Slashdot Mirror
Origins Mini-Series Airs Tonight
SeaDour writes "The much-anticipated NOVA mini-series Origins begins tonight on PBS (check local listings for time). Hosted by Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, the ambitious show plans to journey all the way to the Big Bang and back again, "blending astrophysics, geology, chemistry, biology and even paleontology to knit together insights about the structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself." MSNBC has an interesting write-up on the show that's been four years in the making."
> It's not just the "ultra religious" who have concerns about the feasibility of macroevolution resulting in the world as we know it. Take a look at Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box, both written by credible scientists, not religious fanatics.
FYI, Phillip E. Johnson is a retired law professor, not a credible scientist.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It is. PBS has been broadcasting all it's big specials and programs in HD these days (National Geographic Specials, Nova, Nature, etc.).
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
You should be able to find in on torrent sites like suprnova.org within a few days.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
It would be the pursuit of knowledge using accepted scientific principles. Phillip E. Johnson does not do this.
If you miss the show, you can still get it on DVD and VHS sometime around November 15th from here.
On the contrary, there are many arguments in favour of creation or design of life.
I agree. Unfortunately, none of these arguments have any scientific merit whatsoever.
While we have numerous examples of change inside species due to evolution, we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another, especially on the scale of micro-organisms evolving into complex creatures such as ourselves.
It's really a matter of scale. It is impossible for any one human to live long enough to observe within the timeframe required for such a drastic transformation through successive generations. The creationists seize upon this, and then insist that we can't conclude that the small changes can add up over time to become large changes because...well...because of some imaginary barrier that they've yet to justify.
The problem of irreducible complexity, put forward by scientists many years ago, does not any kind of satisfactory answer.
Obviously you've not been paying attention.
Darwinian macroevolution relies upon the idea that evolutionary changes that separate species occur in small, miniscule steps. "Irreducible complexity" is the discovered problem that many aspects of biology that are observed today (impossible to examine in Darwin's time) could not have been evolved in small steps due to the fact that numerous components, with no individual purpose, simultaneously would have had to appear in the correct patterns.
And I'm sure that you just forgot to include a specific example.
This is far from the only evidence that puts evolution into question; although Darwin claimed his theory's lack of evidence would change as more discoveries were made, there is now less evidence for species-to-species macroevolution now than there was when Darwin proposed the theory, due to new discoveries invalidating some of his original evidence.
Would you mind sparing us the common creationist babble? This is a flat-out lie. We have far more evidence for evolution in the form of the fossil record and DNA studies across species just to name two things. Darwin had never even heard of DNA.
The claim that "no new evidence for evolution has been found since Darwin's time" is an old creationist lie, told either by creation "scholars" who should know better or people who like creationist sound-bytes who don't bother doing any research of their own and thus shouldn't be talking.
On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.
I'd ask for a specific cite, but you did provide one. Except that it's only one, and it's rather vague at that.
Archaeologists are trying to determine the cause of the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang". Rather than fossil evidence showing slow, gradual changes, the fossils of this time period show that in an extremely short period of time, nearly all major animal body types appeared.
Except that it's not "nearly all". It's quite a bit, but not "nearly all". The Cambrian Explosion is not the evolution-killer that creationists want it to be.
If any of you are interested in science for the sake of objectively discovering the truth, get an opposing viewpoint. Try picking up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator". He briefly goes through about 8 of the major arguments in favour of an intelligent creation of life. He IS biased in favour of creation, but I expect most of you are biased in favour of evolution so it'll work out:).
Well, I do hope that he's better at constructing an argument for his position than you.
Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.
And two of them are biologists.
Real biologists other than the fabulously foolish punctuationalist (and Marxist character assassin of E.O. Wilson) Stephen Jay Gould don't distinguish "macroevolution" from "microevolution". The "Cambrian explosion" is a mere artifact caused because organisms existing before the Cambrian didn't have shells that readily fossilize.
The explanatory power of neo-Darwinism has the potential to finally give us power over our own lives, and predictably, Michael Behe and his ilk are still making the "Argument from Personal Incredulity": "I can't conceive how an eye ^W^W a partial rotor could be favored by natural selection, so, since I can't figure it out, there must be a God ^W^W an Intelligent Designer."
Two hundred years ago William Paley couldn't conceive of how such an instrument of perfection as an eye could be formed by the blind processes of natural selection -- and he had a decent excuse, he lived before Darwin; but today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve, and how even rudimentary and partial eyes can be advantageous to an organism. There's no longer a credible excuse to prefer superstition.
So the "Intelligent Design" crowd waves their hands and says, well, ignore those eyes, but what about free-spinning rotors powering bacterial flagella? What about them? A partial rotor able to rotate through only, say, 180 degrees is still advantageous to any bacterium that needs to move.
Three billion years of evolution gives plenty of time -- and plenty of trials that didn't work out so well, to explain the variety of life of earth.
If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another,
You mean, other than the fact that we've seen it happen?
The problem of irreducible complexity,
So far, no one has conclusively shown any biological structure to be irreducibly complex.
On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.
Really? Then please tell me: How do you objectively tell something that was designed from something that wasn't designed?
I actually know Mr Johnson through his son...and I would say he falls into the 'religious fanatic' area.
James Ussher (1581-1656) Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, etc. established the first day of creation as Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. He did this through calculation of the many "begats"in the Bible as well as correlation with Middle Eastern history. His calculations were actually incorporated into an authorized version fo the Bible published in 1701. If you google his name be sure to spell it "Ussher".
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
The Earth is not a closed system. We are part of a driven out-of equilibrium system, with the sun's energy hitting our planet in a directed way and re-radiating in an isotropic way. Out of equilibrium process can create local regions of increasing order at the expense of dumping their entropy elsewhere.
Forget evolution for a minute and ask how anything grows at all. From a thermodynamic perspective, how does an acorn+soil+water+air become an oak tree? Can it be possible without appealing to the supernatural? Yes. The sun's energy comes in, and performs useful work, some energy becomes chemically stored through combinations of water and carbon dioxide in cellulose and carbohydrates plus oxygen, before the rest of the energy is re-radiated as mostly infrared back out to the environment. Overall this process increases the entropy of the universe (even though locally the oak tree becomes more ordered than soil+water+air), but most of that entropy is radiated away from the earth.
This is a coarse-level thermodynamic description, not a biological description, but your question was on the thermodynamic possibility. You'll notice that none of what I said here directly addresses where the genetic information and enzymes, etc. in the acorn came from, but it should show you an example where natural physical dynamics produce local order in an out-of equilibrium system. This can, in principle, be used to support the theory of evolution.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
This is an old canard; there is no conflict between the 2nd law and evolution. As you stated, entropy increases in a CLOSED system. The earth is not closed as energy is constantly streaming into it from an external source--the Sun.
o ns .html#thermo
Think about development. When a single-celled embryo differentiates into an adult multicellular creature--does this contradict the 2nd law? I suppose you might say something about the developmental program requiring the information in the DNA...
OK, a better example is quoted here: "Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconcepti
And of course, talkorigins has plenty of other good links on this topic:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
What I find interesting is that you can read the minds of these viewers to know that they 'accept it without any question whatsoever'..
Your three requirements preclude the big bang and evolution ONLY if interpreted in the most literal way possible.
Effects of the big bang and evolution CAN be observed. Theories related to big bang physics and biology/speciation/natural selection/whatever can be postulated and tested, and those tests can be repeated.
You might as well claim your great grandfather couldn't have existed:
1) You can't observe him!!
2) You can't test him!!
3) You can't repeat him!!
Furthermore, your objection based on the laws of thermodynamics is uninformed and has been answered countless times.
I have been through those arguement a lot. Knowing a lot of fundies from being in a baptist congregation. I'd have to say none of them have a single clue about science. The ones who argue for creationism here are more intelllegent but have no idea how ludicrous their arguments sound to 1- a statician 2- a biologist 3- logistician 4- geneticist. I am a little of each and it sounds liek utter BS even though I'm a baptists.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This is not practiced by the catholic church.
Your definition of creationism being something like "God created / is the cause of the universe etc." is not in conflict with science.
Fundamentalists believe that everything was created exactly (not figuratively) as it says in Genesis. If you believe in the Big Bang or that the Earth is more than 5000 years old etc. then you are not a fundamentalist.
The relevant episode is XI: The Persistence Of Memory, where he describes whale behavior, and explains the threat to whales posed by humans, not least simply because of the noises our motor ships make, which disturb the whale communication network. He correctly points out that we barely have a solid understanding about life on Earth, which is still as true as it was then.
religious theory is a posteriori, whereas scientific theory is a priori
I didn't write that, and I don't think that's a correct summary of the definitions given. Try again!
Both sci and non-sci types of theories emerge from observation. But what makes sci theories valuable is that you can predict stuff from them.
red shift of 3K
Once again, you're collapsing two things. It may be a genuine error, but it shows a general way of being for those trying to push religious views on the world. Or I've not been precise enough and I apologize.
Let me rephrase it then: First there's observation of the red shift, from which a theory of the big bang can be invented, poof. Then this theory predicts that there should be an average temperature of 3K (-270C or -454F) across the universe. Then some space probe takes measures and comes with this result of 3K, which gives confidence that the theory works... But yes, it's still a theory, and maybe one day we'll find another one that works better.
Now, take a non-sci theory... Say a god created the universe as it appears now, and gave a push. That doesn't help in predicting the temperature, does it? So there's no actual value other than pushing the explanation one level higher, to something that's by definition impossible to prove or disprove.
Do you see the distinction? If yes, wouldn't you agree that marking the distinction by using different words would help everybody understand it and not make the same mistake again?
Kind of misleading... you've got that link set to show the lowest-rated reviews first. The dissappointed reviewers simply aren't in the book's target audience, from what I can tell.
--- Bwah?