Creation vs. Evolution

[Mark T]

Haha, nice idea - given that the first episode of 'Life' was subtitled "Challenges of Life", EastEnders could be used as an example of when it all goes horribly wrong...

👍

Just noticed that the BBC Shop has Planet Earth and Life in a Blu Ray boxset for £47.95 if you pre-order (released in November). I don't have the Planet Earth boxset so might treat myself to an early Christmas present. You can also get free postage and packaging by using the code BBCR08.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you see the behind the scenes on the making of planet earth, they said that one camera guy waited like 2 months or something in a rainforest to capture this bird's mating rituals (in the episode, the segment lasts about 2-3 mins)..... I think he deserves the patience award of the century!
Planet earth watched in anything less than 1080i/p just dosent make sense though... in standard definition, it becomes just another nature show...

Heh, I've been watching Planet Earth on DVD and on a laptop If I ever get an HD TV I'll probably go out and buy the series on Blu-Ray. Certainly wouldn't describe it as just another nature show though - even if the images aren't as spectacular, the subject matter still is.

And yeah, I rememember that episode - the guy spent nine hours a day in a hut barely big enough for himself and his camera for something like a month. I seem to remember they'd worked out he'd been in there for 160 hours or something ridiculous...

 

[mindwise]

Beautiful show [Life], one for the Blu-Ray collection me thinks.

👍

Definitely, it'll be a nice addition to the 'Planet Earth' blu ray i (too) already have.
The flying fish were great indeed, in 'Planet Earth' i remember they showed "climbing fish", also very interesting. (and nice to show to people who think a fish will never walk).

Thanks for the Heads up for 'Life' Mark, good catch

Especially since the "BBC Darwin Updates" email notification did not point me to it till the day after:

If you missed the first episode last night catch up now on BBC iPlayer
Grrr,
i thank my work for being able to set up a vpn tunnel to the UK, so i could actually watch it on the iPlayer.... (my dutch IP is locked out from accessing it).

 

[Alex.]

Revival. This has almost certainly been covered but I've come to the conclusion we live in a fishpond of sorts. The fish only knows about the pond it lives in and has very little idea of anything outside it, and cannot possibly comprehend anything further. Think of the universe as our fishpond. My father and I were discussing it today and it's a great theory, I think by Carl Sagan. I also watched a program the other day that illustrated the similarites between atomic structure and cosmological structure. The electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom like the planets orbit the centre of the solar system (their sun) and the solar systems in the galaxy orbit a giant black hole, (see galaxy creation). OK so the orbit pattern isn't strictly correct for atoms because we orbit our sun laterally (correct term?) and the electrons do not always follow suit inside an atom, but there is definitely a pattern.


Apologies for my crappy terminology.

 

[Dotini]

I've come to the conclusion we live in a fishpond of sorts. The fish only knows about the pond it lives in and has very little idea of anything outside it, and cannot possibly comprehend anything further.

Perhaps it's like saying we live in a vast ocean of ignorance, and only our little island flickers with the lamp of knowledge. Logic is a wonderful tool of understanding, and so is empirical investigation of what lies beyond.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

Revival. This has almost certainly been covered but I've come to the conclusion we live in a fishpond of sorts. The fish only knows about the pond it lives in and has very little idea of anything outside it, and cannot possibly comprehend anything further. Think of the universe as our fishpond. My father and I were discussing it today and it's a great theory, I think by Carl Sagan. I also watched a program the other day that illustrated the similarites between atomic structure and cosmological structure. The electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom like the planets orbit the centre of the solar system (their sun) and the solar systems in the galaxy orbit a giant black hole, (see galaxy creation). OK so the orbit pattern isn't strictly correct for atoms because we orbit our sun laterally (correct term?) and the electrons do not always follow suit inside an atom, but there is definitely a pattern.


Apologies for my crappy terminology.

One thing that has also plagued my mind and has kept me up thinking late at night, "Is their something bigger than the universe?" We often think smaller and smaller with atoms and quarks and whatever else is very small but is their something bigger? I mean wouldn't it be wild if our universe was only the size of an electron for something else?

 

[Alex.]

That's what I'm getting at. I really am thinking we have no idea at all how insignificant we are. IF we were alone in the universe and the planet was destroyed we'd be sitting there (well, we wouldn't, we'd be dead) saying wow we really didnt matter and never did. There would be a being above our level of existance that wasn't even aware our universe existed in the first place.

 

[Joey D]

That's what I'm getting at. I really am thinking we have no idea at all how insignificant we are. IF we were alone in the universe and the planet was destroyed we'd be sitting there (well, we wouldn't, we'd be dead) saying wow we really didnt matter and never did. There would be a being above our level of existance that wasn't even aware our universe existed in the first place.

Way to make me feel insignificant you jerk!

In all seriousness though you are right, if Earth was destroyed would it affect anything else? Probably not. The universe would continue on just as it had for billions of years. It's thoughts like this that really make me question whether or not there is a supernatural being.

 

[Richardrfo]

I saw a video a few weeks back, the final frame being a comparison of a brain cell and the universe, there's many similar shapes found in the structure of things throughout the universe, makes for an interesting watch.

 

[Perfect Balance]

One thing that has also plagued my mind and has kept me up thinking late at night, "Is their something bigger than the universe?" We often think smaller and smaller with atoms and quarks and whatever else is very small but is their something bigger? I mean wouldn't it be wild if our universe was only the size of an electron for something else?

I showed this to my buddy and he said it reminded him of Men in Black where at the end they were playing marbles with universes.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Uh, can we open an Existentialism thread plz?

 

[Famine]

OK so the orbit pattern isn't strictly correct for atoms because we orbit our sun laterally (correct term?) and the electrons do not always follow suit inside an atom, but there is definitely a pattern.

There would be if electrons worked that way.

Electron "orbits" aren't. They're 99% probability fields. For the other 1% they could be, and this is so mind-boggling I have to put it in italics, anywhere in the universe. Including inside the nucleus itself. Thanks to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can either tell you where they're about to be or where they are, but not both (in order to do so we'd have to know where every particle in the universe is, the direction it's going and how fast).

So if the pattern has the Earth spending 3.5 days a year at Jupiter's orbit, inside the Sun, in the Andromeda galaxy (you get the picture), then it's fine.


And that's to say nothing of all the moons orbiting the planets - electrons don't have anything orbiting them...

 

[Dotini]

Electron "orbits" aren't. They're 99% probability fields. For the other 1% they could be, and this is so mind-boggling I have to put it in italics, anywhere in the universe. Including inside the nucleus itself. Thanks to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can either tell you where they're about to be or where they are, but not both (in order to do so we'd have to know where every particle in the universe is, the direction it's going and how fast).

So if the pattern has the Earth spending 3.5 days a year at Jupiter's orbit, inside the Sun, in the Andromeda galaxy (you get the picture), then it's fine.

Famine, you have said this is mind-boggling, and so it is. In your opinion is it elegant? May I ask about your views of string theory and notions of multiple dimensions beyond the accepted four?

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Stevisiov]

I saw a video a few weeks back, the final frame being a comparison of a brain cell and the universe, there's many similar shapes found in the structure of things throughout the universe, makes for an interesting watch.

Do you think its trying to say we live in a fractal universe?

 

[Famine]

In your opinion is it elegant?

Elegance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

But no.

May I ask about your views of string theory and notions of multiple dimensions beyond the accepted four?

I believe I've posted about string theories - and their succession by M-theory - in this thread before, and that it's generally accepted that there are 10 dimensions (string theory) unified by an 11th (M-theory).

 

[Stevisiov]

Its also worth mentioning, that an electron is usually considered to be a particle, in this instance a marble like shape (like the majority of planets). In reality an electron is a lumpy packet of energy, which can behave like a wave aswell as a particle. What is really strange about an orbiting electron, is that it can interact with its self, meaning in can be in more than one place at any given time. Planets tend not to do that.

 

[Dotini]

Padre Pio was said to appear in more than one place at the same time, as well as to occasionally levitate. He had the stigmata, was certified to perform miraculous healing, and was recently canonized by the Catholic church, and is presumably on the path to sainthood. As above so below? Quantum weirdness on a macro scale? Complete BS?

Playfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Stevisiov]

Padre Pio was said to appear in more than one place at the same time, as well as to occasionally levitate. He had the stigmata, was certified to perform miraculous healing, and was recently canonized by the Catholic church, and is presumably on the path to sainthood. As above so below? Quantum weirdness on a macro scale? Complete BS?

Playfully submitted,
Dotini

The fact that he was 'said to' rather than 'proved to' pretty much answers for itself.

 

[Alex.]

There would be if electrons worked that way.

Electron "orbits" aren't. They're 99% probability fields. For the other 1% they could be, and this is so mind-boggling I have to put it in italics, anywhere in the universe. Including inside the nucleus itself. Thanks to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can either tell you where they're about to be or where they are, but not both (in order to do so we'd have to know where every particle in the universe is, the direction it's going and how fast).

So if the pattern has the Earth spending 3.5 days a year at Jupiter's orbit, inside the Sun, in the Andromeda galaxy (you get the picture), then it's fine.


And that's to say nothing of all the moons orbiting the planets - electrons don't have anything orbiting them...

I almost understand this, but am a little but off I guess I need it slightly simplified.
EDIT: Currently looking at Bill Bryson's 'spinning fan blades' explanation. (Fan blades seem to be everywhere at once, electrons actually are)

 

[Dotini]

Elegance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Famine, I'm constrained to follow up here. In the field of architecture the highly ornamented rococo style might be considered elegant by some. In the car world, same for the highly complex Cizetta V-16. Zaftig, voluptuous representations of the female form might be considered elegant by some. But from my faint understanding of mathematics it's simplicity, economy and neatness that make it elegant. Please correct me if I'm off base here.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

But from my faint understanding of mathematics it's simplicity, economy and neatness that make it elegant.

Electrons are none of those. They're neither particles nor waves - yet can be either when observed. They're everywhere, yet nowhere and though you can say where they are now, you can't say where they're going - or you can say where they're going but not where they are now.

It'd be much simpler, more economical and neater if the standard "orbit" model was true. But it isn't.

I almost understand this, but am a little but off I guess I need it slightly simplified.

"If you know enough to understand quantum physics, you don't know enough."

The problem is that electrons aren't really "things". You couldn't get a pair of forceps - even if you were able to get a pair small enough - and grasp an electron in them. And even if you could, you wouldn't be able to because of the Uncertainty Principle (if you had an electron immobilised, you'd know both where it is now and where it's going - nowhere). But then sometimes they behave like things.


Electrons don't "orbit" a nucleus, in rings or shells. They're bound to a nucleus in an "orbital" which is, really, a formula which describes how likely it is that the electron can be found there. What we know as rings or shells are merely the most probably location for a given electron (or electron pair) at any time, but it can be anywhere in the universe at any time.

 

[Sureboss]

Then why is that a part of the education system (admittedly at a more basic level than Uni)?

 

[Famine]

It's easier to understand when you're 12 - and it's true to a certain level. Low-order electrons have an "orbital" which is approximately spherical. A sphere in 2 dimensions looks like circle. So a nucleus in the middle with a circle round it for the first electrons is a simplified picture of what really happens.

Unless the kid is going on to be a quantum physicist, he doesn't need to know that an electron is a wave, a particle and neither unless you look at it, and it could be in the nucleus or a quadrillion miles away. It's also much harder to draw that diagram in an exercise book.


It's worth pointing out that even though I know this, I don't understand atomic orbitals at all. Even less so when they become molecular orbitals, and the electrons are bound to more than one nucleus at once, forming chemical bonds between them but could still be zinging about at infinity.

 

[Stevisiov]

Then why is that a part of the education system (admittedly at a more basic level than Uni)?

When you think about it, there are lots of half truths taught at lower education levels. Its not necessarily that its completely incorrect, its just not the full story, because the full story is too complicated for young children.

For example, in primary school, I was taught that water evaporates at 100C when it boils of into steam. This seemed true when we put a themometer next to the kettle and watched as the water started to turn to steam at around 100C.

It didn't however explain why a tray of water left on the side will evaporate at room temperature (albeit at a much slower rate).

I'm fairly sure the idea wasn't too deceive, but i'm not sure many 10 year olds would really understand Boltzmann's distribution so well. So the simple but incomplete explanation should suffice.

 

[Exorcet]

is it elegant?

I have to say, expressions like that sometimes confuse me. I know I hear it a lot from passionate researchers (and myself when I discover new things in aerodynamics), but I don't really know what it means outside of when I use it.

For me it just means, it's interesting. Sometimes, when I hear someone else use it, I get a vibe that they're trying to show how grand or simple the universe is and how people are just a spec/small pieces of the universe it self. I just take that fact (people make up <<<<1% of the universe) as just another given, like "the sky is blue".

Facts are facts, and attaching too much emotion to them may turn them into somethnig else. If I completely misunderstood you, I'm sorry, this just came into my mind when I read your post.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Even less so when they become molecular orbitals, and the electrons are bound to more than one nucleus at once, forming chemical bonds between them but could still be zinging about at infinity.

Sounds like my last relationship.

 

[Dotini]

I have to say, expressions like that sometimes confuse me. I know I hear it a lot from passionate researchers (and myself when I discover new things in aerodynamics), but I don't really know what it means outside of when I use it.

For me it just means, it's interesting. Sometimes, when I hear someone else use it, I get a vibe that they're trying to show how grand or simple the universe is and how people are just a spec/small pieces of the universe it self. I just take that fact (people make up <<<<1% of the universe) as just another given, like "the sky is blue".

Facts are facts, and attaching too much emotion to them may turn them into somethnig else. If I completely misunderstood you, I'm sorry, this just came into my mind when I read your post.

Is string theory, or now m-theory, elegant? I'm the wrong guy to ask, but supposedly the new explanation is only about 4 pages of equations, compared to the 20 some-odd pages of the former Standard Model, which also required constants which, damnably, changed value. So the new theory, extra dimensions and all, is preferred to the old. The extra dimensions are said to be "rolled up", and not accessible on the macro level, we are told.

In just as much wonder as the rest of us,
Dotini

 

[Darla Starch]

While I am on the evolutionist's side, I also subscribe to the possibility of The Matrix Theory.

Somebody somewhere in an alternate universe, one day long long ago, could have very well created our Universe on his computer, programmed a few basic bacteria and other one-celled organisms, as well as the basic rules of genetics, then let the system run itself for several billion years.

 

[Joey D]

Isn't that just a more sci-fi way of saying intelligent design?

 

[Dotini]

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_indian-scientists-detect-signs-of-life-on-moon_1322785

Indian scientists report signs of life on the moon.