NationStates Jolt Archive

Would any of you anti religious folks like to explain to me what "theoretical physics" is? I see people saying science only deals with the physical universe. Then explain to me how string theory is a theory when it hypothesises 11 dementions? How does gravity effect time? When did time begin? Is science allowed to ask these questions? Will evolution eventually cause intellegent machines to come into existence? Why does life age? As far as I know there is no concrete evidence to explain aging cells.
Gravity has a measurable effect on the physical universe, so the speculation that it has some sort of physical form, as yet undectectable, is not unreasonable, and is scientific in that it can someday be proven or disproven. If it is disproven that it has a physical form, i.e. if its demonstrated that something immaterial can physically affect the material world, then a lot of our understanding of the world will have to be revised. Scientific method may fall away altogether, then, and be replaced with a new method.

The effect of aging is a different thing. Time is not so much an effect of an observable physical thing so much as an accumulation of changes (if the universe were in stasis, there would be no time). Time is both a concept of the "dimension" of these changes, and the phenomenon of changing. The concept exists because these changes in animated things are detectable; no one knows why the phenomenon exists.

Another thing, when you say g-d can not be proven or disproven with science, why not?

Another thing, when you say g-d can not be proven or disproven with science, why not?

How would you go about to prove god?

How would you go about to prove god?

Measuring him... My measuring tape says...uhm...zero... so no god.

Another thing, when you say g-d can not be proven or disproven with science, why not?

G-d, as a creator of the universe (I assume that by g-d, you are referring to a Judeo-Christian type deity), would, by definition, be outside the rules of the universe and, indeed, outside the universe itself. Such a being would have created the rules and thus would not be bound by them.

Science can only deal with that which is within the universe - and that which is bound by the rules of the universe. Anything supernatural is, by definition, outside the realm of science.

I just saw posts about measureable effect. Why can't a devine being have a measurable effect on the universe? Why can't science look at original cause? Isn't original cause a measurable effect?

I would like to take your faith in evolution to a test. What do you think about the different human races? Do you guys believe some are more evolved than others? If so, do you believe it is morally responsible to keep less evolved races alive? Ever heard of eugenics? Is there a superior race? If so, why shouldn't it wipe out or enslave the less evolved? Is there a moral component of evolution? After all, it does say that nature wipes out the weak right? Why won't evolutionists ever take the further step of following evolution to a logical though politically incorrect step of classifiing races according to there place on the evolutionary ladder? Why wouldn't a weaker race seek to destroy a superior one? Or are we all of the exact same race? In other words, does evolution explain economic circumstances of Africa, of Asia, of Europe?

Come on, science has to have a theory, right?

You can't measure God because he has the ability to make himself not show up on the tests.

Who is this G-d character?

I just saw posts about measureable effect. Why can't a devine being have a measurable effect on the universe? Why can't science look at original cause? Isn't original cause a measurable effect?

I would like to take your faith in evolution to a test. What do you think about the different human races? Do you guys believe some are more evolved than others? If so, do you believe it is morally responsible to keep less evolved races alive? Ever heard of eugenics? Is there a superior race? If so, why shouldn't it wipe out or enslave the less evolved? Is there a moral component of evolution? After all, it does say that nature wipes out the weak right? Why won't evolutionists ever take the further step of following evolution to a logical though politically incorrect step of classifiing races according to there place on the evolutionary ladder? Why wouldn't a weaker race seek to destroy a superior one? Or are we all of the exact same race? In other words, does evolution explain economic circumstances of Africa, of Asia, of Europe?

Come on, science has to have a theory, right?

Again, you misunderstand how evolution works.
The different human races are not superior nor inferior to each other, they are just each adjusted to their environment.
Africans have a high melatonin count in their skin due to the high amount of UV radiation their skin has to cope with. Europeans - getting far less sun - don't need that. Melatonin needs a certain vitamin to develope, so Europeans have less skin pigmentation and therfore need less of said vitamin to keep their skin in balance.

No superiority nor inferiority. It's like asking if an ice bear or a lion are more "evolved" and therefore superior to one another.

I just saw posts about measureable effect. Why can't a devine being have a measurable effect on the universe?

A divine being could have a measurable effect on the universe. Problem is, we would have no way of knowing that the effect came from outside the universe - being unable to measure anything outside the universe. Thus, there would be no way to demonstrate that such an effect was, in fact, coming from a divine being.

Why can't science look at original cause?

Original cause is, by definition, outside the universe, and thus outside the logical realm of science.

Isn't original cause a measurable effect?

No. What happens just after the original cause can be measured. The cause itself cannot, as it lies outside the universe.

I would like to take your faith in evolution to a test.

Anyone who has faith in evolution is looking at it from a blatantly unscientific viewpoint and is pretty much useless in a discussion like this.

What do you think about the different human races?

In truth, there is no such thing. There is more genetic variance within a given ethnicity than there is between them. Human beings have never been genetically isolated enough to develop true races. Thus, there are no biological races in human beings.

Do you guys believe some are more evolved than others?

The fact that you ask this question demonstrates that you do not understand the theory of evolution. There is no "more evolved" and "less evolved." Everything has evolved. Thus, a bacteria is no less evolved than a human being - they simply evolved in different ways. Even if there were different races to speak of, we could not possibly delineate one as less evolved than the others. They would simply have evolved differently.

After all, it does say that nature wipes out the weak right?

No, it doesn't. Natural selection says that the most fit (not necessarily the strongest, but the most fit) will survive longer and have more offspring, pushing the species in that direction.

I just saw posts about measureable effect. Why can't a devine being have a measurable effect on the universe? Why can't science look at original cause? Isn't original cause a measurable effect?
How do you look at god?

How do you look at god?
By closing your eyes.

By closing your eyes.

*tries*
i dont see anything,take from that what you will.

*tries*
i dont see anything,take from that what you will.
Try closing your eyes but looking to the left. There in the corner! That's Him.

Lol, I tried closing my eyes and not seeing anything. Didn't work. I see colors and keep thinking of things that can't possibly be there.

Ok I change my phaseology from weakest to most fit. I fail to see the difference.

If a devine being acted on something within the universe and time that could be measured, right? To answer "how do you look at g-d." I would say, try mathematics. How do scientists come up with 11 demensions? Mathematics right.

Intelligent design is crap. No one can defend the theory in an academic setting, so it needs to go away. Also, anyone that buys that crap shouldn't be using computers. It's hypocritical. "Oh, I don't think science is right, but I'll use tools that are a product of it to make my meaningless existence pass with less effort."

Ok I change my phaseology from weakest to most fit. I fail to see the difference.

If you can't even get that bit, you'll never understand the theory of evolution.

If a devine being acted on something within the universe and time that could be measured, right?

I already answered this, my dear. Is reading really that hard for you?

We could measure the effect - yes. However, we would have no way of measuring what caused the effect. Thus, we would still not know that it was a divine being acting upon it. As far as we could measure, it would all come from within the universe.

To answer "how do you look at g-d." I would say, try mathematics.

You put together a logical mathematical proof of g-d, and submit it for peer review. We'll see how it fairs.

How do scientists come up with 11 demensions? Mathematics right.

Yes, and measurement. The thing is, 11 dimensions, if they exist, would be within the physical universe and would thus be measurable.

Meaningless existence huh? Try telling that to my wife and kids who depend on my income. Tell that to my kids whose very existence are completely reliant upon my dna.

The original question is "is intellegent design a theory?" Yes it is. Scienctists have proposed it. You can say scientists don't like it, but, you are wrong. Scientists have proposed it. We are talking about a theory. It even has a name. How does a theory have a name if it isn't a theory. Let me guess, hypothesis? Right?

The original question is "is intellegent design a theory?" Yes it is. Scienctists have proposed it. You can say scientists don't like it, but, you are wrong. Scientists have proposed it. We are talking about a theory. It even has a name. How does a theory have a name if it isn't a theory. Let me guess, hypothesis? Right?
No, it's not a theory. To say so shows profound ignorance of how science operates. Theories must be falsifiable. ID isn't.

Meaningless existence huh? Try telling that to my wife and kids who depend on my income. Tell that to my kids whose very existence are completely reliant upon my dna.

The original question is "is intellegent design a theory?" Yes it is. Scienctists have proposed it. You can say scientists don't like it, but, you are wrong. Scientists have proposed it. We are talking about a theory. It even has a name. How does a theory have a name if it isn't a theory. Let me guess, hypothesis? Right?

No, religionists have proposed it. No true scientist would ever call something inherently untestable a "theory."

Said scientist MAY be gracious enough to dignify ID with the title of "hypothesis" (not likely, but it's possible), but that is all it will ever be.

Meaningless existence huh? Try telling that to my wife and kids who depend on my income. Tell that to my kids whose very existence are completely reliant upon my dna.

The original question is "is intellegent design a theory?" Yes it is. Scienctists have proposed it. You can say scientists don't like it, but, you are wrong. Scientists have proposed it. We are talking about a theory. It even has a name. How does a theory have a name if it isn't a theory. Let me guess, hypothesis? Right?

Wrong ID is not a scientific theory. First of all in order for it to be a theory it has to have a hypothesis. There are two main things that are required for something to be a hypothesis. It has to be testable and it has to be falsifiable. How can you test god or even falsify it? You cant. Secondly if ID is a Scientific Theory where are all the peer reviewed articles in scientific journals? I doubt you will find one.

The original question is "is intellegent design a theory?" Yes it is.

It is a lay-theory, as in "an idea."

It can quite clearly be shown to not be a scientific theory, which has much more stringent requirements.

Scienctists have proposed it.

Not in their capacity as scientists. This is like saying, "I met a mathematician the other day and he said that he had an orange bluebird. This must mean that bluebirds are mathematically orange!"

In the capacity as a scientist, a scientist can only propose a scientific theory. The fact that these people, a few of whom happen to have technical degrees, have proposed a lay-theory does not automatically make it a scientific theory, any more than everything that comes out of a mathematician's mouth is automatically mathematics. Every word the pope says is not a papal bull. Everything Bush says is not an executive order.

Meaningless existence huh? Try telling that to my wife and kids who depend on my income. Tell that to my kids whose very existence are completely reliant upon my dna.

The original question is "is intellegent design a theory?" Yes it is. Scienctists have proposed it. You can say scientists don't like it, but, you are wrong. Scientists have proposed it. We are talking about a theory. It even has a name. How does a theory have a name if it isn't a theory. Let me guess, hypothesis? Right?
Can you tell me the differences between a hypothesis and a theory? I bet you can.

If a devine being acted on something within the universe and time that could be measured, right? To answer "how do you look at g-d." I would say, try mathematics. How do scientists come up with 11 demensions? Mathematics right.
Mathmatics prove god? Must have missed that equation. Sorta like super calculus or something?

Can you tell me the differences between a hypothesis and a theory? I bet you can.

OOOOO!! ... OOOOO!!! I know I KNOW!!!

1) Hypothesis: Statement of a potential explanation for observed events

2) Theory: a falsifiable hypothesis that has passed a large number of independent, repeatable experimental tests and has yet to be contradicted by a repeateble experiment.

Therefore, when a ID advicate proposes a falsifiable hypothesis and gets mutliple, independent, repeatable experimental tests to support it, ID will be a theory. Until then it's not. If you want to be accepted by science you have to play by the rules of science, so quit complaining and get cracking on those falsifiable hypotheses and experimental tests.

Ok, did the big bang happen. If so, can it be replicated in a lab? The big bang can't be replicated so is it ok for that to be a theory? Can the Big Bang be falsified? Can the cause of the Big Bang be tracked since it is outside of the present universe? Is the Big Bang a theory?

It would be possible to recreate the Big Bang in a lab. It would require a machine to generate a singularity, which we don't have. It is possible though. A machine to create God? Where do you start.

Hehehehe. Deux ex machina. Takes on a whole new meaning then.

Ok, did the big bang happen. If so, can it be replicated in a lab? The big bang can't be replicated so is it ok for that to be a theory? Can the Big Bang be falsified?

The Big Bang is a falsifiable hypothesis because it makes predictions: 1) The Universe is expanding and galaxies are getting farther away from each other (check, all observations and experiements agree on this) 2) It predicts microwave background radiation at specific levels throughout the Univeses (check, all observations and experiments agree on this) 3) It predicts that most the most abundant element of the Universe should be Hydrogen followed by Helium (Check, all observations and experiments agree on this) 4) It predicts a certain patern for stellar and galactic evolution (Check, all observations and experiments agree on this). So that's 4 falsifiable statements (of the top of my head) that multiple experiments have supported. How many does ID have? (Note: My religious views TOTALLY agree with ID; however, I am fully aware of the difference between religious faith and scientific theories)

Remember this, the effects of prayer have been measured as beneficial in medical treatment. I realize this may have to do with emotional states of patients but it has also seemed to have effects on people that didn't know they were being prayed for.

Ok, did the big bang happen. If so, can it be replicated in a lab? The big bang can't be replicated so is it ok for that to be a theory? Can the Big Bang be falsified? Can the cause of the Big Bang be tracked since it is outside of the present universe? Is the Big Bang a theory?
The nucleosynthesis caused by the big bang, for one. Yes, it is a theory.

Remember this, the effects of prayer have been measured as beneficial in medical treatment. I realize this may have to do with emotional states of patients but it has also seemed to have effects on people that didn't know they were being prayed for.

Conclusions:

Some past studies have shown that prayer promotes healing. However, none have reached the level of certainty required to produce confidence that a real effect is being observed. Many of the studies have been defective in their organization, so that researcher or subject bias affected the results. The first large double-blind study has shown that prayer does not aid or inhibit healing.

Some of the studied performed to date have involved multi-faith teams involved in intercessory prayer. For example, the Targ study involved Jewish, Native American, perhaps a follower of the New Age, and probably others. The MANTRA study involved Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and perhaps others. It might be revealing to further analyze the data to differentiate among the various religions followed by the prayer groups. Conceivably, prayers from followers of one or more of the religions could be shown to be more effective that the others. That would be a remarkable result! It might give some insight into the nature of God: whether God prefers one religion over others, or all religions equally.

It is unlikely that any study into the effectiveness of prayer will fully convince everyone. If a properly designed study were conducted which proved beyond reasonable doubt that prayer works, the results would profound effect on both religion and medicine. It would force scientists and physicians to review their basic understanding of the universe.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical4.htm

Remember this, the effects of prayer have been measured as beneficial in medical treatment. I realize this may have to do with emotional states of patients but it has also seemed to have effects on people that didn't know they were being prayed for.

Link please: and remember REPEATABLE experiements so we need at least 3 or 4.

(Here is another question, did the faith of the prayer matter?)

Ok, did the big bang happen.

Good question. If you could give a definitive answer, we wouldn't need science.

If so, can it be replicated in a lab? The big bang can't be replicated so is it ok for that to be a theory?

It doesn't have to be replicated. It has to be testable. These are not the same thing. As others have demonstrated, the Big Bang Theory is testable - and is falsifiable.

Can the Big Bang be falsified?

Yes. The falsification of any one component of the theory would falsify the theory - causing it to either be altered to fit all existing data, or thrown out altogether.

Can the cause of the Big Bang be tracked since it is outside of the present universe?

Presuming that the Big Bang truly is the beginning of the universe, it's cause would be outside the universe, and thus could not be measured in any way. The best we could possibly ever do would be to get the exact situation at the exact instant of the Big Bang. Anything before that would be impossible to measure.

Is the Big Bang a theory?

There is a Big Bang Theory, yes.

Remember this, the effects of prayer have been measured as beneficial in medical treatment. I realize this may have to do with emotional states of patients but it has also seemed to have effects on people that didn't know they were being prayed for.

This is, unfortunately, untrue. A few small scale studies have shown promising, but not statistically significant results. The one larger scale study that seemed to have signficant results was found to have been improperly run, with the investigators compiling and unblinding the results and finding nothing, then going back and searching for any and every correlation they *might* find, finally finding one, and then proclaiming it the conclusion of the study - which had nothing to do with that factor in the first place.

Remember this, the effects of prayer have been measured as beneficial in medical treatment. I realize this may have to do with emotional states of patients but it has also seemed to have effects on people that didn't know they were being prayed for.
Actually, no they haven't. A double blind medical study requires a control group. How do you ensure that nobody prays for a group of sick people? If they have any friends or family at all to pray for them they aren't a control group.

No one will ever be able to say "this proves/disproves the existance of God. Proof denies faith, which is the basic foundations of free will.

for evidence of God's exsistance, other than what I have previously posted, i would say any favorable statistical anomoly. Like i said, evidence not proof

No one will ever be able to say "this proves/disproves the existance of God. Proof denies faith, which is the basic foundations of free will.

for evidence of God's exsistance, other than what I have previously posted, i would say any favorable statistical anomoly. Like i said, evidence not proof
Like?

Big Bang falsified mathematically. 0+0=0. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For the Big Bang to take effect there had to be matter in the first place. Matter can be measured, so, why can't we measure before the Big Bang.

"I pity the man who says there isn't a Supreme Being…every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Albert Einstein

Julian Huxley estimated the mathematical odds of evolution happening to be one chance in 1,000 to the millionth power (i.e., 1 followed by three-million zeros). Others have arrived at similar conclusions. Mathematical studies on the probability that one single protein molecule could have formed by chance has proved unfathomable. French scientist Lecomte du Noy showed its probability to be one chance in 10243. Swiss mathematician Charles E. Guye calculated it as 1 chance out of 10160. Murray Eden of MIT and Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris both concluded that their computers showed evolution to be impossible

Big Bang falsified mathematically. 0+0=0. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For the Big Bang to take effect there had to be matter in the first place. Matter can be measured, so, why can't we measure before the Big Bang.

"I pity the man who says there isn't a Supreme Being…every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Albert Einstein
Physical laws don't apply before the existance of a physical universe. Sorry dude, you haven't disproved anything.

So you are telling me there was no matter before the physical universe. What about the Big Crunch theory? Why can't we measure that?

"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school."
Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980

Big Bang falsified mathematically. 0+0=0. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For the Big Bang to take effect there had to be matter in the first place.
And perhaps there was matter in the first place. But if current theories are correct, and I am understanding them correctly, there is not a way to know what happened before the Bang.
Matter can be measured, so, why can't we measure before the Big Bang.
We can't measure because the universe as we know it did not exist. Perhaps there was a universe in existance before it, but as far as I know, information wouldn't be reserved through the Bang.
"I pity the man who says there isn't a Supreme Being…every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Albert Einstein
Ooh, I love the Einstein Quoting Game!!

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

Big Bang falsified mathematically. 0+0=0. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For the Big Bang to take effect there had to be matter in the first place. Matter can be measured, so, why can't we measure before the Big Bang.

From my physics teacher: "Everything you will learn in this class is wrong. However, that is okay, because it works for everyday life. When you approach the level of interaction between particles, most laws and theories we have today in physics (dealing with matter as we experience it) fall apart, the same when you move backwards in time."

Julian Huxley estimated the mathematical odds of evolution happening to be one chance in 1,000 to the millionth power (i.e., 1 followed by three-million zeros). Others have arrived at similar conclusions. Mathematical studies on the probability that one single protein molecule could have formed by chance has proved unfathomable. French scientist Lecomte du Noy showed its probability to be one chance in 10243. Swiss mathematician Charles E. Guye calculated it as 1 chance out of 10160. Murray Eden of MIT and Marcel Schutzenberger of the University of Paris both concluded that their computers showed evolution to be impossible
Except it has had over a million chances to reform. Please, do feel free to cite some sources. Permit me:
Computer simulations since have shown just the opposite of what Wilder-Smith claimed. In fact, genetic algorithms, which use evolutionary principles of mutation, recombination, and natural selection, are used routinely in industry to solve complex problems (Heitkötter and Beasley 2000; Koza et al. 2003). Artificial life simulating evolution on a computer evolves complex features (Lenski et al. 2003).


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

So you are telling me there was no matter before the physical universe. What about the Big Crunch theory? Why can't we measure that?
Wait, how can we test for something that hasn't happened yet? Could you explain what you mean by 'measure the Big Crunch theory'?
"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school."
Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980
A quote from a magazine does not prove anything. I could find magazines saying that the world was going to end on New Years of 2000, but that wouldnt't make it any more or less true.

Seeing as it has been almost 25 years since that quote was printed, and evolution is still the most widely accepted theory of origin within the scientific community that I know of, I would assume that either the assertion of the quote was false, or that assuming it was true, the theory was changed to fit the facts.

So you are telling me there was no matter before the physical universe. What about the Big Crunch theory? Why can't we measure that?
What about the big crunch theory? What do you want to measure?

Returning to your previous point. The fact is that the law stating that matter can't be created or destroyed breaks down at the quantum level. It's fine on the level of big objects, like people and planets, just as Newton's laws of motion work well there, but on the level of the very small they cease functioning. There is mathematical evidence and some experimental evidence that a vacuum isn't completely empty, but actually particle/aniparticle pairs spontaneously come into existence and soon after are mutually destroyed. The experiment in question involves two extremely thin pieces of metal foil placed an infinitessimal distance appart which spontaneously slap together due to the formation of the particle/antiparticle pairs between them displacing the metal foil.

Also, one of the arguments of creationists requires that physical laws and constants be set at the beginning of time (big bang). The argument is along the lines of "The universe is finely tuned to support life. If the constants and laws of the universe were set slightly differently at the moment of the universe's creation life couldn't happen. The odds against such an occurence are incredibly high, therefore it's logical to assume that god created it for the purpose of human life."

You'll find few people willing to back your proposition that the big bang couldn't have happened because it violates physical laws. Scientists won't back it because there simply were no physical laws before the universe formed, creationists won't back it because it undermines one of their favorite arguments.

So you are telling me there was no matter before the physical universe. What about the Big Crunch theory? Why can't we measure that?

"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school."
Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980
Quit citing things without sourcing them. Besides, you honestly think a quote (most likely of a quote) you've mined from NEWSWEEK carries more weight then the whole of the scientific community, who, you know, actually study this stuff?

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Einstein quote mining? Is that the best you can do? Go home troll.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
[tangent]The thing about this is that Einstein is damn hard to pin down religiously. Sometimes he seems to deny the concept of a God, sometimes he seems agnostic on it, and sometimes he seems religious.

Perhaps this Einstein quote best sums it up?:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

You'll find few people willing to back your proposition that the big bang couldn't have happened because it violates physical laws. Scientists won't back it because there simply were no physical laws before the universe formed, creationists won't back it because it undermines one of their favorite arguments.

What do you mean there were no physical laws? Prove that one.

You are right. Einstein is hard to pin down on religious issues. I believe it is because he didn't want to be ridiculed by other scientists. Peer presure as it were. Biologists tend to be less religious than physicists. At least that is what I have heard.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
The facts tend to refute Einstein's claim that "everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe."

Scientists, particularly the elite in their fields, tend to be more atheist than the general population.

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html


. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.


Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.



Of course this means nothing. Science is concerned with the study of the natural, and god is by definition supernatural, so science can't comment on the existance of god.

What do you mean there were no physical laws? Prove that one.

Before the universe there was nothing at all. Not even time and space. Without the existence of time, space, matter, or energy, there can be no meaningfull laws regulating them. There wasn't even a gravitational constant. There was no gravity. In fact, it's kinda dumb to talk about "before the big bang" because since time started then there was no "before".

Read some books about different theories regarding the formation of the universe. Try Steven Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell". It's alot easier to understand than his "Brief History of Time", which is confusing.

The largest problem that I have with those who take a very litteral veiw of creationism it at they seem to have a level of arrogance in saying "we believe in this and if you believe differently, you are wrong." Truely hard hard core creationsist, like many in the Catholic Church, seem to think that they are smarter than God Himself. Believing that if they can't understand it, or its not expressly discribed in whatever holy book they belive in, then its just not possible.

The largest problem that I have with those who take a very litteral veiw of creationism it at they seem to have a level of arrogance in saying "we believe in this and if you believe differently, you are wrong." Truely hard hard core creationsist, like many in the Catholic Church, seem to think that they are smarter than God Himself. Believing that if they can't understand it, or its not expressly discribed in whatever holy book they belive in, then its just not possible.
They can't seem to take "We don't know for sure yet" as an answer. Either you know it all right now, or they expect you to agree with them that god must have done it. Where does that leave the quest for knowledge?

The largest problem that I have with those who take a very litteral veiw of creationism it at they seem to have a level of arrogance in saying "we believe in this and if you believe differently, you are wrong." Truely hard hard core creationsist, like many in the Catholic Church, seem to think that they are smarter than God Himself. Believing that if they can't understand it, or its not expressly discribed in whatever holy book they belive in, then its just not possible.Too true... How can anyone believe someone that wrote the bible had a language capable of expressing creation in scientifically sound terms?

I thought History in a Nutshell was harder to understand than A Brief History of Time. You ever read The Ellegant Universe. I can't remember who the author is but it is the last one I read. I tried to find it but my wife isn't a big reader is constantly moving my stuff. She rearranged all my books and now I'm about to kill her.

Oh by the way CS, why don't you stop trolling. Every post you have here is an insult. As an adult I don't think I will respond to you after this response. You fundamentalist you.

What do you mean there were no physical laws? Prove that one.

It is only logically possible to apply the laws of the universe to the universe. Outside of it, some of they may apply. Some may not. None may apply. All but one may apply. In the end, we can't possibly know.

You are right. Einstein is hard to pin down on religious issues. I believe it is because he didn't want to be ridiculed by other scientists. Peer presure as it were.

Bull. Atheists are just as much of a minority in science (biology or otherwise) as any other field. In other words, they are vastly outnumbered.

. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

First off, old religiosity studies like this one are relatively useless. The questions they used at the time referred only to personal gods like the Judeo-Christian idea of God. Eastern religions were completely baffled by the questions, and there was no room for deism or agnosticism.

Secondly, not listing a religious denomination does not equate to atheism. Neither does not believing in an afterlife. The only question you could ask to get an answer on whether or not someone is atheist is, "Do you believe in any sort of deity?"

Edit: Another of the big problems in religiosity studies is that every person defines "religion" differently. To some, you have to attend church to be religious, so they will say they are not religious even though they do, indeed, believe in a god and certain things about that god. Many have adopted the, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual," mantra - when the two really aren't any different if we get down to the core of the words. Many people feel that if they are not a member of a particular organized denomination of a religion, they are not religious people - which really doesn't follow.

Too true... How can anyone believe someone that wrote the bible had a language capable of expressing creation in scientifically sound terms?

So I suppose you can read the ancient texts. Brilliant post man.

I thought History in a Nutshell was harder to understand than A Brief History of Time. You ever read The Ellegant Universe. I can't remember who the author is but it is the last one I read. I tried to find it but my wife isn't a big reader is constantly moving my stuff. She rearranged all my books and now I'm about to kill her.

Oh by the way CS, why don't you stop trolling. Every post you have here is an insult. As an adult I don't think I will respond to you after this response. You fundamentalist you.
Quit mining quotes and citing random articles out of context and without sources, then maybe you won't be called a troll.

My religion is a creationist one, so I support intelligent design.

That's right, I'm a Flying Spaghetti Monsterist.

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

facepwnt, Kansas.

I thought History in a Nutshell was harder to understand than A Brief History of Time. You ever read The Ellegant Universe. I can't remember who the author is but it is the last one I read. I tried to find it but my wife isn't a big reader is constantly moving my stuff. She rearranged all my books and now I'm about to kill her.

Oh by the way CS, why don't you stop trolling. Every post you have here is an insult. As an adult I don't think I will respond to you after this response. You fundamentalist you.
I never went out an bought The Ellegant Universe. Is it any good?

I thought History in a Nutshell was harder to understand than A Brief History of Time. You ever read The Ellegant Universe. I can't remember who the author is but it is the last one I read. I tried to find it but my wife isn't a big reader is constantly moving my stuff. She rearranged all my books and now I'm about to kill her.

Oh by the way CS, why don't you stop trolling. Every post you have here is an insult. As an adult I don't think I will respond to you after this response. You fundamentalist you.

I thought History in a Nutshell was harder to understand than A Brief History of Time. You ever read The Ellegant Universe. I can't remember who the author is but it is the last one I read. I tried to find it but my wife isn't a big reader is constantly moving my stuff. She rearranged all my books and now I'm about to kill her.

Oh by the way CS, why don't you stop trolling. Every post you have here is an insult. As an adult I don't think I will respond to you after this response. You fundamentalist you.
Hey, lookit, you've discovered the copy and paste function. Maybe next you'll learn how to read a biology text!

Hey, lookit, you've discovered the copy and paste function. Maybe next you'll learn how to read a biology text!

What is this copy and paste function you speak of? :rolleyes:

It is only logically possible to apply the laws of the universe to the universe. Outside of it, some of they may apply. Some may not. None may apply. All but one may apply. In the end, we can't possibly know.



Bull. Atheists are just as much of a minority in science (biology or otherwise) as any other field. In other words, they are vastly outnumbered.



First off, old religiosity studies like this one are relatively useless. The questions they used at the time referred only to personal gods like the Judeo-Christian idea of God. Eastern religions were completely baffled by the questions, and there was no room for deism or agnosticism.

Secondly, not listing a religious denomination does not equate to atheism. Neither does not believing in an afterlife. The only question you could ask to get an answer on whether or not someone is atheist is, "Do you believe in any sort of deity?"

Edit: Another of the big problems in religiosity studies is that every person defines "religion" differently. To some, you have to attend church to be religious, so they will say they are not religious even though they do, indeed, believe in a god and certain things about that god. Many have adopted the, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual," mantra - when the two really aren't any different if we get down to the core of the words. Many people feel that if they are not a member of a particular organized denomination of a religion, they are not religious people - which really doesn't follow.
Like I said toward the end of my post, it's irrelevent. Science is a tool to study the natural world and god is by definition supernatural so science can't comment on it. I only posted those studies to counter an Einstein quote that said that anyone seriously studying science becomes convinced that there is an intelligence guiding everything.

What is this copy and paste function you speak of? :rolleyes:
It's the one that proves God exists, of course.

It's the one that proves God exists, of course.

Man and here I was hoping it would help me find the pirates burried treasure. Damn it all to hell then. :rolleyes:

Like I said toward the end of my post, it's irrelevent. Science is a tool to study the natural world and god is by definition supernatural so science can't comment on it. I only posted those studies to counter an Einstein quote that said that anyone seriously studying science becomes convinced that there is an intelligence guiding everything.

A spirit within the laws of the universe is not necessarily an "intelligence guiding everything." In fact, in other quotes, Einstein seems to make it quite clear that he does not at all believe in the latter (and by inference, we can say that he doesn't believe that anyone seriously studying science would necessarily believe it either). Most of Einstein's quotes seem to point to him kind of deifying existence itself - that Nature and God were one in his view.

I thought History in a Nutshell was harder to understand than A Brief History of Time. You ever read The Ellegant Universe. I can't remember who the author is but it is the last one I read. I tried to find it but my wife isn't a big reader is constantly moving my stuff. She rearranged all my books and now I'm about to kill her.

Oh by the way CS, why don't you stop trolling. Every post you have here is an insult. As an adult I don't think I will respond to you after this response. You fundamentalist you.

The author of The Elegant Universe is Brian Greene, I believe. I only read a little of it before misplacing it myself, but I remember liking that much

A spirit within the laws of the universe is not necessarily an "intelligence guiding everything." In fact, in other quotes, Einstein seems to make it quite clear that he does not at all believe in the latter (and by inference, we can say that he doesn't believe that anyone seriously studying science would necessarily believe it either). Most of Einstein's quotes seem to point to him kind of deifying existence itself - that Nature and God were one in his view.
Doesn't a "spirit within the laws of the universe" imply some sort of being? When I think of spirit I think supernatural being.

Sorry about that double post. I don't even know how I did it. Yea, it is a great book I wish I could find in now. I especially like the way he explains string theory. To me string theory is the voice of g-d. They are like musical notes. I wanted to use it.

On another note, If you want to read a particularly good one "The Seven Mysteries of Life." By Guy Murchie is great. Probably my favorite.

What about they new theories that worm holes can't be used to bend time and space the way scientists had hypothesized. I am in to big a hurry now so I can't really explain that further. Work is calling. Maybe later when I have time.

Too true... How can anyone believe someone that wrote the bible had a language capable of expressing creation in scientifically sound terms?

Exactly. if I showed someone 200 years ago a time lapse film of the history of the earth, they would probably discribe it much the same way that it was in genisis. Now show the same thing to someone 5,000 or 6,000 years ago.

To me, and many people, science is the exploration of creation. i still have not seen how one can prove or disprove the other.

Doesn't a "spirit within the laws of the universe" imply some sort of being? When I think of spirit I think supernatural being.

It implies some sort of being, yes. It does not, however, directly imply an intelligent being, or one that interferes with the regular workings of the universe. It could be the workings themselves - deified. It could be one that resides within the universe, but does not interfere with them at all - a part of them, as it were.

When we start delving into the metaphysical, we can't make any assumptions about what someone means when they use words like "spirit", "spiritual", "religious", or even "god". We have to be incredibly clear on exactly what that particular person means, or we could be missing the point altogether.

This is exactly why religiosity studies are so difficult. They are pretty much always skewed by the view the creator of the survey has on religion. This is why, for a very long time, the religiosity surveys used didn't measure eastern religions at all. The preconceived notions of those making the surveys were Western. Many studies today are skewed by the fact that many polled now consider "spiritual" and "religious" to be different, with "religious" meaning "worships under a particular denomination and goes to church all the time." These types of things are incredibly hard to pin down.

To me, and many people, science is the exploration of creation.

We scientists realize, however, that this is a religious belief, not a scientific view. A scientific view can neither assume creation nor assume that creation did not occur.

i still have not seen how one can prove or disprove the other.

They cannot. They are in separate realms. It is exactly because science cannot possibly disprove creation that creation itself is an unscientific idea.

In the beginning was the Word. That to me makes string theory really seem like the voice of G-d.

Not all religious jews believe in an afterlife. That is in response to an earlier post from somebody.

It implies some sort of being, yes. It does not, however, directly imply an intelligent being, or one that interferes with the regular workings of the universe. It could be the workings themselves - deified. It could be one that resides within the universe, but does not interfere with them at all - a part of them, as it were.

When we start delving into the metaphysical, we can't make any assumptions about what someone means when they use words like "spirit", "spiritual", "religious", or even "god". We have to be incredibly clear on exactly what that particular person means, or we could be missing the point altogether.

This is exactly why religiosity studies are so difficult. They are pretty much always skewed by the view the creator of the survey has on religion. This is why, for a very long time, the religiosity surveys used didn't measure eastern religions at all. The preconceived notions of those making the surveys were Western. Many studies today are skewed by the fact that many polled now consider "spiritual" and "religious" to be different, with "religious" meaning "worships under a particular denomination and goes to church all the time." These types of things are incredibly hard to pin down.
Yeah, and to me that's a good reason not to get too involved with them.

We scientists realize, however, that this is a religious belief, not a scientific view. A scientific view can neither assume creation nor assume that creation did not occur.



They cannot. They are in separate realms. It is exactly because science cannot possibly disprove creation that creation itself is an unscientific idea.

but it is a view that does not prevent a person of deep faith from wanting to learn all they can about how the world around them works. Which is what science attemps to explain.

It is exactly because science cannot possibly disprove creation that creation itself is an unscientific idea.

I don't understand what this means. Is it fact that is outside of science, because creation is a fact or what? I am not trying to be flippant I genuinely don't understand what you mean. Or, should I say, why not? Could science prove that creation isn't exactly what we percieve?

Sorry, now I really must leave for work. I have to phase some electrical signals.

I don't understand what this means. Is it fact that is outside of science, because creation is a fact or what? I am not trying to be flippant I genuinely don't understand what you mean. Or, should I say, why not? Could science prove that creation isn't exactly what we percieve?

Sorry, now I really must leave for work. I have to phase some electrical signals.
Science requires a theory to be somehow testable. For example, look at evolution. One can make predictions based on evolutionary theory and then see if those predictions are borne out by observation and experimentation. For evolution to work Darwin knew that there had to be a mechanism to transfer traits that can sometimes make copying errors and introduce changes. Many years later we found the DNA molecule.

Creationism can't be tested because it relies on a supernatural explanation, God, which is not limited by physical law and therefore can't be tested.

Remember this, the effects of prayer have been measured as beneficial in medical treatment. I realize this may have to do with emotional states of patients but it has also seemed to have effects on people that didn't know they were being prayed for.

Could you provide a link to that specific study?

So I suppose you can read the ancient texts. Brilliant post man.

So, you would expect ancient Arameic, Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Latin to contain vocabulary to scientificly explain such matters?
The most sofisticated of those, Greek, came up with the word "atom", but that's where it ended, really. No going into further detail.

I don't understand what this means. Is it fact that is outside of science, because creation is a fact or what? I am not trying to be flippant I genuinely don't understand what you mean. Or, should I say, why not? Could science prove that creation isn't exactly what we percieve?

Sorry, now I really must leave for work. I have to phase some electrical signals.

Science only deal with the natural, not with the supernatural.
To prove or disprove anything, it has to be a physical reality, it has to be objectively observable and falsifyable. If that is not the case, it is not scientific.
The problem with creationsim and ID is that both are trying to pass themselves off as science without meeting any of the criteria.
It's a bit like cheating in a test and still demanding to get it recognised...

More to consider this post with ...


*ahem*

Human Brain Is Still Evolving
Sep 9, 2005, 18:08

“Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution - the growth of brain size and complexity - is likely still going on. If our species survives for another million years or so, I would imagine that the brain by then would show significant structural differences from the human brain of today.”

By Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving. They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language. The research team, which was led by Bruce T. Lahn, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of Chicago, published its findings in two articles in the September 9, 2005, issue of the journal Science.

Their analyses focused on detecting sequence changes in two genes - Microcephalin and “abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated” (ASPM) - across different human populations. In humans, mutations in either of these genes can render the gene nonfunctional and cause microcephaly - a clinical syndrome in which the brain develops to a much smaller size than normal.

In earlier studies of non-human primates and humans, Lahn and his colleagues determined that both Microcephalin and ASPM showed significant changes under the pressure of natural selection during the making of the human species. “Our earlier studies showed that Microcephalin showed evidence of accelerated evolution along the entire primate lineage leading to humans, for the entire thirty to thirty-five million years that we sampled,” he said. “However, it seemed to have evolved slightly slower later on. By contrast, ASPM has evolved most rapidly in the last six million years of hominid evolution, after the divergence of humans and chimpanzees.”

In order to identify sequence changes that occurred in Microcephalin and ASPM in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, Lahn and his colleagues took the following approach: They determined the DNA sequences of the two genes among a large number of primate species and searched for sequence differences between humans and nonhuman primates. By doing statistical analysis on these sequence differences, they could demonstrate that the differences were due to natural selection that drove significant sequence changes in the lineage leading to humans. These changes accumulated presumably because they conferred some competitive advantage.

The evidence that Microcephalin and ASPM were evolving under strong natural selection in the lineage leading to humans led Lahn and his colleagues to consider exploring whether these two genes are still evolving under selection in modern human populations. “In the earlier studies, we looked at differences that had already been set in the human genome,” he said. “The next logical question was to ask whether the same process is still going on today, given that these genes have been under such strong selective pressure, leading to the accumulation of advantageous changes in the human lineage. If that is the case, we reasoned we might be able to see variants within the human population that are rising in frequency due to positive selection, but haven't gone to completion yet.”

The researchers first sequenced the two genes in an ethnically diverse selection of about 90 individuals. The researchers also sequenced the genes in the chimpanzee, to determine the “ancestral” state of polymorphisms in the genes and to assess the extent of human-chimpanzee divergence.

In each gene, the researchers found distinctive sets of polymorphisms, which are sequence differences between different individuals. Blocks of linked polymorphisms are called haplotypes, whereby each haplotype is, in essence, a distinct genetic variant of the gene. They found that they could further break the haplotypes down into related variants called haplogroups. Their analysis indicated that for each of the two genes, one haplogroup occurs at a frequency far higher than that expected by chance, indicating that natural selection has driven up the frequency of the haplogroup. They referred to the high-frequency haplogroup as haplogroup D.

When the researchers compared the ethnic groups in their sample for haplogroup D of ASPM, they found that it occurs more frequently in European and related populations, including Iberians, Basques, Russians, North Africans, Middle Easterners and South Asians. That haplogroup was found at a lower incidence in East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans and New World Indians. For Microcephalin, the researchers found that haplogroup D is more abundant in populations outside of Africa than in populations from sub-Saharan Africa.

To produce more informative statistical data on the frequency of haplotype D among population groups, the researchers applied their methods to a larger population sample of more than one thousand people. That analysis also showed the same distribution of haplogroups.

Their statistical analysis indicated that the Microcephalin haplogroup D appeared about 37,000 years ago, and the ASPM haplogroup D appeared about 5,800 years ago - both well after the emergence of modern humans about 200,000 years ago. “In the case of Microcephalin, the origin of the new variant coincides with the emergence of culturally modern humans,” said Lahn. “And the ASPM new variant originated at a time that coincides with the spread of agriculture, settled cities, and the first record of written language. So, a major question is whether the coincidence between the genetic evolution that we see and the cultural evolution of humans was causative, or did they synergize with each other?”

Lahn said that the geographic origin and circumstances surrounding the spread of the haplogroups can only be surmised at this point. “One can make guesses, but our study doesn't reveal how these positively selected variants arrived," he said. "They may have arisen in Europe or the Middle East and spread more readily east and west due to human migrations, as opposed to south to Africa because of geographic barriers. Or, they could have arisen in Africa, and increased in frequency once early humans migrated out of Africa.”

While the roles of Microcephalin and ASPM in regulating brain size suggest that the selective pressure on the new variants may relate to cognition, Lahn emphasized that this possibility remains speculative. “What we can say is that our findings provide evidence that the human brain, the most important organ that distinguishes our species, is evolutionarily plastic,” he said. Finding evidence of selection in two such genes is mutually reinforcing, he pointed out. “Finding this effect in one gene could be anecdotal, but finding it in two genes would make it a trend. Here we have two microcephaly genes that show evidence of selection in the evolutionary history of the human species and that also show evidence of ongoing selection in humans.”

Lahn emphasized that it would not be correct to interpret the findings as indicating that one ethnic group is more “evolved” than another. Any differences among groups would be minor compared to the large differences in such traits as intelligence within those groups, he said. “We're talking about the average impact of such variants,” he said. “We still have to treat each individual as an individual. Just because you have one gene that makes you more likely to be a little taller, doesn't mean you will be tall, given the complex effect of all your other genes and of environment.” Lahn also said that a multitude of other genes likely exist that influence brain size and development, and further research could reveal far more complex effects of natural selection on such genes.

Lahn speculated that the new findings suggest that the human brain will continue to evolve under the pressure of natural selection. “Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution - the growth of brain size and complexity - is likely still going on. If our species survives for another million years or so, I would imagine that the brain by then would show significant structural differences from the human brain of today.”

For both Microcephalin and ASPM, Lahn and his colleagues are trying to find out the precise traits that are under natural selection. They are also performing more detailed studies of the two genes in human populations to better understand their evolutionary history. And they are searching for other brain-related genes that have changed under the pressure of natural selection. “We want to know how broad a trend these two genes represent,” said Lahn. “Did we get really lucky and hit on two rare examples of such genes? Or, are they representative of many other such genes throughout the genome. I would bet, though, that we will find evidence of selection in a lot more genes.”

More to consider this post with ...


*ahem*

Human Brain Is Still Evolving
Sep 9, 2005, 18:08

“Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution - the growth of brain size and complexity - is likely still going on. If our species survives for another million years or so, I would imagine that the brain by then would show significant structural differences from the human brain of today.”

By Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving. They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language. The research team, which was led by Bruce T. Lahn, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of Chicago, published its findings in two articles in the September 9, 2005, issue of the journal Science.

Their analyses focused on detecting sequence changes in two genes - Microcephalin and “abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated” (ASPM) - across different human populations. In humans, mutations in either of these genes can render the gene nonfunctional and cause microcephaly - a clinical syndrome in which the brain develops to a much smaller size than normal.

In earlier studies of non-human primates and humans, Lahn and his colleagues determined that both Microcephalin and ASPM showed significant changes under the pressure of natural selection during the making of the human species. “Our earlier studies showed that Microcephalin showed evidence of accelerated evolution along the entire primate lineage leading to humans, for the entire thirty to thirty-five million years that we sampled,” he said. “However, it seemed to have evolved slightly slower later on. By contrast, ASPM has evolved most rapidly in the last six million years of hominid evolution, after the divergence of humans and chimpanzees.”

In order to identify sequence changes that occurred in Microcephalin and ASPM in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, Lahn and his colleagues took the following approach: They determined the DNA sequences of the two genes among a large number of primate species and searched for sequence differences between humans and nonhuman primates. By doing statistical analysis on these sequence differences, they could demonstrate that the differences were due to natural selection that drove significant sequence changes in the lineage leading to humans. These changes accumulated presumably because they conferred some competitive advantage.

The evidence that Microcephalin and ASPM were evolving under strong natural selection in the lineage leading to humans led Lahn and his colleagues to consider exploring whether these two genes are still evolving under selection in modern human populations. “In the earlier studies, we looked at differences that had already been set in the human genome,” he said. “The next logical question was to ask whether the same process is still going on today, given that these genes have been under such strong selective pressure, leading to the accumulation of advantageous changes in the human lineage. If that is the case, we reasoned we might be able to see variants within the human population that are rising in frequency due to positive selection, but haven't gone to completion yet.”

The researchers first sequenced the two genes in an ethnically diverse selection of about 90 individuals. The researchers also sequenced the genes in the chimpanzee, to determine the “ancestral” state of polymorphisms in the genes and to assess the extent of human-chimpanzee divergence.

In each gene, the researchers found distinctive sets of polymorphisms, which are sequence differences between different individuals. Blocks of linked polymorphisms are called haplotypes, whereby each haplotype is, in essence, a distinct genetic variant of the gene. They found that they could further break the haplotypes down into related variants called haplogroups. Their analysis indicated that for each of the two genes, one haplogroup occurs at a frequency far higher than that expected by chance, indicating that natural selection has driven up the frequency of the haplogroup. They referred to the high-frequency haplogroup as haplogroup D.

When the researchers compared the ethnic groups in their sample for haplogroup D of ASPM, they found that it occurs more frequently in European and related populations, including Iberians, Basques, Russians, North Africans, Middle Easterners and South Asians. That haplogroup was found at a lower incidence in East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans and New World Indians. For Microcephalin, the researchers found that haplogroup D is more abundant in populations outside of Africa than in populations from sub-Saharan Africa.

To produce more informative statistical data on the frequency of haplotype D among population groups, the researchers applied their methods to a larger population sample of more than one thousand people. That analysis also showed the same distribution of haplogroups.

Their statistical analysis indicated that the Microcephalin haplogroup D appeared about 37,000 years ago, and the ASPM haplogroup D appeared about 5,800 years ago - both well after the emergence of modern humans about 200,000 years ago. “In the case of Microcephalin, the origin of the new variant coincides with the emergence of culturally modern humans,” said Lahn. “And the ASPM new variant originated at a time that coincides with the spread of agriculture, settled cities, and the first record of written language. So, a major question is whether the coincidence between the genetic evolution that we see and the cultural evolution of humans was causative, or did they synergize with each other?”

Lahn said that the geographic origin and circumstances surrounding the spread of the haplogroups can only be surmised at this point. “One can make guesses, but our study doesn't reveal how these positively selected variants arrived," he said. "They may have arisen in Europe or the Middle East and spread more readily east and west due to human migrations, as opposed to south to Africa because of geographic barriers. Or, they could have arisen in Africa, and increased in frequency once early humans migrated out of Africa.”

While the roles of Microcephalin and ASPM in regulating brain size suggest that the selective pressure on the new variants may relate to cognition, Lahn emphasized that this possibility remains speculative. “What we can say is that our findings provide evidence that the human brain, the most important organ that distinguishes our species, is evolutionarily plastic,” he said. Finding evidence of selection in two such genes is mutually reinforcing, he pointed out. “Finding this effect in one gene could be anecdotal, but finding it in two genes would make it a trend. Here we have two microcephaly genes that show evidence of selection in the evolutionary history of the human species and that also show evidence of ongoing selection in humans.”

Lahn emphasized that it would not be correct to interpret the findings as indicating that one ethnic group is more “evolved” than another. Any differences among groups would be minor compared to the large differences in such traits as intelligence within those groups, he said. “We're talking about the average impact of such variants,” he said. “We still have to treat each individual as an individual. Just because you have one gene that makes you more likely to be a little taller, doesn't mean you will be tall, given the complex effect of all your other genes and of environment.” Lahn also said that a multitude of other genes likely exist that influence brain size and development, and further research could reveal far more complex effects of natural selection on such genes.

Lahn speculated that the new findings suggest that the human brain will continue to evolve under the pressure of natural selection. “Our studies indicate that the trend that is the defining characteristic of human evolution - the growth of brain size and complexity - is likely still going on. If our species survives for another million years or so, I would imagine that the brain by then would show significant structural differences from the human brain of today.”

For both Microcephalin and ASPM, Lahn and his colleagues are trying to find out the precise traits that are under natural selection. They are also performing more detailed studies of the two genes in human populations to better understand their evolutionary history. And they are searching for other brain-related genes that have changed under the pressure of natural selection. “We want to know how broad a trend these two genes represent,” said Lahn. “Did we get really lucky and hit on two rare examples of such genes? Or, are they representative of many other such genes throughout the genome. I would bet, though, that we will find evidence of selection in a lot more genes.”

I support the theory of Evolution here, but...

You know, some people are just going to try and point out that the scientists admit that much further studies are gonna be needed to prove anything.

I support the theory of Evolution here, but...

You know, some people are just going to try and point out that the scientists admit that much further studies are gonna be needed to prove anything.

Exactly right...and right there is the difference between ID and Science. With science, the learning and study never cease. Theories are constantly sharpened and refined. Science is self-correcting.

Exactly right...and right there is the difference between ID and Science. With science, the learning and study never cease. Theories are constantly sharpened and refined. Science is self-correcting.

Ha, at least you get that. Do they?

I'm not so sure...

but it is a view that does not prevent a person of deep faith from wanting to learn all they can about how the world around them works. Which is what science attemps to explain.

Of course it doesn't prevent someone of faith from going into science. It just means that such a person must realize that the knowledge they gain from science and the knowledge they gain from religion are in two separate realms. Both are useful to one of faith (so long as the faith is strong and not based in disprovable ideas), but a scientist has to know that their faith is not a part of their science, although their science may be a part of their faith.


I don't understand what this means.

The scientific method works by either disproving hypotheses, or supporting them by not disproving them. Every experiment either disproves the hypothesis, or supports it. However, a hypothesis that cannot logically be disproven, such as the existence or non-existence of a deity, or the idea that such a deity created the universe, is outside of science precisely because it cannot be disproven. There is no experiment that could be devised, no measurement that could be taken that could possibly disprove any of these ideas. Thus, they cannot be studied using science.

Is it fact that is outside of science, because creation is a fact or what?

You cannot, with 100% certainty, say that creation is fact. You can believe that a deity created everything. You can have faith in that idea. However, you cannot demonstrate or even provide logical evidence for creation. It all comes down to faith.

Could science prove that creation isn't exactly what we percieve?

Science could disprove certain things that a given creation story might say. For instance, if there was a religion which posited that the world was created 10 years ago, we could point to evidence that the world has, in fact, been around for longer than 10 years. Now, a religious person could then say, "God just made it look that way to trick you," but such a supposition would not be a logical one - nor would it be scientific. Thus, science would hold that the 10-years theory was disproven.

I support the theory of Evolution here, but...

You know, some people are just going to try and point out that the scientists admit that much further studies are gonna be needed to prove anything.
Well, much study is required in (IMO) all fields. Keeps us from getting stupid, corrupt, and ... well, fundamentally conservative.

Science only deal with the natural, not with the supernatural.
To prove or disprove anything, it has to be a physical reality, it has to be objectively observable and falsifyable. If that is not the case, it is not scientific.
The problem with creationsim and ID is that both are trying to pass themselves off as science without meeting any of the criteria.
It's a bit like cheating in a test and still demanding to get it recognised...

You might be surprised at how much evolutionary theory gets passed off as science, while much of it cannot be observed or falsified. By your definition of science, you have just discarded evolutionism as non-science.

I think you are confusing theory with experimentation. ID does not include a designer in its experiments, just its theory, much like evolutionism does not measure macroevolution in its experiments, but does rely on it in its theory.

You might be surprised at how much evolutionary theory gets passed off as science, while much of it cannot be observed or falsified. By your definition of science, you have just discarded evolutionism as non-science.

I think you are confusing theory with experimentation. ID does not include a designer in its experiments, just its theory, much like evolutionism does not measure macroevolution in its experiments, but does rely on it in its theory.

Evolution predicts various things about what should be observed if macroevolution occurs. Fossil records of progressive steps in species, fossil records showing a trend from simple to complex life forms as rock strata go from older to younger, genetic similarities between closely related species (including non-functional genes and 'junk' DNA), morphological similarites between similar species etc.. All of which have been observed in numerous examples.

Science could disprove certain things that a given creation story might say. For instance, if there was a religion which posited that the world was created 10 years ago, we could point to evidence that the world has, in fact, been around for longer than 10 years. Now, a religious person could then say, "God just made it look that way to trick you," but such a supposition would not be a logical one - nor would it be scientific. Thus, science would hold that the 10-years theory was disproven.

Actually, just a point, science can't disprove anything that as of yet remains unproven. So technically, no science can't disprove any creation myths, because none of them have been proven.

If schools want to teach "alternatives" to evolution along with evolutionary theory, then that's fine, as long as they don't just teach "intelligent design" as outlined in the Judeo-Christian bible. They should teach creation stories from other religious traditions, such as that of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm)

If schools want to teach "alternatives" to evolution along with evolutionary theory, then that's fine, as long as they don't just teach "intelligent design" as outlined in the Judeo-Christian bible. They should teach creation stories from other religious traditions, such as that of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm)

Rock on! :D killer argument

You might be surprised at how much evolutionary theory gets passed off as science, while much of it cannot be observed or falsified. By your definition of science, you have just discarded evolutionism as non-science.

I think you are confusing theory with experimentation. ID does not include a designer in its experiments, just its theory, much like evolutionism does not measure macroevolution in its experiments, but does rely on it in its theory.

The Theory of Evolution is science. They take data, make hypotheses, test the hypotheses and adjust the theory as necessary as new information emerges from the data. The information is observable, falsifiable, and verifiable on both micro and macro levels.

Where are the experiments supporting anything ID claims? They simply say things like, "Look at the flagellum of a Paramecium. It's complex, obviously intelligent design."

And science retorts:
"No evolutionary theorist would suggest that something as complex as the flagellum appeared ab initio. Instead, it was assembled from parts that developed for other uses. For example, some molecules produce energy by rotating, a normal procedure within cells. Other molecules have a shape that makes them ideal for moving across cell membranes. The flagellum's building blocks include both types of molecules. Instead of being assembled from scratch, then, the flagellum is put together from a stock of already existing parts, each of which evolved to carry out a completely different task. The flagellum may be complicated, but it is not irreducibly complex.

The problem with ID , at least so far, is that when statement like the one claiming irreducible complexity for the flagellum are put to the test, they turn out to be wrong.

That's an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education - 9/2/2005

Could you provide a link to that specific study?
A simple websearch provides a few links that indicate specific studies at Duke University and some skepticism.
http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=5056
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2004_01_15/article29.html
http://www.stg.montereyherald.com/mld/mcherald/living/religion/12239467.htm

Actually, just a point, science can't disprove anything that as of yet remains unproven. So technically, no science can't disprove any creation myths, because none of them have been proven.

That is a completely illogical statement.

One can only disprove something which has neither been proven nor disproven. If it has been proven, then it is impossible to disprove it - as it is absolutely correct.

That is a completely illogical statement.

One can only disprove something which has neither been proven nor disproven. If it has been proven, then it is impossible to disprove it - as it is absolutely correct.

Okay. Good point. I should say, you cannot disprove something for which no evidence exists in either case. In this language, many things can be neither proven nor disproven. My apologies for not being clear the first time.

Okay. Good point. I should say, you cannot disprove something for which no evidence exists in either case. In this language, many things can be neither proven nor disproven. My apologies for not being clear the first time.
Much evidence exists for myths. Oh wait... you were talking about evidence that they are literally true.

;)

Okay. Good point. I should say, you cannot disprove something for which no evidence exists in either case. In this language, many things can be neither proven nor disproven. My apologies for not being clear the first time.

Correct - which is why science never claims to have all the answers. Things like religion and ID are outside its scope.

That does not necesssarily mean ID is not true - it just means that for a scientist the "official" ID hypothesis, a parody like the spaghetti monstrum and things your neighbour said when he was high on shrooms have exactly the same status. All should be considered as equally valid assumptions.

Much evidence exists for myths. Oh wait... you were talking about evidence that they are literally true.

;)

Perhaps not "literally" true. Since half of history's information is colored in some way, myths fall into the same category

Correct - which is why science never claims to have all the answers. Things like religion and ID are outside its scope.

That does not necesssarily mean ID is not true - it just means that for a scientist the "official" ID hypothesis, a parody like the spaghetti monstrum and things your neighbour said when he was high on shrooms have exactly the same status. All should be considered as equally valid assumptions.

...or considered equally invalid. Then again I do equate Dr. Behe with a neighbor on shrooms. Of course, my neighbors are senior citizens who I'm sure would be entertaining.