How and why is the Evolution theory considered plausible? (purely a science question)

[spflakers]

Even the frickin Pope supports the evidence of evolution. The Vatican! The people who - to steal from the Onion - probably just banned another human gland yesterday.

And I think I'm just going to take ocho's advice, because this is obviously not something where someone who doesn't believe it is going to be convinced.

[ecksor]

[Mongo]

Always remember that science is mankind's attempt to explain the world by what they can observe.

The evolutionary process has never been observed. Evolution is a theory because it is science's best guess as to how everything came about based on what they can observe.

The scientific establishment begins with the assumption that evolution is true and strives to prove that. Those that question its validity (even those that are not creationists) are usually ostricized.

The only way to challenge evolution within the scientific community is to come up with a better (or at least comparable) scientific theory of how everything came to be.

[C M B]

lmao
_________________
http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/

[Fan0Bynum17]

My knowledge of science is very basic, but at least I know that and don't attempt to thumb my nose at its long standing theories that I couldn't even begin to disprove with my limited scientific knowledge. Lacking those things doesn't seem to stop others however.

Of course no one can imagine how life evolved from a single cell to primates in one thought, it's a process that took millions of years.

[Omar Little]

[Fan0Bynum17]

[ecksor]

[Omar Little]

To say we can't observe evolution is laughably obtuse, considering al the data we have amassed. It's like saying you can't document the evolution in automobile design. A child can do it, without ever being privy to the inner workings at car companies. You can observe what came earliest, and all the various iterations between then and now.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel

[joeblow]

It's funny because I was discussing a similar topic last week as I try to wrap my head around it.

Much of the discussion here has been about the post evolutionary/post Big-Bang processes. However the OP's original comments cut right to the point - scientifically speaking, how do you have everything from nothing?

The part in particular that I'm fascinated by is that 'everything' also includes time... for there to be truly 'nothing' that means that at one point time didn't exist (an oxymoron, I know). However with the Big Bang theory (one of several scientific origin theories, I know), time began with the Big Bang itself.

So in the absence of all atoms, sub-atomic particles, time, darkness, light, physics, etc., EVERYTHING came to be. As the OP states, the logic behind that being possible from point zero on the time chart appears to be a scientific impossibility. Everything comng from (truly) nothing.

Even 100,000 years from now, I wonder how science can literally throw out all the rules of the universe (throw away the laws of physics, throw away time, start with zero atoms or sub-atomic particles etc.) to replicate the appearance of something (anything) coming from absolutely nothing.

Add to that his further point of everything coming together in randomly accidental ways to bring about the incredibly complex yet orderly system of the universe and life we have today for no particular scientific reason is truly beyond mind-boggling.

I mean, what is the chance that you can take all the letters of the alphabet a million times each, put it in a large container to shake them up in some random fashion, then spill them on to the ground in a way that replicates the works of William Shakespeare?

If you did that exercise a google amount of times (1 followed by a million zeroes), just forming actual words randomly is an accomplishment, but could entire plays be formed by this method? Proper spacing and well formatted? Plays with a plot, moral conflict themes, character development, a logical progression of a beginning, middle, and end?

That is just an activity involving text only, but how much more complex is the logic exhibited in our universe as well as the intricate development of the human condition?

These are all questions I've come to wonder on my own, especially recently. I know religions offer various angles on it... ok, put that completely aside because that is a wholly different topic. This is truly an area in science that (while understanding there are no answers at this point) I constantly look for some sort of logical response that can somehow bring an ounce of understanding to how it all could be possible (lol, it is possible since we are here) when it clearly appears to be scientifically IMpossible.

BTW, I heard a bit ago that Hawkings will have a new book on the history of the universe out at some point. When I first started contemplating on these questions seriously, I considered reading his old one but will instead wait for this new release. It should be fascinating since he is considered one of the top big brains on the subject.

[SoCaLjAy]

Does the Big Bang theory actually say there was nothing? I'm not real familiar with all of the ideas, but I thought there was matter and molecules etc. Nothing implies the absence of any matter whatsoever. I think that is a misrepresentation of the theory. There was something that came together and formed something else.

[joeblow]

^^^ Good question, but besides the point of what the OP is asking. Speaking more generally, regradless of what scientific explanation is theorized, how is it possible to get absolutely everything from truly nothing (no time, no physics, no atoms, to light or darkness... nothing).

[ComputerBlue]

I saw this Ben Stein documentary on HBO or something recently, mainly looks at the consequences of even questioning evolution:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.
_________________
One man's trash is another man's treasure.

[Fan0Bynum17]

Science doesn't attempt to answer how something came from nothing. Something from nothing is something we all have to come to terms with unless you want to talk about the possibility of infinite regression, which to me is just a bogus way of dodging the question. Trying to pin science in the corner for not having an answer as to where the very first speck of matter came from is ridiculous because science never claimed it could answer that.

[Fan0Bynum17]

[joeblow]

How is it not? I'm not arguing in any of the questions I've posted... I'm just looking for leads that point to some logical, scientific direction that directly address these incongruencies.

The laws of the universe as we now understand it seem to clearly reject the notion that anything can be made from nothing. See that table over there? That's something. It is made of wood. That wood came from a tree. That tree grew from some kind of seed or acorn (dropped by an earlier tree).

That seed is made up of atoms, and at some point either those atoms (or the sub atomic particles that make up atoms) either came from nothing, or they always existed. Is there any other scientific possibility?

If they came from nothing, how can something come from nothing? If they always existed, then there is no true origin of everything, just an orgin of our collection of everything we call our universe. That part I can see (which allows for other concepts like other dimensions, etc.).

However, even beyond all that you still have the main issue asked.... how can everything always be in some kind of existance (existing even outside of the concept of time) even if you discount everything coming from nothing? Either one of those concepts seem to conflict in major ways with the laws of physics, mathmatecal principals, and other laws/theories commonly used as tools to explain the reality around us.

And if those tools that we use like physics, math, and science did not exist 'prior' to the Big Bang (I know, an oxymoron since there was no time prior to the Big Bang), how are those tools even accepted as part of the discussion for activities and events outside the scope of their abilities?

You don't use a thermometer to determine the speed of a lion. It is the wrong tool for the job. How can science explain a pre-science existence if science hadn't yet been invented, and therefore those scientific concepts clearly wouldn't apply?

[ecksor]

[DuncanIdaho]

We're still learning about the foundations of the universe and what it's made of. We shouldn't expect that our knowledge right now is absolute law. For example, we had no idea what quarks were 50 years ago. That's why scientific experiments using tools such as the LHC are so exciting.

[joeblow]

^^^ I agree! I am just asking about the resolution end of the movie even though the opening credits aren't yet over so the entire show can clearly spell it out. We're thousands of years from that, lol. The questions are completely rhetorical because, as you say, the answers aren't there.

However, specifically regarding the last paragraph I just edited in as you were posting, it is that "conclusion" that I am most eager to somehow get a sense of "answers" from some possibile scientific theories. I hope Hawkings new book will address these interesting issues directly.

[non-player zealot]

Paging Larry and John.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX!

[REPPIN 818]

This thread makes me want to move out of the United States to a European nation such as Sweeden. It's no wonder the rest of the world laughs at our stupidity and educational system as a whole.

[Fan0Bynum17]

[joeblow]

Ok, I see your point. In fact, you come to the same conclusion I did at the end of my post, two entries up. Science only goes so far. Once you discuss realities that science is not equipped to address, you have to use a different tool to evaluate.

But the main point is this: there are indeed REALITIES that exist where science is not equipped to address. That concept is what fascinates me the most.

So if we are talking internally, which is to say, all areas in which our science rules hold up, then we can call that 'Science B' for our discussion. For realities that exist outside of this internal universe of ours, and external science if you will, we can describe that as 'Science A'. Is that fair?

[tlim]

[Surfitall]

This whole discussion seems odd to me. Are we talking about evolution, or are we talking about the origins of the universe...or maybe a theory of everything.

Regarding the origins of the universe, science does not disregard the fact that we don't know what caused the big bang, or we don't know why it happened, but science has done a pretty good job of figuring out what happened right up until the very beginning of our universe. And scientists will continue to try to learn what caused the big bang in the first place...and if we ever figure that out, I'm sure we'll be figuring out what happened before that...it is a never ending scientific quest to understand our universe, why we are here, etc.

Evolution is a different topic from the origins of the universe in my opinion. I am no scientist, but c'mon now, this is one of the most studied theories in the history of science. There is a reason why those who claim that the theory of evolution is not right are ridiculed by the scientific community. Most of those that I'm aware of who discount the theory of evolution do so because of their "beliefs", not because of science.

And as long as we are talking about multiple scientific topics in one thread, I was watching this great show on Fractal Geometry which really made me start to wonder about how things grow, DNA, the simplicity and infinite complexity of life. What an amazing place we live.