared of. In space there are black holes that light cannot ecape from...so obvoi

[coldarc]

i´m an atheist

evolution is about what genes are selected to fit small enviromental changes.

the dna is not in conflict with religion since it cannot be proven that genes

can come from nothing, og be created by functions ruled by genes that wasn´t

already there. transitions take a long time since the variations are so small in each generations. for all we know the dna might be the fingerprints of GOD

[coldarc]

there is no violation of energy conservation. energy cannot be created.

a big bang violate this law. there is no need for virtual particles to exist.

there is always a kind of electromagnetic waves that interact in a way that

can make up particles. particles can only exist if their energy is conserved

at the same time beeing feeded with energy in forms of these waves.

[coldarc]

the casimir force. there is two possible explenations for this force. one

the force is created by electric gravity in a vacuum contracting the plates together

by an equal oriention in the field. the second possibility is that electromangetic waves passes trough the plates at a distance between them where some of them get trough the gap but the rest of them are kept apart, this can cause a differential

in force by a differetial in waves acting between and against the plates

[psychosavant]

@Mr88playmaker

Ironically enough, your argument is a genetic fallacy. Not to mention you present a clear fallacy commonly known as poisoning the well. What Darwin believed has nothing to do with the accuracy of the modern scientific understanding of biological evolution. Whether or not your claim is accurate is irrelevant.

[psychosavant]

@Mr88playmaker

This is objectively false. Evolution, by any definition, is simply change and never, in any context implies and intelligent agency of any kind. Neither does it imply a lack thereof. It makes no implication on the instigator of the change at all. However, when evolution is mentioned without specified context, it is generally accepted as a reference to biological evolution, which only by incident, already has an accepted explanation that doesn't require intelligent intervention.

[SuperMerlin100]

@Aresthanas The cells that actually detect light are behind all of the other cells in the retina.

And all of the wiring is in front of them. if a human designed a camera like that they would be fired on the spot. God should be better then that.

Actually saying god designed an eye so flawed is AN INSULT TO GOD.

I could give you a list of other flaws (that don't fit into metaphors so well).

[Aresthanas]

@Mr88playmaker - " The activity of the brain is a result of, & and reaction to, what the MIND is doing.."

Correct. Dr. Erich Christian,an engineer in the field of Communication, explains it quite well in line with you.

Intelligence reduces TIME needed so that once Man took months or days to travel we can now do it WITHIN a DAY. GOD will be justified. Your studies are NOT going for nothing... but as for the rest..." Remembrance of them will be forgotten."

[Aresthanas]

@SuperMerlin100 - " By the way our retinas face the wrong way." No, blame it on 'evolution' ? My eyesight was/is quite fine. One can state after the Fall our 'natural eyes' became what it is? As Adam and Eve were composed of both body and spirit, they could see angels as well as glimpses of GOD. Once they sinned the rest of us born in the Order of Generation are in conflict with the elements we were to master instead of 'the other way around' (eyes).