Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
I will defer to the FR physics brains, but this is what I understand: as a molecular cloud collapses, there is almost always a certain amount of angular momentum present, either from particle impacts as the cloud is perturbed or from the very small gravitational forces present between those particles...thus "spin" is introduced to the system on more than one level very early on. The entire molecular cloud begins to rotate, while smaller areas of greater density within the cloud rotate around individual central points of mass. As time progresses, these areas of greater density essentially sweep up matter near them...ultimately to form a protostar or protoplanets depending on their relative positions within the molecular cloud (now properly called an "accretion disk").
However, to repeat a very large caveat...I am NOT a physicist. I am fairly certain others can give a much better description of these events.
It is indeed cut and dried. Especially with reference to the question of evolution. If evolution is about descent then a proper definition, an objective one, of species is essential. The only criteria which is totally objective is reproductive viability. It takes into consideration all the biological factors of descent. Any other definition is subjective and prone to manipulation.
Genetic clocks are nonsense. There is no way to set the time as I explained before. The problem is that there are far too many differences between the archaea, eukaryotes and prokaryotes that would be needed to be changed in one fell swoop for descent of one from another to be possible. It is the same problem as the descent of mammals from egg layers. Too many changes necessary at once for it to be possible.
How many times you gonna sing this song?
Until someone finds a SCIENTIFIC refutation of it. Fairy tales about anything being possible are not such a refutation.
How do you know this? Has God given you special sight to look into the hearts and minds of evolutionists? How is it that you "know" all evolutionists are pitted in mortal combat against the notion of a Creator? Could it not be that as we seek to understand how everything works we are also looking for a greater truth? Personally, nothing would please me more than to know with certainty that there is another life after this one, and that one entity holds the keys of knowledge and the future in His or Her hands.
Do not be so quick to judge...or attack.
Nonsense. Where is this writ? Is an absolute and comprehensive definition of a star a requirement to do stellar astronomy? In your dreams.
The only criteria which is totally objective is reproductive viability.
What? Since when is "total objectivity" a measure of the reality of a natural phenomena? Unfortunately for your argument, a mare doesn't pay too much attention to questions of "total objectivity" or "reproductive viability" when a comely donkey is in heat and in the local vicinity.
It takes into consideration all the biological factors of descent. Any other definition is subjective and prone to manipulation.
What is this, Absolutist night? Even if you hold your breath until you turn blue, there is no detectable barrier between species that corresponds to zoological species charts. There is only relative speciation, along a varied spectrum, of one creature with respect to another. If you think speciation is a tangible barrier with tangible physical existence, kindly put it up on the microscope stand so we can all look at it.
It is just a classification idea which creationists treat as if it were a law of nature--it ain't. All definitions are, in some measure, subjective and prone to manipulation. As has been pointed out to creationists on innumerable occasions, the social impact of an idea, including how subjectively manipulable it is, is not a valid measure of it's truth.
What are you talking about? What time? Genetic clocks measure relative mutational distance, not objective elapsed time.
The problem is that there are far too many differences between the archaea, eukaryotes and prokaryotes that would be needed to be changed in one fell swoop for descent of one from another to be possible.
Since, as I said, mutual descent is not what's been suggested, there is no point in my answering this. What the ribosomal genetic clocks suggest is that they all came from something else not presently observable, and not as a direct linear descent from a single common ancestor.
It is the same problem as the descent of mammals from egg layers. Too many changes necessary at once for it to be possible.
Same over-reaching argument over and over. You don't know how many intermediate steps, in how many directions, from how many intermediate environmental pressures there were, you don't know what they were, and you don't what order they occured in and you don't know which intermediate environments might have leveraged the changes. Your assumptions are unwarranted.
You don't need a SCIENTIFIC refutation of a non-SCIENTIFIC thesis. Quoting me odds without showing me your state-space and selection criteria gives you no warrant of authority about what is and is not a fairy tale.
That's why I recommend "virtual ignore." It will quickly restore your health.
Science is objective. If it is not objective, it is not science. Your (and other evolutionists) avowal of subjective definitions of species shows quite well that the evidence for evolution is so deficient that you need to manipulate the facts in order to support it.
Everything we know about DNA may be implemented on a Turing machine. I don't think that we end up with anything that functions like DNA. Maybe I'm minimizing the importance of algorithmic computability. To me, it's little more than saying that everything we know about DNA is semantically expressable; we can write a book about it.
Angular momentum is conserved. The angular momentum that the cloud has to begin with is equal to the total angular momentum of all the objects that condense out of it. Like a spinning figure skater pulling in her arms, the angular velocity increases as the cloud condenses.
More interesting is why the cloud collapses into a disk. This is because there is a net angular momentum to begin with. When the cloud begins to collapse, the particles in it have elliptical orbits in all sorts of orientations. As the cloud collapses, these particles collide, and the components of their orbital angular momentum cancel out...in every direction but one. The particles that are left in the disk can only transfer that net angular momentum between each other, but this keeps them in the plane. Eventually, the orbits become nearly circular as their radial components cancel. Collisions between objects become less frequent, as their paths largely no longer intersect.
Somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of objects that are observed to exist and asserted to be designed.
Your speculations are non-rational as they are not based on anything other than your wild imagination. The only rational explanations are the ones I listed. No amount of chimerical conjecture will change that.
Generating special purpose languages for specific industrial applications using lex and yacc is a powerfully economical idea that doesn't get nearly enough air time, in my humble opinion.
I agree! IMHO, the end user is rarely able to comprehend their own future need. It seems the best solution is to generate those special purpose languages and leave them with a very strong database and archive. My two cents...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.