RE: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

Ian said:
" As an addendum to my previous post, here is another alternative to
"Evolution" for the photon that doesn't involve creation by Divine
Fiat, namely "Loop Quantum Gravity"."

"Loop Quantum Gravity" sounds like an evolutionary theory (an evolutionary mechanism) to me. It is explaining how the particles came to be naturally, correct? That's evolution.

You said:
"But throwing a bucket of millions of coins until they all come up
heads is hardly evolution is it?"
 
The only person defining evolution that way is a YEC.

Ian said in a different email:
" No it doesn't - but you claimed to be able to explain how anything we
chose to name evolved. You now admit that you can't. Case dismissed."

Here's the explanation:

From a singularity, there was a big bang and some energy was transformed into physical objects, such as photons, etc.

What's missing is the details.

Nothing in this world is understood 100%. You can always ask more detailed questions.

Now- let's look at an alternative to cosmological evolution. Design by fiat.

It works like this: God spoke, and bang, photons appeared.

What did I miss? Is there another alternative exploration? I suppose if we smoked some dope and watched The Matrix movie together- we could bring in some dreamtime ideas, etc. (that was for you, Pastor Murray & David, just teasing! ;-)

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:02 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

Bernie

As an addendum to my previous post, here is another alternative to
"Evolution" for the photon that doesn't involve creation by Divine
Fiat, namely "Loop Quantum Gravity". See:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

Things have moved on from Gell-Man in the late 70's it seems.

In a nutshell there is a new formulation that marries relativity and
quantum mechanics. The equations eliminate a big problem with the Big
Bang, that the laws of physics break down with the singularity at T=0.
 In the new theory, they don't break down - there is no singularity,
and the Big Bang is more of a Big Rebound from the previous universe.
This can happen in an infinite chain of Bang/Collapse/Rebounds, and
each time the quantum uncertainty principle means the laws of physics
are a little different. Thus the creation of the right sort of
photons/electrons etc for stars to form and life to come about is just
a question of waiting for the right coincidence to come along.

I don't know how viable the LQG theory is - the writer of the blog
implies that it is testable. But if it is then the appearance of the
right conditions for life to evolve, starting with the elementary
particles is a bit like having the universe reset each time and a
different random number seed planted at T=0. Eventually you'll get
just the right combination.

But throwing a bucket of millions of coins until they all come up
heads is hardly evolution is it? (Or if you say it is then you've
reduced it to a completely meaningless concept).

Iain

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ian-
>>
>> Likely the evolution of the photon from the big bang is not known, just like the origination of the first biological life. Does that prove that it didn't evolve- because there's no answer?
>
> No it doesn't - but you claimed to be able to explain how anything we
> chose to name evolved. You now admit that you can't. Case dismissed.
>
> Furthermore, I do not accept that the only alternative to "evolution"
> is "creation by Divine Fiat" I never said that was the alternative,
> and I'm at a loss as to why you should think I might say that.
>
> Look. The Big Bang happened. All the matter appeared at that time.
> It wasn't an evolutionary event, because that implies that there was a
> time before the Big Bang. The standard theory says that time started
> at the Big bang. There are competing theories now which start to
> imagine there might have been a time before the Big Bang, but we
> certainly don't know that.
>
> In 1978, I attended a public lecture at Cambridge university given by
> physicist Murray Gell-Mann. At the end of the lecture he took
> questions from the audience. Someone asked "Would you care to
> speculate on what happened before the Big Bang?". Gell-Mann replied
> "NO!". Then turned to Stephen Hawking who was in his wheel chair in
> the front row and said ".. er that is the right answer, isn't it?".
>
> Elsewhere you require that evolution involves increase in complexity.
> Well you can't get simpler than an elementary particle, so evidently
> they didn't evolve and if you claim they did then you're contradicting
> yourself.
>
> Iain
>
>
>
>>
>> Look at the big picture. What are the different hypotheses available, and which have the best evidence for how the photon came to be.
>>
>> One hypothesis is the theory of evolution.
>>
>> What are the competing theories for the existence of photons? Is one ID... that God created these photons by fiat? I don't think the ID position says that, does it?
>>
>> It looks to me like there is only one hypothesis to consider. The only one formulated is evolution- physical particles came from the energy explosion of the big-bang.
>>
>> Maybe the other is "God did it, but I don't know how, and it wasn't evolution?" Is that your alternative? If not, please tell me so I can see which hypothesis to compare to evolution. If you offer no competing theories, why should I disband the most reasonable one to date?
>>
>> ...Bernie
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:55 PM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>> Cc: ASA
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Dehler, Bernie
>> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Ian said in an earlier email:
>>> "But let's take a different tack. Since you think everything can be explained by evolution, please explain how elementary particles such as the photon, the quark, and the Higgs Boson (if it turns out it exists), evolved."
>>>
>>> If you don't think those particles evolved, what is your alternative hypothesis? Yes- it is design by fiat. Are you saying God spoke these into existence then everything else later evolved? What is a better alternative hypothesis to cosmological, chemical, etc. evolution?
>>
>> Answer the question. You claimed EVERYTHING evolved. Don't go dodging
>> the issue. I asked you how the Higgs Boson, the photon, etc evolved. I
>> didn't say it was designed by fiat. If you really want to help other
>> YEC's then you really need to improve your listening skills.
>>
>> Iain
>>
>> Iain
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
> -----------
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.