http://www.slate.com/id/2143403/entry/0/

BTW, I have never really understood why one can be so confident in stating that one force “materialised” before the other in the first few fractions of a second after the big bang. It’s pure speculation, extreme extrapolation from mathematical models that are succesful in explaining very simple physical systems. What if the same degree of rigor that’s applied here to the theory of evolution were applied to cosmology? Having said that, it’s of course jolly good fun to speculate about these things.

Damn, the French are going to make it to the next round in the world cup.

I have never really understood why one can be so confident in stating that one force “materialised” before the other in the first few fractions of a second after the big bang.

Then you don’t understand the equations that describe matter and energy. -ds

Randy

Well, your moderation policy says nothing about identifying ourselves by our real names, or revealing our employers, if that is what you ask. I don’t know DaveScot’s or michaels7′s real names & locations, for example. But, whatever. A sufficiently curious person could google “wheatdogg” on the ‘net and come up with the info anyway.

My real name is John Wheaton, and I teach physics and sometimes astro and maths in Louisville, Kentucky. I maintain a blog at http://www.wheatdogg.com — the wheatdogg comes from a nickname my students gave me. If you want more details, you can visit my site.

High school physics. That explains the defense of the strength of gravity with the depth found in a high school physics text. -ds

True enough, I confess to a weak understanding of the finer points of biology, but as a scientifically trained “layman,” I do comprehend the basic principles of genetics and the conclusions of evolution. I am not an ignoramus — my board scores were pretty high, too, ds. The arguments for intelligent design do not convince me, so if you want to attach a label to me and call me a “darwinist,” then go ahead.

I still have questions for you all. First, what do you mean by “digitally programmed.” I would have identified biochemical processes as analog programs.

The genetic code is digital. It is a base 4 number system with digits 0, 1, 2, and 3 represented by adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. These are grouped into 3 digit words called codons. There are 64 possible combinations. Each codon corresponds to an entry in a lookup table which associates it with one of 20 amino acids. If you’re a digitial design engineer or programmer you are intimately familiar with lookup tables as they are one of the most common structures found in digital hardware and software. Certain sequences of codons mark the start and end of “coding” genes. Ribosomes, which are the protein assembly machines used by all cells, are fed RNA copies of coding genes. DNA is analogous to disk storage in computers (non-volatile, stable, slow) while the RNA copy is analogous to RAM (fast, volatile, temporary). The ribosome walks the sequence from start to finish translating each codon into the corresponding amino acid and attaching it to the end of an amino acid string (aka polymer, protein, enzyme). All living things use the same digital genetic code and ribosome to build proteins which can be thought of as the building blocks of life. There is nothing analog about it. In fact DNA and the ribosome together resemble nothing so much as a computer controlled pick & place machine cranking out identical 3 dimensional parts to specification from a set of 20 basic building blocks. A little robot building things out of 20 different lego blocks if you will. If you really were a “scientifically trained layman” with both biology and computer science under your belt I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. It’s basic biology and basic computer science along with bit of number theory to understand base 4. Anyone who’s taken introductory courses in both and can correlate it should grasp this without explanation. The problem with biologists is they generally don’t have a clue how digitally programmed machinery works and wouldn’t recognize one if it bit them on the ankle. There’s virtually no traditional biology in the genetic code and the construction of proteins. It’s factory automation which happens to be one my areas of professional expertise. I don’t pretend to know a whole lot about historical biology but I do know a whole lot about digital programs, machinery, and design of same and I know one when it bites me on the ankle no matter where it came from. -ds

You state, in part, “It’s an engineered system. It was designed. It’s not an illusion of design it’s really design.” Are you making this as an a priori assumption, or do you have experimental or observational support for the statement? And, more to my point, if you presume life has been engineered and/or designed, why not the universe as a whole? It is rather convenient that the universe developed in such a way to make our existence possible, no? Does that also suggest design, or not?

We can observe the expansion of the universe, and test the physics of the early universe in the lab. We are not able, however, to watch the formation of stellar systems in real time, anymore than we can observe macro-evolution in process. Yet, you are willing to accept (apparently) current models for galactic, stellar and planetary formation, but not the models for development of new species. Perhaps you are more confident in physics as a science than in biology?

You state, “I see you’re about finished with wanting a real discussion with that paragraph. You came here with a closed mind and an admitted lack of enough knowledge of biology to make a cogent defense of NDE. -ds”

You are drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence. Since you don’t know me, you have no right to accuse me of having a closed mind. I am confident that evolution is correct, but my mind is not entirely closed to ID arguments. Yet I am very skeptical of ID in general. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, right? I asked a legitimate question, but perhaps I was too sarcastic. You want laboratory verification of macro-evolution. OK. What kind of verification?

And one last thing. You said, “humanity is the end of the line for evolution.” Who says humans are the pinnacle of evolution? I am not sure any biologist would place us at the top of the “evolution pyramid.” AFAIK, evolution does not propose that organisms have evolved with the “purpose” to produce an intelligent, tool-making species. It happened, but there are no guarantees it could happen again.

I really don’t have the time to continue your education in this manner. You know too much to take my word for things without argument and too little to have any chance of making any points in your arguments. -ds

Gravity rules the macroscopic structure and motion of matter in the universe today. If it isn’t strong enough to halt or reverse the expansion then eventually comes the Big Rip (as opposed to the Big Crunch) where in the last instant even atoms are destroyed as their subatomic particles fly apart due to the expansion of space. -ds

That’s the force given by gravity, and if you use kg for mass and meters for r, then the units that come out are in N.

Couloumb’s Law for the force between two point charges:
F = 1 / (4*pi*vacuum resistivity) * (q1 * q2) / r^2

Now, let us assume for a moment that we want to compare the two forces. In order to do this fairly, we ought to use the same values for all of the variables in the two equations which we can — in this case, r. Let’s just use an r = 1 meter. This gets rid of the r^2 term in both equations.

Now, let’s set the two equations equal to one another and see what happens:
(m1 * m2) * G = 1 / (4*pi*vacuum resistivity) * (q1 * q2)

Let’s get rid of all of the constants:

(m1* m2) / (q1 * q2) = 1 / (G * 4 * pi * vacuum resistivity) = 1.3 * 10^20

What in the hell does this mean? It means that the ratio of multiplied masses to multiplied charges has to be 10^20 in order for the forces to be equal to one another. That’s the regime in which the forces can be equal. Obviously, you can do the algebra to see that the when charge is dissipated and mass built up enough in neutron stars, they do indeed surpass this ratio.

In this sense, Dave is right, in that inside neutron stars, gravity has overcome electromagnetism. Perhaps that is simply what he should’ve said to begin with, that the potential for gravity’s force to overcome the force of electromagnetism is there, so long as the ratio of m/q is high enough. That doesn’t mean that gravity “is stronger than” electromagnetism, of course, when we consider “non special cases”. For instance, do a simple calculation of the gravitational and electromagnetic force between a proton and neutron 1 m away from one another, and this is where the ratio originally cited by Kibitz in the comment above.

However, since the Chandrasekhar mass is only achieved in stars which can accumulate enough Fe56 to collapse inward, the “regime” is limited to stars which start out at least 15-30 solar masses, and go through stellar evolution, and arrive at a neutron star potentiality.

So, I don’t know what to conclude from here…Dave was right and wrong. It is *possible* for gravity to overcome the other forces, but it is, indeed, by far the weakest of the four in 99.99999% of the possible scenarios you can speculate on in our universe.

In the beginning gravity was not just the strongest force it was the only force if the big bang theory is correct. There was a gravitational singularity that contained all the mass/energy in the universe today. It wasn’t until after the universe expanded and cooled that the other three forces, in order of descending strength I might add, separated out from the single primordial force of gravity. The macroscopic structure of the universe today isn’t governed by the electromagnetic force or the strong or weak nuclear forces. The motions of planets, stars, and galaxies are governed by gravity and gravity alone. Again, gravity isn’t just the strongest force in that context, it’s the only force with any measurable effect in that context. And again, that context is the entire universe at the macro structural level. As to gravity in high density situations, the minimum mass of a black hole where gravity is not just the strongest force but the only force, is one Planck Mass, or the mass required to form a black hole with Schwarzchild radius of one Planck Length. The exact number escapes me but a flea is about 5000 Planck masses. As to whether this density regime is “normal” or not is a matter of speculation. Only about 5% of the known universe is composed of visible matter. Some 20% is dark matter and some 75% is dark energy. It’s quite possible that the dark matter is composed of primordial black holes and so in that case the normal state of matter is condensed into gravitational singularites while visible matter is simply froth on an ocean of dark matter and dark energy. Lay out those equations and cipher them, skiddlybop. -ds

“Only trivial mutations without significant natural selection value have been demonstrated in a lab and only small mutations that haven’t been shown to originate from blind chance but do have natural selection value have been observed outside the lab (bacterial resistance to antibiotics, finch beak size, moth wing color).”

I believe you’re slightly off on these points. First of all, a lot of mutations that have been produced in the lab have significant natural selection value. Antennipedia in Drosophila, for example – it’s hard to argue that this would not affect fitness.

Legs in place of antenna have selection value? Now you’ve gone from boring to stupid. -ds

Second, I’m unsure what you mean when you say that things like finch beak size have not been shown to originate from blind chance. If you are arguing that some directing force produced the variation on which the selective force of different foods or soot on treetrunks acted, then I should point out that that is not a very helpful position – for one thing, it’s unfalsifiable.

The mechanism for changing the size of finch beaks was already in the finch. Nothing randomly mutated. Finchs are hatched with varying beak sizes and if there’s any significant selection pressure smaller or larger will be preferred through differential reproduction. Changes in scale and cosmetics are routine adaptation and there’s nothing blind about the process – it’s ongoing and purposeful – a quick & direct response to the environment. No one ever talks about how Darwin’s finch beaks returned to normal size when the drought was over. -ds

Meanwhile, by demanding the demonstration of speciation in the laboratory, you are setting the bar unreasonably high. Evolutionary biology is barely 150 years old as a science, and speciation takes a lot longer than that. In any case, you already agree that speciation takes place in the wild!

Unreasonably high? So if you claimed that pigs had wings & could fly it would be unreasonable for me to ask for a demonstration? This is your last comment here. -ds

I confess you’ve confused me by saying that you have no problem with the idea of common descent. Presumably you have no problem with the idea of inherited variation (if you do, I have a Moravian monk handy who would like a word) – your sticking point seems to be that you have a rather different concept of mutation from most biologists.

You’re confused alright but I wasn’t the cause. -ds

I think you’ve probably got me wrong. I have no problem at all with descent from a universal common ancestor. I think the evidence of it is quite compelling. Many ID proponents share that view. Where we have a problem is that we don’t believe the digitally programmed molecular machinery resident in every living cell could have possibly assembled itself. It’s an engineered system. It was designed. It’s not an illusion of design it’s really design. The illusion, and a rather shallow illusion it is, is that this engineered system came about by chance. -ds

Sure, we have duplicated on a micro level the energy density conditions of the early universe. We have have verified experimentally the predictions of the electroweak and electronuclear unification theories. No one has yet produced a black hole or a neutron star in the lab (fortunately, I would say), nor do we have any firm idea of what constitutes dark matter and dark energy. Yet, you guys seem to have no problems, apparently, extrapolating from small-scale experimental results to the theory of the Big Bang — the theory of the evolution of the universe.

That’s because the Big Bang isn’t a self-replicating machine driven by a digitally coded program so complex it makes the space shuttle and the whole Kennedy Space Center look like a crude tinkertoy contraption in comparison. The evolution of the universe can be observed in large measure because the speed of light limitation lets us look back in time and our theories of physics are complete enough to trace everything with mathematical precision to many decimal places back to picoseconds after the big bang. The evolution of life is nothing like that. We have imprints in rocks to work with and everything else is inference. Biological evolution can’t be duplicated in any manner, it can’t be repeated, it can’t be observed, and it can’t be predicted. We can predict the evolution of stars and galaxies, their motions, where they’ve been and where they’re going with high precision. We can predict crap about where evolution is going. It can’t even be demonstrated that evolution is still happening! Man is the most recent mammal species and there hasn’t been a new genus of any kind in millions of years. As far as anyone can actually demonstrate humanity is the end of the line for evolution and nothing but new varieties of existing species accompanied by massive extinction is what’s happening today and forever more. -ds

Meanwhile, you reject evolution and the equally inferential evidence for it out of hand, and demand some kind of laboratory proof that macro-evolution occurs. What would satisfy you, an entirely new species of animal created by some kind of accelerated environmental or population pressure in the lab? Voila! The pushme-pullyu! A talking pig!

I see you’re about finished with wanting a real discussion with that paragraph. You came here with a closed mind and an admitted lack of enough knowledge of biology to make a cogent defense of NDE. -ds

Can you offer a laboratory experiment or result that verifies Design as the motivator for biologic diversity? You argue the negative — against evolution — at length. Can you argue the positive — experimental verification of Design — as well?

Or to approach the issue from a different tack: do you also contend that the Big Bang and the resulting universe result from Design? If you do, and you accept the available experimental and observational evidence support the Big Bang, then why not apply the same acceptance to the available evidence for evolution?

And DaveScot, you have not answered my question regarding any formal schooling in physics or astro. Just a reminder.

I had all the formal training in electromagnetic theory the military has to offer which is substantial plus a number of college classes after the military but I didn’t learn anything in the college classes that I hadn’t already learned on my own. I think it’s your turn to tell us about yourself now. You can start out with your real name and where you work. If your next comment doesn’t include that information you can take a hike since that’s the way you want to play.

“If you have problems with the theory of evolution, do you also have problems with the theory of the Big Bang and the evolution of the universe? The two theories parallel each other in many ways, and detractors can and do argue that they find the evidence for the Big Bang less than compelling. Yet I detect an acceptance of the Big Bang theory here.”

I know you were commenting on gravity. That’s what I find so interesting. How you and others defend so dramatically gravity issues better than RM macro-evolution experiments in the lab.

Shouldn’t that cause one to pause – for a moment – and at least reconsider the current state of science in regards to macro-evolution? It appears dismal in comparison to other areas of science.

Glen could not adequately defend macro-evolution in the lab. That’s my point in rebuttal to his original post here. By sidestepping the original faults with experimental macro-evolution, Glen has successfully changed the topic of Coulter’s original and evidently devastating target.

That macro-evolutionist have failed in the lab. Its a valid statement of current science trends.

You’re making my point along with Glen. He avoided the real issue. And while you enjoy responding to Dave, we still have no real answer. I stated Glen could not answer honestly questions put forward about macro-evolution experiments in the lab as pointed out initially by Ann Coulter.

The fact that so many are now jumping in on this conversation about gravity, but cannot answer the pointed questions from Ann Coulter, should tell you something about the state of real macro-evolution science.

This is not any kind of personal attack. But macro-evolution science is in big trouble if it cannot respond adequately to a Satirist comments in a book, let alone genetic scientist, etc., who doubt macro-evolution for all the diversity we see on this planet.

In regards to your comment in comparison about the Big Bang. This is a typical non-answer response and no different than Glen’s attempts to avoid at all cost the real issue of lab experiments with macro-evolution.

He derides Coulter, but does not answer her question.

My views on Big Bang, the universe, pulsars, dark energy, quantum mechanics, relativity, Bugs Bunny or Dr. Seuss have nothing to do with failure of Glen’s response to Coulter.

As was pointed out – again. His answer sidesteps the real questions in this debate. You can argue gravity all you want. I’m merely pointing out the comfort level you have on such a subject as opposed to macro-evolution lab experiments.

The fact Coulters question was never addressed head on is proof enough to me, no one has a real answer to the problems of macro-evolution. At least not yet, nor in the future with regards to RM as a mechanism for such new creation. If they did they could point to successful lab experiments, or even possible promising areas in the future. The truth is RM as a mechanism is an utter failure in the lab due to its unpredictability.

RM creates a dead end for experimentation. True success is in Design. There’s no way to get around this issue. Its the Big Pink Elephant. The Fluffy Wabbit.

Glen’s sidetrack issue about gravity, this protesting over gravity, the attacks on Dave Scott’s abilities, etc., is just a smoke screen in response to Dave. Although Dave can easily defend himself, it just continues to shine light away from the failures of McEvo.

My point again to you and to Glen in his original response here. This has nothing to do with macro-evolution in the lab. You know it, Glen knows it and Panda people know it, or you, anyone else would point to real world experiments of macro-evolution that succeed, is repeated and verifiable by other independent labs.

If macro-evolution is true, then Time has nothing to do with recreating it in a lab. If so, scientist would not attempt all the fruit fly experiments. In an earlier post I specified a scientist is replicating bladders for use in original donor patients. It takes 40 days for the initial cells to grow before they surgically implant the new bladder in the original donor. This is successful science, not just done in the lab, but done real time, real success with living people far past initial experimental stages on animals or insects.

Once again, evolution does not enter the equation for such breakthru science. Dr. Skell pointed this out and he is being vindicated again and again despite critics charges against him and vitriolic hatred thrown at him by the likes of PZ.

Likewise, McEvo’s should eventually morph a new species. You should be able to apply RM&NS mechanisms for successful experiments. If RM&NS are the great mechanism claimed, it should produce. McEvo so far has failed. Because Glen could not point to any success, he sidetracked the real problem and pointed to another area in science to make comparisons as if in the future RM experiments will produce. But this just muddies the water, just like you did to me about Big Bang.

I’m merely continuing to point out there are no good answers coming back from the other side. I desire real answers. That’s not to much to ask. I’m open minded about this. Show me evidence and I’ll accept it. But please, do not show me species variations due to natural selection that are nothing more than superficial traits within species. Show me real evidence of experimental success utilizing RM.

My contending belief is scientist will Design new species before RM works in a lab.

Because as they continue to explore and discover life on the molecular and nano level they will discover new laws governing living systems. These will be clearly defined steps(not Random Mutations), easy to duplicate(once fully understood), programmable, assisted by math and physics with respect to folding of proteins, signaling, cell structure, thermodynamic process, etc.

Enjoy your discussion on gravity. Meanwhile, macro-evolution and RM experiments remain like black holes on the horizon.

Check this out…

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/NationalIQs.html

Poland ranks third in Europe for highest average IQ (108) behind #1 Holland and #2 Germany.

We can observe and monitor species in the wild, just as astronomers can observe stars in space – the products of evolution. We can use the fossil record to find out what species used to exist – just as astronomers use nebulas to deduce that stellar events happened in the past. In fact, given that microevolution has been observed in the lab, I’d say that biological evolution is on firmer ground than stellar evolution. I’m just unclear why different standards of proof apply to animals than to stars.

Not to rub it in, but Cramer didn’t say exactly what you did. In the sentence you omitted, he said exactly the opposite. You missed out his qualification “in some ways”, which rather alters the sense. Take this passage: “An infant is the most harmless creature imaginable. But in some ways, an infant is more lethal than a cruise missile. Death in childbirth kills millions of women every year.” If you were to opine that CHILDREN ARE MURDERERS and quote the passage as “an infant is more lethal than a cruise missile”, I’d regard that as dishonest – wouldn’t you?

You’re beginning to bore me. I said (comment #13):

If there is enough mass in a small enough space gravity overwhelms all the other forces of nature. You aren’t calling for comparing objects of equal mass. You are calling for comparing objects of low mass. Gravity is additive and works over large distances. Given enough mass in a small enough space it overwhelms all the other forces of nature. It’s really a matter of regimes. I was just correcting Glen when he called gravity a weak force. In high mass regimes gravity is the strongest of all the forces. In low mass regimes it is the weakest. One can’t really can’t call gravity weak or strong without qualification.

This is essentially what Cramer stated. He “In some ways” and I “it’s a matter of regimes”.

Stellar evolution is based on the behavior of matter at high temperatures and densities. Fusion isn’t a theoretical behavior, it’s been verified in the laboratory. Fusion is a fundamental aspect of stellar evolution. The higher temperatures and densities up through supernova and neutron stars have been explored in particle accelerators. Even quark soups have been created. In evolution a fundamental claim is that random mutation and natural selection can work together to create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. This has not been demonstrated in a lab. Not only have these largest of claims (excluding abiogenesis which is the biggest fairy tale of all) not been demonstrated in a lab, even the smaller claim of speciation has not been demonstrated in a lab. Indeed, the mechanism driving evolution hasn’t been observed to cause any of the larger claims in OR OUT of a laboratory. Only trivial mutations without significant natural selection value have been demonstrated in a lab and only small mutations that haven’t been shown to originate from blind chance but do have natural selection value have been observed outside the lab (bacterial resistance to antibiotics, finch beak size, moth wing color). If you can’t acknowledge this as the truth you are either stupid, ignorant, or insane (or wicked but I’d rather not consider that). -ds