Origin of species is traced to pond life

The Times of London ^ | TUESDAY DECEMBER 18 2001 | BY MARK HENDERSON, SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

[dubyagee]

There is NOTHING that can prove the existence of God

My humblest apologies. You are correct. I should have stated the laws of nature are proof to ME that he exists. Where there are laws, there is a law maker....

[week 71]

Where there are laws, there is a law maker....

NO, the four laws of physics have always been...well, they started at the big bang or creation event... no, I mean they existed in this unthinkable void before the creation... I don't know I just know there is no God...

[Aric2000]

Life is the lawmaker, where the laws don't work, there is no life, but when the laws are condusive to life, life will exist.

Sounds pretty simple to me!!

[VadeRetro]

I always suspected you guys were pond scum.

[Pooh-Bah]

Don't mention it. I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. . . ---- The Mikado, Act I

[longshadow]

The Big bang indicates there was a "time" when there was no space and time.

In general, I find assertions that concurrently assert a statement AND it's negation to be suspect.

In particular, your statement is factually inaccurate. Big Bang cosmology posits that time began along with space; there is no "before" the Big Bang, as there is no "time" in which to establish a temporal order until the "Big Bang" took place.

[dubyagee]

That's your opinion. There's no PROOF that there is no creator. There's no PROOF that that creator couldn't put life any where he wanted to.

[dubyagee]

I don't know I just know there is no God...

And you know this because........

[mjp]

In defense of teaching evolution: Rutgers-Newark professor leads national effort Public release date: 18-Dec-2001
Print This Article '); document.write('| ]
'); // -->
Contact: Helen Paxton
paxton@andromeda.rutgers.edu
973-353-5262
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

In defense of teaching evolution: Rutgers-Newark professor leads national effort

(NEWARK) - A Rutgers-Newark biology professor who serves as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is leading a nationwide effort to defend the theory of evolution in the face of what the institute views as opposition and indifference from school boards and government entities.

Rutgers-Newark Biology Professor Judith S. Weis, president of the AIBS, a Washington, D.C.-based professional organization begun in 1947, believes that the teaching of evolution in America is being diminished and minimized by the teaching of creationism as well as an overall lack of teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in high school.

"There's nothing that requires schools to teach evolution. Sometimes teachers in high schools just leave it out. However, from the point of view of biologists, evolution is the central theory of biology upon which everything is based," said Weis. "Unfortunately, teaching evolution has become a political issue in many parts of the country and AIBS as a representative of biologists wanted to be a major force speaking out in favor of its teaching."

Weis said the institute is working together with the American Geological Institute, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and its 80-plus member organizations to address the political and legislative threats to teaching evolution.

In states challenging its teaching, the institute responds by sending letters to school boards, state legislatures, providing testimony at public meetings, and notifying members and affiliated organizations. She said a national AIBS conference, "Evolution: Understanding Life on Earth," planned for March 2002 in Arlington, Virginia, will focus more attention on the teaching of evolutionary biology in America.

The AIBS, with more than 80 member societies and 250,000 members, has established an e-mail system that enables scientists and teachers in each state, and member societies, to keep each other informed about threats to the teaching of evolution.

Darwin's theory of evolution holds that living things change and adapt to their environment and that present day species (including human beings) are descended from earlier species through modification by natural selection.

The theory has been accepted by scientists for nearly 100 years, Weis said, and has been refined, extended, and strengthened over the years by findings in paleontology and developmental biology.

Furthermore, discoveries in genetics, molecular biology, and genomics - all of which have significant benefits for human health - would not be possible without the underlying knowledge of evolution. And, Weis adds, "modern molecular biology and genomics have increased our understanding of how evolution works."

Nonetheless, evolution remains a politically, if not scientifically, controversial issue.

Weis said that this year alone, seven states have had either local or statewide efforts to water down the teaching of evolution, or "balance" it with the teaching of creationism - a religious belief that different species were created separately by a higher power, such as God. States with such efforts included Arkansas, Michigan, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Georgia, and Hawaii.

"Rarely does anyone now use the word 'creationism,' because that's too obvious," Weis said. "The current terminology is 'intelligent design.' Efforts to teach evolution as a theory, not a fact, reflect misconceptions about the nature of science. A theory in science is not just a speculation or a guess, but a concept with a large amount of information supporting it," said Weis.

"I see a core part of my field as being under attack. Polls have shown that a majority of people do not understand the theory of evolution and others show that people do not accept evolution theory because teachers do not teach it," Weis said. "When confronted with the possibility of local objections," she said, "some teachers find it easier to not teach the subject."

###

For information about the AIBS efforts, visit the AIBS Web site at http://www.aibs.org. The site includes resources for teaching evolution.

---

Print This Article '); document.write('| ]'); // -->

[week 71]

In particular, your statement is factually inaccurate. Big Bang cosmology posits that time began along with space; there is no "before" the Big Bang, as there is no "time" in which to establish a temporal order until the "Big Bang" took place.

Your are quite correct. My statement was nebulous which is why I put time in quotes. I apologize for not being more lucid. Hawkings, Davies and a myriad of other astophysicits have demostrated that time and space originated simultaneuosly. The space-time theorem. Scientists finally seem to be where theologians have been for centuries. Not that they should give up the quest for discovering truth, or we will end up in another dark ages.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for the ref., pcl.

"He tracks this process backwards some 3 billion years…"

Yes, that's more the scale I was looking toward.

best regards…

[nimdoc]

… It all comes down to "faith" in your uncaused cause, and my uncaused cause doesn't it. Of course in science there is no such thing is there?...

The laws of quantum mechanics allow lots of things to happen without a cause.
The universe may be just one of those things.

[Cleburne]

Who created the creator? Presuming there is a creator, he would fall beyond the realms of science in theory-if supernatural, there would not need to be a creator, as the supernatural is beyond nature.

I would ask you: what caused matter to arise from nothing? How did something come from nothing-nothing, as in no forces, no matter, no energy, just nothing. I contest this, and the origin of life, needs something beyond observable science-indeed, we can never prove the exact origin of the universe. We can try, and accumulate evidence to support various theory's, but we can not prove it (or do you disagree?). Presumably, science should look for the best possible answer in such a scenrio, correct? Why then should science not at least allow for the existence of an Intelligent Creator beyond the natural sphere? There wer scientists in years past (still are some around) that did not believe in Darwin's Theory, and incredibly, they made important discoveries quite well.

[Doctor Doom]

I would ask you: what caused matter to arise from nothing?

A simple quantum event. Next?

[Doctor Doom]

Why then should science not at least allow for the existence of an Intelligent Creator beyond the natural sphere?

Because it no more contributes to understanding what really happened than to say "the magical dog did it."

[Cleburne]

That's convienent. What brought about the quantum effect? From what?

[Doctor Doom]

Quantum effects require no cause.

Really, you should read more before jumping in trying to make a point.

[week 71]

A simple quantum event

Nice try. Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that there are finite probabilities for quantum events to take place within certain time intervals. the greater the time interval ther greater the probability. But without time there is no quatum event possible. The orgin of time space and matter eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator".

[Doctor Doom]

Are you getting your understanding of quantum mechanics from the Reader's Digest???

Too funny.

[week 71]

Come on. If you indeed have any knowlege of quantum theory you can not refute one word of that. You also left out the idea that there must be an observer. Not that anyone completly understands quatum science, but lets not hide behind the unknown to avoid good questions.

[Doctor Doom]

If you indeed have any knowlege of quantum theory you can not refute one word of that.

You are so wrong in your characterization one does not know where to begin.

You also left out the idea that there must be an observer.

Ah - the lay misunderstanding of Heisenberg comes into play. Not even related.

Not that anyone completly understands quatum science, but lets not hide behind the unknown to avoid good questions.

That's the problem - you do not pose good questions.