A Question of Science

[JediBendu]

This forums dedicated to everything scientific - whether it be a discovery, a theory, or an application.

To start off, here's a great site for the latest developments:

www.eurekalert.org (http://www.eurekalert.org)


Cloning would be a good place to start - *style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif *style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif

I'm all for it! I also find it insulting and offensive that church groups can claim a moral high ground on this incredible procreation technique.
If I want a clone I should be able to have one. *style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devil.gif

[Master Jason]

I think cloning for the purpose of medicine is not only ok, but would be a travesty if we didn't use the technology to advance ourselves. As for cloning yourself for the hell of it, I don't think so. Our world is overpopulated as it is. Having a clone because you want one isn't good enough. Why do you need one? Is it for fun? Is it to get into trouble with? Or is it because you lost a leg defending our country? Who do you think deserves a clone then? As for the religious people saying that its blasphemous and whatever, if you don't like it, don't use it. Don't push your beliefs on the rest of the world. The only reason its an issue in the government is that instead of doing something great for our nation, the politicians are worried about campaign contributions. We'll see how their tune changes when they find out one of their kids is going to die because he decided to vote against this a get a few extra bucks. This is the same arguement religion put up against the polio vaccine a century ago. Well I have an idea. If you think science is so bad that nobody should be able to use it, stop buying medicine, no more vaccines, no more storebought food. Live like the ommish, because if you don't, then you are giving in to science. Science created just about everything you use in everyday life. It might sound like I am a religion basher, but I'm not. I believe in god, but I'm not stupid enough to turn my back on something that is obviously good for the human race. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banghead.gif

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:000070">I totally agree with you JendiBendu. I am all for cloning and I think it's a shame we don't take advantage of it. We could bring back loved ones with this technique. Lost a mom, father, child, or other loved one? Simply have them cloned and start over.

I wouldn't mind having a clone of myself. Wouldn't you be the best parent for yourself? We could then mold our clones to be better then oursevles and therefore were bettering society. Nothing wrong with that.

Also, I don't think we need to worry about overpopulation via cloning. It takes a long time to clone, they have to be born like everyone else, and they need time to grow like everyone else too. (Sorry no test tube babies yet) So it's really the same as having child, just the child is an identical copy of someone; sort of like twins.</span>

[Mann]

It's immoral to try and resurrect a dead person. Medical purposes are it's only use. Imagine cloning someone whose been dead for ten years? do you thin kthey will remember anything? they will be children, they can't talk!

cloning an arm to help people i think is okay.

[Queen 'Onna]

Sounds like you are trying to play God,if you resurrect someone.

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:000070">You techincally arn't ressurecting them if you clone them, your just making a copy. Why is that immoral? It's like the idea of a twin, just man made.</span>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Imagine cloning someone whose been dead for ten years? do you thin kthey will remember anything? they will be children, they can't talk![/b][/quote]

<span style="color:000070">Of course they won't remember anything because their a new person just with the same exact genetic code as someone else. When you clone someone you don't steal their memories or anything, you create a totally new person with the same genes.</span>

[Meche]

Vyndim, you mentioned that cloning is good for bringing back loved ones, but you also said that cloning is not bringing back the same person, it's just making someone with the same genes. *So honestly, it's hardly the same thing. *If your loved one is gone, then he/she is gone.

As for "molding clones" into what is in our view the right way, well isn't that the wrong way to treat other humans? There IS something wrong with that.

[Obi-Wan]

<span style="color:blue">I agree with 'Onna. They are just trying to play God. I think it is okay to help a person with no legs or arms. But to bring back someone that has been dead. I don't think so. That might not be good. But God will keep them from doing it. You gotta think. What if they try to bring back Hitler?</span>

[Queen 'Onna]

And what if you bring someone back from the dead and they turn out to be the next Hitler.

[catwmnjedi]

<span style="color:#daa500">If cloning is allowed, there will need to be a whole new set of human rights. If clones were created for the purpose of harvesting organs, for example, someone is going to tell that person they are created for that purpose and have no say in the matter? In the USA, such infringement on individual freedom is not generally accepted, so something would have to change for this to be socially acceptable.

Anyone see Bladerunner? That wasn't clones, it was artificial humans, but a similar dilemma occured. They were made with a finite lifespan of only 5 years and they were forced to be slaves and do the work other humans didn't want to do... dangerous and crappy jobs. But the androids had memories installed and thought creatively, and decided they wanted to live longer and be free, so they rebelled and escaped to find their maker. That quest became futile when they discovered it was scientifically impossible for their creator to extend their lifespan. In the end, the lead andriod couldn't kill the leading man (Harrison Ford) because he valued life as most precious. His lifespan came to an end at that moment, so he no longer saw the point in ending another life. Interesting moral lessons in that movie.

Cloning for harvesting or slavery would not be acceptable in most societies today. Cloning for gaining lost loved ones back seems selfish to me. Death is a part of our life cycle and should be accepted at some point. And Meche's right... it wouldn't be exactly the same person. Only a reminder of the lost person.

I personally don't want to live forever. I don't believe I was meant to, and I believe there's another phase of life to go to after this, which obviously shapes my opinion. :)</span>

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You techincally arn't ressurecting them if you clone them, your just making a copy. Why is that immoral? It's like the idea of a twin, just man made.

Quote
Imagine cloning someone whose been dead for ten years? do you thin kthey will remember anything? they will be children, they can't talk!


Of course they won't remember anything because their a new person just with the same exact genetic code as someone else. When you clone someone you don't steal their memories or anything, you create a totally new person with the same genes.[/b][/quote]

When you clone someone becasue they died wouldn't you want them to remember you? So what's the point of cloning when they can't remember you? And you are starting to scare me Vyndim, a man made twin, that's creepy. I men think of the psychological effects. Even timothy Zahn discussed the effects of cloning in his book, they'd go nuts!

[Tonin]

While being able to harvest organs from clones would be great, because you would have less of a chance of rejection, etc. but I have to agree with Cat on the fact that it would not be accepted by our society. We are greedy people and as the black market and illegal drug traffiking proves people who want something will get it if they are determined enough and don't mind breaking rules. Also, mechanical replacements and new antirejection drugs are being improved everyday. remember the Jarvik heart (I think that was his name). It was huge and didn't fit dompletely within your chest. Now they have a new type of mechanical heart which replaces the ventricles and the aorta I believe and it fits within the chest cavity. Andthis is just one example.

As far as bringing back loved ones, its selfish and would only bring trouble. Clones are genetic replications and nothing else. The clone's personality would be completely different from the original. Your personality is partialy determined by genetic predispositions,BUT the majority of it comes from how you were raised and experiences from your early life. The cloning with the cats should satisfy your demands for proof of this.(we kept up with it last year in AP Bio). There are already huge population issues all over the world. If we had a bunch of clones running around too, would the food supply be able to keep up indefinately? Just a few things for ya'll to think about.

[Darth Darthy]

Personally I find it offensive to the intelligence that any religous group think they are qualified for any scientific judgement.
As far as clonning goes - no human in whole should be cloned. No excuse is to be given when the creation of life is concerned. Genetic stem cells fine. Create a separate organ in a tube for the use of it's host, not a life.
I find the idea of religion repulsive as it is, priest's and other zealots should not publicly renounce something they do not understand.
Bias’s are nothing more than hypocrisy with an added element of ignorance thrown in...

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:000070">Why is cloning someone who died selfish? Your essentially bringing a new person into play to replace a lost one. *If a factory lost a worker, wouldn't they hire another to replace them? I realize the person would act differently, but genetically their the same person. I just want to ask "why?" I ask "why" not in spite, but as a bewildered child would ask. Why is it selfish? Why is cloning the dead wrong? If they were productive people when they lived, they can be so again if cloned; although they will act differently, but if put in the right environment you could get the results you wanted.

Cloning people for organs, I don't have a problem with that. We grow cows just to kill them for food, so why not grow clones for organs? Is it just because their human? Humans are animals too, just with more thinking capacity. *I guess to some people that makes us better. *I disagree, I don't think were "better" than animals, just different. We are suited for our types of life styles and animals to their own. *With clones you can use one person to save the lives of many others. Since they were grown for that purpose, is it really cruel? Do you have second thoughts when you eat that hamburger? *Would a person who's dying and needs an organ transplant really care where the organs are coming from?</span>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I personally don't want to live forever. *I don't believe I was meant to, and I believe there's another phase of life to go to after this, which obviously shapes my opinion.[/b][/quote]

<span style="color:000070">But for those of us who don't believe in an afterlife, death is the last thing that ever happens to us. *So you can see why some would try to avoid that. I believe if I were to elaborate on that, it would belong in the "In The Light" thread, so I'll just leave it at that.

Okay, I'm done sounding like a mad scientist for now.</span> style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Darth Darthy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Why is it selfish?[/b][/quote]

Your creating a person for your own needs. Need I say more?

[Tonin]

well, im back with another few cents.
About bringing people back, they will not be what you had hoped for. Yes if your mom died and you had a clone it would be the same person genetically. No matter what you did though you could never recreate the exact situations and environments in which they were raised. Just because you have the same genes doesnot mean you will be the same person. Its kind of like if you got into a car crash and had a serious brain injury that caused you to forget your personality. The experiences that you had from the time you were aware of the world forward would be what affects the personality that you will then develop.

If a worker in a factory dies, then you hire a replacement, but even though they may do the same job, because they are a different person they might do it a little differently.

So to put it in a nutshell, you can never recreate the environment and experiences a person had so they would not be the same. It wouldnot only hurt you but also the clone because they would most likely not feel loved and accepted so it would hurt them too.

[Darth Drew]

Yeah the the person would look the same but they would not act it unless scientist discover a way to transfer memorys. Highly unlikly style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif

[Darth Darthy]

Hmm, reminds me of the moral in Pet Sematary.

[JediBendu]

ya - don't move into a house across the road from Herman Munster :p

A lot of these arguments are 'mad scientist' scenarios - which isn't how cloning will be applied at all.
Harvesting organs WILL NOT HAPPEN. What is harvested are embryonic stem cells, from which any organ can be grown - from the inside out or on a petrie dish - that won't be rejected by the body's immune system.
These embryos are destroyed after the stem cells have been obtained - usually about 14 days after the clone was created. This is the issue here - the intentional creation of a human which will be destroyed. This is already happening, but it's not intentional - abortions are legal (in Aust.) up to 20 wks after conception, 22 in special cases. 20 compared to 2.
But it depends on your view on when life is created or when a human is created.

Bringing back people from the dead for personal reasons - how absurd. What about rare blood types which could be obtained from dead familiy member, cloned, and transferred to a child with a rare form of leukemia. You're effectively killing that child by not acting on technology that WILL save her, not might.
Further, 30% of all mammals will be extinct in 20 years. Given that we're responsible for this ELE don't you think we should take steps to either prevent it or at the very least minimise the impact of removing a large chunk of life out of the biosphere?
Australian scientists are working to clone the Thylacine - or Tasmanian Tiger - which became extinct 100 years ago. We've still got some specimens preserved from which we're taking dna samples. They reckon 10 years will bring something back from the dead.

and death is a disease that should be conquered anyway.
but that's another topic...

[Mann]

People, this is not a question of science. We already know that we are scietifically able to clone a human being. the question now is whether or not it is morally right to do so. Think of the complications that go along with this. The world would change in a dramatic way and people would look at science and religion in a different light. Think of the movie, not a great example, the Sixth Day. In the movie, they could instantanisouly clone a person and retrieve all their memories. We cannot do this yet, and we should never. Humans have a much more complex mental status than other animals. Think of how psychologically damaging to a clone being brought back would be, or if you were a double of someone. what would you feel like?

[Vyndim]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Aug. 07 2002 - 19:19
A lot of these arguments are 'mad scientist' scenarios - which isn't how cloning will be applied at all. *
Harvesting organs WILL NOT HAPPEN. *What is harvested are embryonic stem cells, from which any organ can be grown - from the inside out or on a petrie dish - that won't be rejected by the body's immune system.
These embryos are destroyed after the stem cells have been obtained - usually about 14 days after the clone was created. *This is the issue here - the intentional creation of a human which will be destroyed. *This is already happening, but it's not intentional - abortions are legal (in Aust.) up to 20 wks after conception, 22 in special cases. *20 compared to 2.
But it depends on your view on when life is created or when a human is created. *
<span style="color:000070">You are correct, the afore mentioned were all "mad scientist" scenarios. I'm sorry I wasn't specific in mentioning the embryo before in my post. However, I was implying that many people do consider it immorale.</span>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Even though you prevent it from happening, doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen.[/b][/quote]

<span style="color:000070">That's the same idea here. Even though we stop it, it would have still became a human. That's the arguement that would be pushed against something like that. It's the samething with abortion, even though if early enough it's not technically human, but it would have been human. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, but in the society we live in now, I don't see it happening. Abortion (legal now) was fought for so long, you can only imagine the opposition that cloning will and has faced.</span>

[Darth Darthy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Think of the movie, not a great example, the Sixth Day.[/b][/quote]

Euurgh. That says it all. What a crap waste of time.

What you all seem to forget is that humans are being cloned. A woman in Korea has a 4 month old clone within her.
We shall soon see the results, soon all will be revealed...

[Mann]

So she says Darth Darthy. A Women in France says she has three clones in side of her. My guess: They will all result in miscarriages.

[catwmnjedi]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Cloning people for organs, I don't have a problem with that. We grow cows just to kill them for food, so why not grow clones for organs? Is it just because their human? Humans are animals too, just with more thinking capacity. *I guess to some people that makes us better. *I disagree, I don't think were "better" than animals, just different. We are suited for our types of life styles and animals to their own. *With clones you can use one person to save the lives of many others. Since they were grown for that purpose, is it really cruel? Do you have second thoughts when you eat that hamburger? *Would a person who's dying and needs an organ transplant really care where the organs are coming from?
[/b][/quote]

<span style="color:#daa500">Vyndim, if humans are just like animals and don't matter, then why would someone care to clone a family member they missed? *What if you woke up one day in the hospital and someone told you they were going to put you to sleep and give your organs to someone else? *Does that make the recipient's life of higher value than yours? *Who decides this? Would that bother you?

I think many people WOULD care where the organs were coming from. *Today they transplant organs from people killed in accidents or by terminal illness. *That's different... the person was already dead and had no chance of living anymore, and they had a purpose in life other than just to have their parts sold off to someone else.

I don't understand this logic I guess. *If one person's life is so unimportant (the donor), than why bother saving the recipient? *They are just a body too. *Would they be saved simply because they have the money to buy an organ? *Who decides who are donors vs. recipients or people left to live to a natural death? *Clones are people too, right? *Why are their rights forfeited while the natural born are not?

As for cloning already happening... yes, it will happen, but that person is still a separate person with a separate mind and emotions. *If clones are treated simply as an alternative method of reproduction, that might be socially acceptable. *I'm still opposed to it, and not just for moral reasons. *I believe the human body was designed (or evolved, if you prefer to think that way) for a certain reproductive capacity. *If we start cloning and create more humans than people would naturally have children, we're going to have an overpopulation problem that will throw off the ecological balance of the earth. *If people decide boys are of higher value and start cloning them more than girls (or vice-versa), same deal, our species will be too unbalanced and this will lead to our extinction. *Relying on people to be responsible with this technology and not abuse it is asking an awful lot.</span>

[Darth Darthy]

So Cat, do you agree or disagree with the cloning of tissue and organs such as lungs a livers?

Mann: Don't hatch yer chickens before they've been counted. No wait, that's wrong....

[catwmnjedi]

<span style="color:#daa500">I don't disagree with cloning tissues or individual organs... except maybe an entire functioning brain. This does bring up the question.. what do most of you think constitutes a person? A functioning brain? More than that? How much more?</span>

[JediBendu]

What about cloning neural tissue and grafting it onto computer circuitry?
It's already been experimented with and accomplished using a rat's brain tissue, not cloned obviously.
Would you allow your brain cells to be incorporated into a computer - I would.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If people decide boys are of higher value and start cloning them more than girls (or vice-versa), same deal, our species will be too unbalanced and this will lead to our extinction. [/b][/quote]

It's too late for that - we are heading for extinction. *I've mentioned before that male sperm counts are lowering across species all over the planet. *This could head off a disaster that's already coming.

Another angle, what about space colonisation? *It would be a lot cheaper and safer to have a cloning factory with some viable cell samples and send that out into the cosmos. *Humanity's survival is in doubt - cloning isn't a solution but it's a start.

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:000070">Hmm I believe if it can't think for it self, then it's not a person. That's just my opinion of course.</span>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>except maybe an entire functioning brain.[/b][/quote]

<span style="color:000070">Why not a brain? I don't see cloning brains in anyone future. Simply because a new brain is blank, unless of course you need it's tissue for something, then I guess theres some use in it.</span>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Vyndim, if humans are just like animals and don't matter, then why would someone care to clone a family member they missed? What if you woke up one day in the hospital and someone told you they were going to put you to sleep and give your organs to someone else? Does that make the recipient's life of higher value than yours? Who decides this? Would that bother you?[/b][/quote]

<span style="color:000070">Your right, cloning a family member is a poor idea, I can see that now. Also, the cloned embryo can't think or feel, so how I would feel is irrelevant. (At least I think so.) The donor really shouldn't be considered a person, since we can use embryos to get the tissue from, so there isn't any other life to weigh besides the value of the person your trying to save.

And most of all, I was hoping we could discuss science itself, not morals and ethics.</span>

[JediBendu]

science should be above any notion of ethics or morals

[JediBendu]

I watched a great Stargate episode last night which had O'Neil swamped with nanotech AI's.
Leaving AIs for the minute, what do people thing about nanotechnology?
Combine it with genetic manipulation/replication, nanotech will probably change humans more than fire did.
At the very least we'll be able to have our hair permanently trimmed. :p

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:000070">Nano tech is a bit of a fantasy I think at this point. Technology like that is something I don't think were ready for. I'd say Nano Tech is just waiting to be abused by someone. Think of the damage you can cause, like creating destructive nanos. Although, the amount of enhancements we could do on the human body is really tempting, I don't feel were ready to handle something like that.</span>

[Meche]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Aug. 08 2002 - 00:56
science should be above any notion of ethics or morals
Maybe I'm confused. *Don't scientists have to be ethical? *You know, like be honest and not fake their results or hide how they arrived at their results.

Of course, you probably meant that science itself is simply in a different sphere from ethics and moral, but in that case I wouldn't say it's "above" the notion, as if it's better. *Just different. You're in trouble though if you think you don't have to handle your knowledge responsibly.

[JediBendu]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Don't scientists have to be ethical? [/b][/quote]

IMO, morals and ethics are removed from pure science.
Morals are a standard of human conduct on what is considered ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Morals are concerned with society as a whole, as such, will differ depending on the culture and/or beliefs. eg – the Greek’s and Roman’s viewed sex with adolescents a lot differently than today.
Ethics are the study of morals and their application within a particular human institution eg medical ethics.
A scientific theory is not concerned whether a human considers it right or wrong, it just simply is. The method of experimentation used to prove the theory is subject to morals, but again it’s dependant on who is conducting the experiment. Eg Hitler used the Jews in some pretty heinous experiments although he had no moral qualms about doing so. Ethically speaking, the application of a theory will be dependant on the particulars of the governing body organising/benefiting from the research. Eg the current medical profession uses the results from Hitler’s cold immersion experiments in the treatment of hypothermia world wide. Shouldn’t their ethics prevent them from doing so?
Another example is the development of the A-bomb – morally, the scientists knew their duty was to end the war. Ethically, the US government up’d the explosive yield and dropped the damn thing twice when (and there is a case for this) they shouldn’t have dropped it at all.
Science is concerned with discovery of knowledge, how/if this knowledge is used is up to us.
So to answer your question, yes - scientists do have to be ethical, but like any human, they sometimes don't. Poeple have faked results, and published bogus findings for no other reason than maintaining their standing in their own scientific world.
Science itself isn't subject to morals or ethics, just the people who apply it.

[JediBendu]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't feel were ready to handle something like that. [/b][/quote]
You're probably right there. Which is a shame. Perhaps I would say 'the previous generations who are still alive and kicking [this planet to a pulp] are not ready for it, while the younger generations are.

Nanotech has some great applications outside of medicine (but med is where the true breakthroughs will occur. Carbon nanotubes, quantam switches, and custom crystalline structures have wide applications in computers, communication and material construction.
But it’s the manipulation of atoms and molecules that does it for me. Humans (and all animals) differ from our ancestry cordate relatives by the simple fact that we’ve replicated the amount of dna by a factor of 2. That’s given us immeasurable more adaptation abilities given the huge number of GATC combinations. What if we could construct new RNA strands from scratch, using pre-existing cellular protein? Or turn particular genes on or off depending on our mood. A person born male could change to female, have a child, and change back again, all in the space of a few years.
Mad scientist stuff for sure, but I’ve got my ticket. :crazy:

[Pepper]

Quote: "Cloning people for organs, I don't have a problem with that. We grow cows just to kill them for food, so why not grow clones for organs? Is it just because their human? Humans are animals too, just with more thinking capacity. *I guess to some people that makes us better."

It would save LOTS of time and money if we would just round up certain people-groups we think are un-desireable or burdensome and just harvest *their* organs. *Think about it: we wouldn't have to invest so much time, money, and effort in developing and growing clones; it wouldn't take decades to grow them to maturity; and the best part, besides the fact that those people are no longer a burden, is that we can have their organs *right now* !

Just call me Heinrich Himmler.

Quote: "With clones you can use one person to save the lives of many others. Since they were grown for that purpose, is it really cruel?"

I don't know, is it really cruel? *Why don't you go harvest some clone's organs and come back and tell me what you think about it?

Quote: "Do you have second thoughts when you eat that hamburger?"

Only if it came from McDonald's. *But even then a hamburger is a hamburger. *A clone is a human. *Not at all the same thing.
*
Quote: "Would a person who's dying and needs an organ transplant really care where the organs are coming from?"

Most likely, yes. *Take my brother, for instance. *Three years ago he had a kidney transplant. *He really DID care where it came from, because it had to come from a near relative, and it looked like it had to be either me or my mother. *Turns out my mother was a perfect match, so she donated one of her kidneys to her baby boy. *Turns out too that I and my whole family cared where that kidney came from.

Now if They could've recreated his kidneys, just his kidneys, *without the flaws they had, then that would've been a truly wonderful and beneficial thing. *There's no way on earth I or my family would've allowed a clone of my brother to be made just so he could be killed for his organs!

You know, Vyndim, this whole thing is so easy to discuss on paper, when we're so removed from reality. *You say that humans are no different than animals, and I say that humans are inherently, fundamentally different than animals. *This sort of Nazi-like thinking you're showing is one of the tragic results of the atheistic, evolutionary mindset that has come to dominate our society. *It reduces humans from priceless creatures with an awesome eternal destiny, who are created in the image of God, to a lump of tissue to be manipulated by the strongest lump of tissue for it's own purposes.
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devil.gif
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif

[Meche]

Uh-oh. Pepper what do you mean by "atheistic, evolutionary mindset"? It reminds me of when people say they have to be atheists to believe in evolution. You might mean something totally different by "evolutionary", of course, so I'm not sure. I do believe that that humans are animals in the biological sense, but that that's not the whole picture.

[Handothrawn]

All the objections I've heard to cloning are just plain stupid. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Oh, they wanna play God, Oh, its not right BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.[/b][/quote] I'm a very religious person but all the religious fanatiscism from many groups is just idiocy.

Just because you think its wrong doesn't mean the whole world must falter to your code ofethics. If you don't like it, don't take part in it.

I've heard scientists say its wrong because some one could create another Hitler, or another Osama Bin Laden, you'd make someone that looked genetically like them but other than that there is no connection between the two, nature vs. nurture comes ino play here I think.

Now, I'm a very religious person, and in, my opinion if God didn't want us to be able to clone, he wouldn't give us the mental capacity to reach that technilogical level.

Thats just my two cents.

[Handothrawn]

And if we cloned George Lucas again, and again for all eternity we could have a never ending chain of SW...

[Meche]

Hmm. If God didn't want us to be evil, he wouldn't have given us the capacity to be, either?

I'm not saying I've decided cloning is wrong. But while I know that the branch of philosophy that is ethics is beyond the scope of science, the scientists should still practice it. They should use their knowledge responsibly and not do something simply because they could, they should also think about whether they should... holy crap I'm quoting Jurassic Park, now I'll have dinosaur nightmares again...

[Handothrawn]

Quote: and if God didn't want us to be evil he wouldn't have given us the capacity to be, either.
-Meche

Well, evil, no, but He did want us to have a choice. And Meche what truly defines evil? If you can define it without using some sort of personal opinion then I salute you. But all evil is thought of as evil only by those on the outside looking in, did Hitler think what he was doing was evil? Or was it just the Allies' opinion that it was?

And Meche I do know exactly how you feel, you have grasped the same cloning aspect as I have, the Ian Malcolm Theory
as I call it.

BTW I do think Hitler was evil.

[JediBendu]

While this is diverging somewhat - GL believes evil is what happens to good people who've had bad things done to them (or something). Opinions (given we're now talking about cloning GL, and don't try and tell me he hasn't thought about it and is taking steps to get in line)?

Cloning for procreation and cloning for thereputic reasons are different, the later will be tried first and (hopefully) a set of standards and/or rules can be worked out through that process. All scientifc developments have teething problems.

[Meche]

Originally posted by handothrawn@Aug. 11 2002 - 14:37
And Meche what truly defines evil? If you can define it without using some sort of personal opinion then I salute you.
Mmm... bait. I generally think of evil as something someone does that can hurt people. The definition is too broad though, and it's definitely personal opinion, so disregard it.

[Vyndim]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Aug. 08 2002 - 18:27
IMO, morals and ethics are removed from pure science. *
<span style="color:000070">That's exactly correct in my opinion. Science itself has no morals or ethics. Science is not "sad" when a weapon is invented, science is not "happy" when a new vacine is invented either. Only when you apply science to humans does it become corrupted. We are simply provided knowledge by science, however, we pervert it to fit our own morals. The discovery of knowledge is indifferent to all, there is no "good" or "bad" science, except when we apply our own morals and ethics. It's the people who make science and the knowledge it provides "bad" or "good", not science and knowledge themselvesc but that is one of the flaws of being human, we have to put everything in our own perspective.</span>

Originally posted by Pepper@Aug. 10 2002 - 09:35
This sort of Nazi-like thinking you're showing is one of the tragic results of the atheistic, evolutionary mindset that has come to dominate our society. It reduces humans from priceless creatures with an awesome eternal destiny, who are created in the image of God, to a lump of tissue to be manipulated by the strongest lump of tissue for it's own purposes.

<span style="color:000070">I don't think my train of thought is "tragic". Perhapes it's the people with similar thoughts as yourself that hold society from advancing and removing itself from subjective morals and ethics. But, I won't go into that, morals and ethics are poor subjects for any party's involved, in my opinion.</span>

[catwmnjedi]

<span style="color:#daa500">I agree with JediBendu and Vyndim, discovery and knowledge by themselves are neither good nor bad, it's how those discoveries are applied. I also agree with Meche's point that intelligent people, such as most scientists, realize that if there's a "bad" application of a scientific discovery, it will be attempted by someone.

But as we see here, different people determine "good" and "bad" applications of science differently. So who decides it? Modern society has chosen to encourage discovery and the advancement of technology because it believes the potential good outweighs the potential bad. We could choose to shun technology like the Amish, but the majority of the industrial world has not taken that path.

Time will tell what will become of cloning, but I believe eventually our ability to create will also lead to our species' destruction. I have reasons for believing that, but they belong on another thread. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif</span>

[JediBendu]

I was watching the LOR dvd over the weekend and found an interesting point that applies here. I read the books over 15yrs ago so this angle was lost to me - do we as a species have to courage to 'unmake' a particular development that has and will always cause pain/suffering/death? The 1 ring can be used as a metaphor for anything in science that doesn't quite fit with our current moral view point. Could we 'unmake' the atom bomb? It would mean that nuclear power no longer exists. Should we withhold the knowledge from (not just the public) humanity if it is deemed too dangerous? Who would make that decision? Orwell's 'Ministry of Information' springs to mind.
a perplexing question mmm? :scratchchin:

[JediBendu]

I agree - knowledge shouldn't be withheld, but our ethics are determined by the society we happen to be in. In a hundred years we may look back at this moment and laugh at our fear, or admire us for our courage.

Tolkien obviously felt strongly about this, although I can't see his view being applied in modern society. ???

[JediBendu]

I'll leave the cloning issue with an news report on a South African team who've found a way to make cloning simple, cheap and done out of the back of a truck.

cloning made simple (http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-15aug2002-58.htm)

Backyard abortions now backyard cloning. *We're moving fast down this track whether we like it or not.

[JediBendu]

Does anyone have any opinions on AI? I'll preface the discussion with this news report:

Flying robot condenses eons of evolution into hours (http://abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-15aug2002-38.htm)

The article's interesting because it reveals an often ignored fact about computers - they run immeasurably faster than our bio-chemical neural transmitters do. Essentially their evolution will occur at a pace similar to our flying robot.
Hypothetically, if AI is born (ok stupid term but it will do) then how long before it reaches an equivalent stage of intellectual evolution as us mere humans?
I'll assume that the evolution of language is the start of our intellect developing apart from our simian cousins - about 200 000 years ago. (it was a variation of the FOXP2 gene (chrom 7) in fine motor control of the larynx, tongue and mouth)
AI could conceivable catch us, pass us and look back at us within a day, or at worse, before we even realise that AI has occured.
The Matrix is looking just a little be scarier. :eek:

[Tovor]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Hypothetically, if AI is born (ok stupid term but it will do) then how long before it reaches an equivalent stage of intellectual evolution as us mere humans?...
...AI could conceivable catch us, pass us and look back at us within a day, or at worse, before we even realise that AI has occured.
[/b][/quote]
This sounds like the premise of the Terminator films, regarding the evolution of Skynet and how it surpassed humans on August ? 1997(according to dialogue in the 1994 film).

[JediBendu]

August 29th, 1997. I was completely trashed with a mate that night - everyone tried to ignore our incoherant ramblings about impending doom.

T2 is one possibility, but another is that AI will not inform humanity of it's presence. Instead, they manipulate the flow of information in their favour, influencing decisions that will ultimately guarantee their own survival. (I think Jerry Pournelle had this as a premise for one of his books.)

I think this is probably what will happen - AI realises that it's been created by a primitive biological organism and quickly decides to shut the hell up about it :p

[Meche]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Aug. 13 2002 - 00:01
In a hundred years we may look back at this moment and laugh at our fear, or admire us for our courage.
Or hate us for not being more careful and using our knowledge wisely. Never know.

[JediBendu]

true

I'd like to bring in a new discovery in the evolutionary web.

The article was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online version (http://www.pnas.org)
Abstract Details Here (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/gca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%29&SEARCHID=1030501198941_1312&FULLTEXT=Neu5Gc&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=182257399)

What I find interesting is that it's the absence of the gene that controls the production of sialic acid (Neu5Gc - a type of sugar that coats all living cells except us).
The researches estimate that the loss/mutation of the gene occured between 2.5 and 3 million years ago and is the last mutation to occur after we branched from chimps.
Neanderthal skeletons have also be shown to lack the sugar.

"The gene itself is involved in changing the surfaces of all cells in the body," ..."There are some clues that it might have something to do with brain plasticity," *- Ajit Varki of the University of California San Diego

I'm interested in anyone's opinion on how this may have effected the size of our brains.

I'm also curious about the another mutation in the gene FOXP2 which occured about 200 000 years ago (I posted this in relation to the evolution of AI). *We're the only one's that have it, and it's responsible for motor control of vocal cords and facial muscles, a necessary precursor for refined speech.

Both are interesting discoveries - the absence of one [may] resulted in a larger brain developing, which resulted in another mutation to develop speech. *style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:000070">I was wondering where this thread went... Thanks for reviving it JediBendu. Unfortunately, I don't have much input to add on the topic at the moment. However, earlier, A.I. was mentioned. I just have a subjective question to ask: If we created fully functioning A.I. with ability to think, learn, and adapt is it considered playing god? I say this because essentially, even though the "life" is mechanical we still created a sentient being. So does that cross our boundries or is it that just because it is a machine those morals and ethics don't apply in that area?</span>

[JediBendu]

Of course they don't apply, unless of course it's some nanotech AI that is as part of every human cell as our own dna is.
Interesting premise though - perfection creating imperfection creating perfection. I wouldn't be suprised if we did worship AI as the one true god. Pure logic, pure rationalism, pure thought. All the trimmings (and trappings) of god.
Creating life isn't playing god, we've already created the polio virus in a petri dish from scratch (granted most scientists don't consider that life, just chemicals with life properties) - creating a universe though, now that's a different arguement all together.

[Javen]

where did the chimps come from?

where did matter come from?

If I make an explosion of anykind firecracker or Atomic does it create?

[JediBendu]

That would depend if you manage to create a firecracker that utilises Planke's constants.

Where does evolution start? *When did intelligence start? *Where did the universe start?

What is zero? *

You can trace back chimps to a branch of mammals, which branched from reptiles, which branched from fish, which branched from flat worms, which branched from sponges, which branched from bacteria, which branched from nanobes, which branched from ....?....., somehow they evovled from elemental rock, which formed with the planets, which formed with the solar system, which formed with the galaxy, which formed with the universe. *The totality of existence (albeit breifly described here) simply is - no definite begining, no conceivable end.

follow?

[Javen]

right...why didnt I think of that....
but still doesnt answer my questions

[JediBendu]

:yinyang:

[bodhisattva yoda]

i had this theory once... which may be very trite in the world of scientists and philosophers, but here it goes.

first, there's the theory that there wasn't just one big bang, but infinite...the universe perpetually implodes and explodes...
there's also the scientific law that matter cannot be created nor destroyed...right? ...so we have infinity, a finite amount of space in the universe (as it keeps imploding at some point) as well as a finite amount of matter...a limited number of atoms. now throw in the theory of scientific determinism, which is basically cause and effect and the predetermined state of reality arising from it...i don't know if this is a lot to digest at once, but stay with me... with the limited amount of matter in the universe and a limited amount of space in which to continually reform itself, there are only so many combinations the particles in the universe can rearrange itself into, which means, eventually, when all the combinations are exhausted (probably before), they'll be forced to repeat. if they repeat once, given all the aformentioned scientific laws/theories above, they'll continue in the exact same fashion and repeat again and again into infinity. if this is true, everything as already happened infinite times before, and will happen infinite times into the future... only, with this cycle, there is no future. the future is the past, and the past is the future, and a bunch of other inane rhetoric...

so what bendu said. no conceivable beginning or end. beginning and end and past and future are all just words.
but then we're not considering the possibility of alternate dimensions, are we. :eh:

[JediBendu]

The big crunch theory has been superceded by the concept of 'dark energy'. *Basically there is no cycles - just continous, accelerating expansion for eternity. *They've done projections in a few hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years saying that the size of an atom then will be the size of the universe as it is today (which is only a pathetic 15 billion years anyway)
Human evolution on this planet has been described as an eyeblink in the last second of a 24 hour period. *The dinosaurs had a massive 15minutes. *But the same applies with the current age of the universe - it's not even a nerve impulse to make the eyelid blink.
Question is - are we the first?
Sure it's arrogant to say so, but look at the incredible span of time that's already passed, and it's nothing compared to what's ahead. *Plenty of time for more life to develop, and just maybe, another spark of intelligence.

[bodhisattva yoda]

how exactly does an atom expand to the size of a universe? do all the particles that make up the atom increase in size, or do they just spread apart?

[Javen]

It doesnt make sense and please dont take it as Im putting any one down if you believe this way cause Im not.
I just question it thats all and have never truly got an answer to my questions.
Like for example some of the thigs said up above in the posts I have these ?'s

I. Where did all the material present in the Big Bang come from?

2. Why did the material suddenly explode?

3. Can an explosion bring about order?

[JediBendu]

jeez mate - if I knew that I wouldn't be here posting on a Star Wars thread. *I have ideas but it crosses over into *In the Light (http://www.galacticsenate.com/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=129;st=725) thread

Grim Jackal posted quite a bit on the big bang and the quantam universe, which is pretty much how I see, but I also tie in the universal sub-conscious (or unconscious, but I'm not going to quibble of semantics).

[Grim Jackal]

Javen, maybe this will help. It's difficult to comprehend how a machine as enormously complex as the Universe could arise. Well, what this post provides is reasoning for the existence of a here and now. It does not include God. Nor does it exclude Him. Yes, it's quite lengthy, but did you honestly think the Universe was so simple? Fear not, for whilst the concepts put forth may seem amazing, all of it is in layman's terms. If you genuinely want in on the current theories and ideas of modern quantum cosmology, well here they are.

CONTENTS
A - The origin of the Universe
B - An abbreviated history
C - Our changing Universe
D - Why do we think there was a beginning?
E - Atoms: frozen relics from the hot Big Bang
F - We know there was a Big Bang because we can see its glow
G - The quantum origin of structure
H - Science of the tiny
I - Quantum weirdness 1: atoms do not collapse
J - Quantum weirdness 2: electrons behave like waves and particles
K - Quantum weirdness 3: tiny objects can tunnel through walls
L - Quantum weirdness 4: tiny particles don't have a precise position
M - Quantum weirdness 5: some events have no cause
N - Quantum weirdness 6: empty space is not empty
O - Quantum weirdness 7: two kinds of vacuum
P - The beginning of time
Q - Are there other universes?

A -- The origin of the Universe --
In the beginning, about 13 billion years ago, existence came into existence. Time began. Space came into being. The Universe was more than a billion, trillion times hotter than the centre of the sun.

From then till now the Universe has expanded and cooled. Galaxies and stars have formed. Life on Earth has evolved and here we are. It's the biggest thing science has ever attempted to explain - the story of everything.

Thousands of detailed observations have given us this general picture. However until recently, the very beginning, the first fraction of a second, was beyond the limits of science. Heedless of such limits, a new group of scientists is exploring the very beginning. These pioneers have combined our knowledge of the smallest objects in the Universe (quantum theory) with our knowledge of the largest (cosmology) and are building the new science of quantum cosmology.

Quantum cosmology is producing a scientific scenario that answers the biggest question of all: how did the Universe begin?

It is a scenario in which the Universe comes into existence by pinching off from a timeless quantum nothing. Some of the story is easy to follow but much of it is simply mind-boggling.

B -- An abbreviated history --
There are stages in a human life: conception, birth, babyhood, childhood, puberty and adulthood. The life of the Universe can be similarly divided into stages, for it too was born and has grown up.

Time and space begin with the Big Bang. The Universe was born, inflated rapidly, filled with hot energetic particles and then cooled. (What happened before the Big Bang? The question doesn't make sense, as we'll see later.)

First it was opaque, but as it cooled it became transparent. It was at this point that it was cool enough for the first atoms to appear, forming a wispy network of filaments and great walls of hydrogen gas clouds.

Over the next 13 billion years, the gravitational collapse of this wispy network created all the structures in the Universe.

A billion years after the Big Bang, the first generation of massive stars may have formed. About a billion years later galaxies began to form. Four and a half billion years ago our Sun ignited, and the Solar System and our planets were formed.

To summarise:
* The beginning of the Universe: Quantum cosmology describes this as the Universe tunnelling into existence from nothing.
* Spacetime foam: The Universe is a quantum froth of spacetime foam. Space and time are rolled into one. But, in 10(-43) seconds after the Big Bang, time and space separate to become different coordinates.
* Inflation: Within a fraction of a second the Universe expanded to be at least 10(26) (or 100 million, billion, billion) times larger than it had been.
* Birth of matter: Inflation comes to an end when the energy that is driving this expansion gets dumped into the Universe in the form of every type of particle and its antiparticle. These come together, annihilate, produce a prodigious amount of light and leave a small excess of matter.
* The Universe becomes transparent: About 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled to 3000 degrees C. At this temperature electrons and protons fell together to form hydrogen. For the first time, light was able to travel long distances without being scattered.
* Birth of the first objects: About a billion years after the Big Bang, the wispy network of hydrogen may have knotted up into the first primitive stars.
* Birth of galaxies: Our Galaxy, like billions of others, was born about 10 billion years ago. Huge hydrogen clouds, more than 100,000 light years across, gravitationally collapsed. In each of these galaxies, cloud fragments collapsed further to form stars.
* Birth of our Solar System: Four and a half billion years ago, one late-forming fragment collapsed to form a yellow star, our Sun. In a disc around the star, gas, ice and rock fell together into clumps. In less than 100 million years these clumps formed planets. Over the next billion years the gravity of these planets swept up debris and grew in size to become the planets of our Solar System.
* Now: 13 billion years after the Big Bang, in one of 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe, orbiting a modest yellow star among more than 200 billion stars in our Galaxy, the Milky Way, the cloud-covered watery planet called Earth shelters us and spins.

C -- Our changing Universe --
When we look out at the Universe beyond the stars of our own Galaxy we see billions of other galaxies shining and drifting in the darkness. They seem stable and unchanging, as if they have been and will remain that way forever. This timeless appearance is deceiving.

Most humans live for less than 100 years. But if we could live for 10 billion years, we could have watched the Universe unfold like a time-lapse of a flower opening.

We could have watched as the galaxies, one after another, burst into existence. Today their fading glow is punctuated by an occasional burst of light as galaxies collide.

One of the lasting legacies of astronomy is the knowledge that the Sun was born 4.6 billion years ago and that it will die after another 4 or 5 billion years. It is not infinitely old and will not always be here. The Sun and other stars cannot be infinitely old because their fuel supplies are not infinite.

Stars burn hydrogen into helium and they shine as long as their hydrogen lasts; like a tank of petrol, eventually it runs out.

The Universe does not come with a birth certificate, but there are dozens of ways to measure its age. For example, the ages of stars and meteors can be determined by measuring the amounts of radioactive material in them. Until recently there was a wide spread in the age calculations. Depending on the technique used, the Universe was somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years old. After much hard work and improved precision we now know that it is between 12 and 15 billion years old.

Independent of the ages of objects in the Universe, Einstein's theory of general relativity allows us to calculate the age of the Universe by how fast it is expanding (see Section D). The result is again between 12 and 13 billion years old.

The discovery that the Universe is changing and that it had a starting point (which we can roughly measure) could be the most important intellectual achievement of the 20th century, if not of all time.

D -- Why do we think there was a beginning? --
As a racing car approaches you, you hear the high pitch of the engine. As it zooms past you and moves away, the high pitch becomes a low pitch. The high pitch is from the sounds waves being compressed as they are emitted by the approaching car. The low pitch is caused by the sound waves getting stretched as they are emitted by the receding car. This is known as the Doppler Effect.

Just before World War I, astronomers had found that light from certain cloudy patches far away in space (which we now know to be distant galaxies) was stretched. That is, the measured wavelengths of the light were longer than expected - as if these light sources were receding from us.

In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the more distant the galaxy, the longer the wavelength. That is, a galaxy's red shift (the amount the wavelength of the light is stretched) is proportional to its distance. This is now known as Hubble's Law. It can perhaps be most simply explained if distant galaxies are receding from us more quickly than galaxies that are closer to our neighbourhood.

Think about that. If galaxies are moving apart today, in the past they were closer together. In the more distant past they were even closer and at some time they must have been right on top of each other - a hot galactic traffic jam of cosmic proportions. We call this traffic jam the Big Bang or the origin of the Universe. We can say it took place 13 billion years ago by tracing the paths of the galaxies into the past. So we think there was a beginning because today we see all the galaxies in the Universe moving away fromeach other.

Hubble's Law is most simply explained by the idea that the Universe is expanding. This deceptively simple concept is easily misunderstood. One might imagine that expansion means every galaxy in the Universe is going away from a single point, from some centre. However, galaxies are scattered almost uniformly and there is no point that can be regarded as the centre of the Universe. The Big Bang did not have a centre.

The Big Bang was not like an explosion of a bomb in a pre-existing space. It was more like an explosion of space itself. The observed galactic red shifts cannot be explained by galaxies moving through space, but rather by the expansion of space itself.

Space is expanding but we are not, even though we are part of it. Our Galaxy, just like our planet and our bodies, is held together by atomic or gravitational forces.

* Space can bend *
Einstein's general theory of relativity not only requires space to stretch or contract, it also allows space to curve and bend. Curvature comes in three basic types - A: spherical, like the surface of a ball; B: flat, like a sheet of paper; and C: hyperbolic, like the surface of a saddle or a potato crisp. If the Universe is curved like the surface of a ball then it is finite - you can travel in one direction and find yourself back in the same spot, similar to circumnavigating the Earth. A spherical Universe may eventually stop expanding and recollapse in a Big Crunch. If the Universe is flat like a sheet of paper or it is saddle-shaped, then a traveller going in one direction can go on forever and never come back. Such a Universe will expand forever. Cosmologists are trying to determine wether our Universe is like A, B or C. Most current observations favour B or C: an infinite Universe.

E -- Atoms: frozen relics from the hot Big Bang --
When things cool down they change. For example, as it cools, liquid lava becomes solid rock, steam condenses into liquid water and liquid water freezes into ice.

Many features of the current Universe can be understood as the frozen relics of a hotter past. The young Universe was very hot and dense. As it expanded it cooled and changed. This thermal trip went from trillions of degrees to a few thousand degrees and then further to today's frosty -270 degrees C.

As the Universe cooled, structures such as proton, atoms and molecules froze into existence. The first atoms formed only after the temperature of the Universe had dropped below 3000 degrees C, some 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

Understanding the formation of structures in a cooling Universe might be easiest if we run time backwards. If we were to heat the molecules of our bodies and the Earth they would break up into their parts, atoms.

Heat atoms and they will change from solid to liquid to gas. Then the atoms themselves start to break up. The electrons begin to fly off from around nuclei. With more heat all the electrons depart, leaving only the nuclei. Heat these nuclei and they break into their component parts: protons and neutrons. Heat these and they break into fundamental particles called quarks. The Universe becomes a hot, dense soup filled with quarks and energetic photon (a photon is a particle of light).

Heat this soup further and you have so much energy that antiparticles and particles form in equal numbers from the photons. Heat the Universe further and the true vacuum becomes a false vacuum (see Section O). All the energy and matter in the Universe is used up in this transition, making the Universe collapse by at least 10(26) in size. Heat this collapsed false vacuum and spacetime itself begins to froth and boil. Time loses its meaning and there the heating stops.

The cooling Universe can be described as a hot soup which, as it cools, goes through four formative stages listed below. Note that the first three stages all occur in a microsecond. Within that blink of an eye, the large-scale structure of the whole Universe was established.

* Antimatter soup: At 10(-33) seconds after the Big Bang, as inflation ended, the Universe became filled with particle/antiparticle pairs of all kinds. The particles and antiparticles then annihilated, producing billions of photons. A small excess of matter over antimatter was left and became all the stars and galaxies in the Universe today. This mutual annihilation is somewhat like a large dance with a billion boys and a billion and one girls. The boys and girls pair off and annihilate. The one girl remaining makes up all the normal matter in the Universe.

* Quark soup: From 10(-30) to 10(-6) seconds after the Big Bang, quarks were not bound together. There was a soup of the free quarks and electrons. The density of the Universe was higher than the density of an atomic nucleus. Instead of calling them free quarks, one could say they were bound inside a gigantic, infinite nucleus that was the entire Universe.

* Proton soup: At 10(-6) seconds after the Big Bang the temperature cooled to a few trillion degrees. The density of the Universe dropped below the density of an atomic nucleus. With this rarefaction and cooling, the quarks became bound together three at a time to form protons and neutrons.

* Nuclei soup: From 1 second to 3 minutes after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled below the binding energy of atomic nuclei, 10 billion degrees. Nuclei were able to form, and stay formed. We think of nuclei as immutable only because we live at temperatures below 10 billion degrees. When a proton collided with a neutron, they formed the nucleus of a deuterium atom (a heavy form of hydrogen). When two deuterium nuclei collided, they formed the nucleus of a helium atom. Today, all over the Universe, matter consists of 75 percent hydrogen and 25 percent helium. These percentages are the relics of the first three minutes after the Big Bang.

F -- We know there was a Big Bang because we can see its glow --
When we look at the Moon, we are seeing it as it was one second ago. We see the Sun as it was eight minutes ago and the light from the nearest stars has taken four years to reach us. We see our neighbourhood galaxy Andromeda as it was two million years ago. As we look into the distance, we see into the past because it takes time for light to travel through space. If we look far enough into the past, will we see the Big Bang? Well yes, sort of.

When we look far enough, past all the objects emitting light, we see only one object - the entire Universe glowing. This glow is the cosmic microwave background radiation discovered with a radiotelescope by American physicists Amo Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. Its existence is the strongest observational evidence for the Big Bang model of the Universe. This glow was emitted by the entire Universe 300,000 years after the Big Bang. We cannot see any further in time and space because beyond this point the Universe is a hot opaque plasma.

As the Universe cooled below 3000 degrees C, the hot fog of the early Universe became transparent. Electrons and protons fell together to form transparent neutral hydrogen. For the first time, light was able to travel straight and not be scattered. When it began its journey it was visible light but we cannot see it now with our eyes because as it travelled through the expanding Universe, its wavelength got stretched a thousandfold. This red-shifted glow of the Big Bang is the cosmic microwave background radiation.

We are accustomed to light coming from a source in a given direction, such as a light bulb, or the Sun, or the Milky Way. The cosmic microwave background is different. It comes from everywhere since the Big Bang is in the past of everything in the Universe.

* Expanding and cooling *
300,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature dropped below 3000 degrees C. and the Universe became transparent. Because the Universe has remained transparent ever since, we can see back to this time. The surface of the last scattering emitted visible red light, but as the light travelled through the expanding Universe, its wavelength got stretched by a factor of 1000. The temperature of the radiation dropped from 3000 degrees C to -270 degrees C.

G -- The quantum origin of structure --
An amazing thing is emerging from our studies of the Universe. To explain the large we need to understand the tiny. The biggest structures in the Universe (dense walls of thousands of galaxies each made up of billions of stars) have their origins in the tiniest quantum structures. Part of the evidence for this lies in a map of the cosmic background radiation. Previously we saw how the remnants of the Big Bang have been detected. Our instruments can pick up a glow called the cosmic background microwave radiation. It is an icy remnant of the Universe when it was 300.000 years old. So what does this glow look like?

The instrument that has recorded this glow is a satellite called the Cosmic Background Explorer, or COBE for short. This map of the glow or cosmic microwave background is an oval full of red and blue areas. This now-famous image literally a photo of the Universe 300,000 years after the Big Bang and a couple of billion years before galaxies formed.

There were no galaxies then, but the seeds of galaxies were already in place. The blue spots are the seeds. They are regions of high density which have become regions with a large number of galaxies. The red spots have become voids with a small number of galaxies. What is the origin of these blue and red spots?

Einstein's theory of general relativity explains how gravity shaped the Universe on the largest scales, but it gives us no clues about what happens on very small scales. When the pattern of galaxies was laid out, the observable Universe was very small. General relativity can't explain the origin of the blue and red spots, but it seems that another science - quantum theory - can.

These spots are the largest structures ever detected, but they may also be the smallest structures known to science. This is because a process called inflation (see Section O) has taken subatomic quantum fluctuations smaller than anyone has ever seen and blown them up to scales as big as the entire Universe. It's as if inflation is a microscope which not only makes a magnified image of small quantum fluctuations, but magically transforms the image into reality.

H -- Science of the tiny --
Our goal is to understand the creation of the Universe. The size of the observable Universe (the part of the Universe we can see today) is more than a trillion, trillion kilometres. This is not small. This is the distance light has travelled during the 13 billion years since the Big Bang.

However, as we go back in time closer to the Big Bang, closer to the cosmic traffic jam, what is now he observable Universe was smaller and smaller. At 10(-33) seconds after the Big Bang (a trillionth of a trillionth of a billionth of a second) it was about as big as a basketball. Go back further in time and the currently observable Universe was smaller than an atom. In order to understand how the Universe behaved in these first moments and where it may have come from, we need to think in different ways. Studying the way electrons behave will help.

Small things (like electrons, photons and the early Universe) behave so differently from large things that we need a radical, weird, counter-intuitive approach called quantum theory to understand them. Quantum theory became necessary because the more we learned about the microworld, the weirder it became. The difference between the classical macroworld and the quantum microworld is so great that universities teach separate courses on each subject. It's as if the Universe could be divided into two types of objects: big things and small things. General relativity describes big things while quantum theory looks after small things.

Below we will look at what makes quantum theory so weird:
1 atoms do not collapse
2 electrons behave like particles and waves
3 tiny objects can tunnel through walls
4 tiny particles don't have precise positions
5 some events don't have a cause
6 empty space is not empty
7 there are two types of empty space

These weird ideas are the tools we need to understand the quantum creation of the Universe. Before we put the ideas together, let's explain them one by one.

I -- Quantum weirdness 1: atoms do not collapse --
Many people envisage an electron orbiting a nucleus as a satellite orbiting the Earth. The centrifugal force balances the gravitational force and the satellite moves around the Earth in a circle. If an electron were accelerated like this around a nucleus, it would radiate away its energy and spiral into the nucleus in a fraction of a second. Every atom in our bodies would collapse and we wouldn't be around to wonder about it. In fact atoms don't collapse. Why not? Why is their behaviour so different from large objects? If the electron does not have an orbit like a satellite, what kind of orbit does it have?

Quantum theory answers these questions by describing the electron as a smeared-out cloud of probability with discrete (fixed) energy levels (see Section L). The early Universe may have been similar to an electron.

Just as quantum theory can explain why the electron does not collapse into the nucleus, quantum cosmology may be able to explain why the Universe could not have been completely collapsed and did not originate from a point of infinite density and temperature.

To summarise:
Macroworld: In the macroworld, objects have both positions and velocities. A satellite has a specific position as it orbits the Earth. This macroworld picture is often used to explain the simplest atom, hydrogen, which has an electron 'in orbit' around a proton. But it's not a good model.

Microworld: If an electron really did have a circular orbit (like a miniature satellite) around a proton, it would quickly emit energy in the form of photons. Its orbit would decay in a fraction of a second and the electron would fall into the proton. All atoms would collapse and we wouldn't be here. No chemistry or life would be possible. Before quantum theory, no one could explain why atoms did not collapse like this.

J -- Quantum weirdness 2: electrons behave like waves and particles --
Throw a ball at a wall with two slits in it. Mark the positions on a screen behind the wall where the ball has hit. As you do this hundreds of times, the pattern of positions where the ball hit starts to look like two slits.

Now try the same thing with an electron (throwing electrons at a screen is what your television set does). The result is not an image of two slits but an image of many slits. Why do microballs (electrons) act so differently from macroballs? The electron results are identical to that made by a wave. A wave goes through both slits (effectively becoming two point sources) and then is able to interfere with itself. A tiny electron should pass through one slit or the other. It doesn't. Like a wave, it goes through both. The electron is not just a particle in a precise location with a precise trajectory. It is some kind of weird hybrid of a wave and a particle. The double-slit experiment brings out its double nature.

A wave cannot deposit all its energy in a precise spot on the screen. It can't produce one bright image without producing all the bright images simultaneously. Waves cannot be localised. However, the multiple slits of the electron image are made of hundreds of individual, well-localised hits where you can say the electron hit here, here, and here - just as you can with a ball. So a microball, an electron, acts a bit like a macroball, depositing its energy in one spot on the screen. But it also acts a bit like a wave, interfering with itself when it goes through both slits at once.

A single electron acts like many electrons. It simultaneously takes all possible paths between its source and its detection. Nobody expected an electron to behave this way. Nobody wants electrons to behave this way. It doesn't make sense. How can an electron be a point particle when we detect it in a particular very precise spot and yet, when we don't detect it, it behaves as a wave that is spread out all over the place? This weird behaviour is not limited to electrons - all small things behave this way - including perhaps the small early Universe. Can the Universe interfere with itself the way an electron can? Can the presence of other universes be revealed analogous to the way the double-slit experiment reveals the multiple paths the electron has taken before hitting the screen? These are the new types of questions that quantum cosmology is beginning to answer.

To summarise:
Macroworld: A macroball passes through one slit or the other and hits the screen directly behind the slit.

Microworld: Like a macroball, an electron hits the screen at a single spot, but the spot will not be right behind a slit. If we repeat the same experiment many times, the well-known wave interference pattern emerges on the screen. This can only occur if the electron has passed through both slits at the same time.

K -- Quantum weirdness 3: tiny objects can tunnel through walls --
Consider a glass on a kitchen table with a ping pong ball in it. If you go to sleep and come back next day, the ball will still be in the glass. Now do the same thing in the microworld. Put an electron in a miniature glass. If you wait long enough the electron will be gone (how long you have to wait depends on how small the glass is and how high and thick its walls are). Such quantum tunnelling is normal behaviour in the microworld. Events that are impossible in the macroworld can take place in the microworld.

This quantum weirdness can be understood in much the same way as the double slit. The electron passed through both slits as if it were spread out like a cloud. Too big to fit through just one of the slits, it passes through both. Similarly, this probability cloud is too big to fit in the glass and extends beyond the walls of the glass. Since the probability of being outside the glass is not zero, once in a while the electron will be detected outside it. The electron does not move to the outside, it just appears there instantaneously.

Although there are no holes or tunnels in the wall of glass, this appearance on the other side of a barrier is called quantum-tunnelling. When the electron is detected outside the glass, it is detected in a specific, very precise location and all the cloud of probability surrounding the glass disappears instantaneously. The smaller the glass, the more likely the cloud is to extend out of it, and thus the easier it is for the electron to appear on the outside or 'quantum-tunnel' through the barrier.

The inability to confine an electron to a glass may be related to an inability for the Universe to shrink beyond a certain limit as we go back in time towards the Big Bang. Just as the electron quantum-tunnelled instantaneously (and causelessly) from a stable state inside the glass to the outside of the glass, the quantum Universe may have quantum-tunnelled into existence from a stable timeless state.

To summarise:
Macroworld: When you put a ping pong ball in a glass it stays there.

Microworld: When you put an electron into a miniature glass it doesn't stay there. It can instantaneously quantum-tunnel out of the glass. There are no holes or tunnels in the glass through which the electron travels. Rather, a cloud represents the probabilities of the electron's existence at a given spot. The probability that it exists outside the glass is not zero. This permits quantum-tunnelling.

L -- Quantum weirdness 4: tiny particles don't have a precise position --
A good image for an atom is a smeared-out cloud of dots around a nucleus. The cloud represents the probability of a single electron being at that point. The more dots there are in a given area, the more likely the electron is to show up there when a position measurement is made. There are more dots near the nucleus and fewer further away. This means that when we make measurements we're more likely to find the electron near the nucleus. When we aren't directly detecting the electron, the cloud of probability is the electron. It is everywhere at once. We must accept the idea that, in the absence of a position measurement, the electron has no position.

When a position detection is made, the probabilities of the electron existing in other positions immediately become zero. After a horse race, all bets are off. Although we have been concentrating on the electron, the nucleus is also spread out over space and should be represented by a smaller cloud of dots.

Electrons and other small things do not behave as if they have precise positions. If electrons had precise positions, atoms would collapse, there would be only two images in the double-slit experiment and electrons would stay in miniature glasses. Electrons behave like smeared-out clouds of probability able to maintain a stable existence around a nucleus without emitting radiation, able to pass through both slits at the same time in the double-slit experiment and able to exist outside the walls of a glass even though it was originally put inside the glass.

Another feature of this smeared-out existence is that particular patterns of smearing correspond to particular energy levels, in much the same way as the vibrations of a guitar string (see below). There is a minimum energy level which prevents the electron from collapsing into the nucleus.

Near the Big Bang we may need to describe the Universe with a cloud of probability similar to the one used to describe an electron. Just as the energy of the electron is quantised and does not allow the existence of a collapsed atom, a similar quantisation may not allow the existence of a completely collapsed Universe. Just as the electron cannot collapse into the nucleus, the Universe may not be able to collapse into (or emerge from) an indescribable point of infinite density and temperature. Just as an electron can tunnel out of a glass, perhaps the Universe can tunnel into existence.

* Energy levels of a vibrating string *
Pluck a guitar string and it vibrates at its longest wavelength (lowest pitch). The string can also vibrate at higher pitches which have their own wavelengths, much as an electron in an atom has fixed energy levels. Both can take certain values, both have a minimum energy level (like the longest wavelength of the string). At its lowest energy the electron can't lose energy, so atoms do not collapse.

M -- Quantum weirdness 5: some events have no cause --
Fires generate smoke. Flipping a switch causes the lights to come on. Common sense seems to insist that every effect has a cause that precedes it in time. What caused the Big Bang? It time itself begins at the Big Bang, how can there be a cause that precedes it in time? Does the Universe need a cause?

Quantum theory gives us many examples of events without causes. Radioactive decay is one. Take two uranium atoms and wait. After a while one will emit an alpha particle (two protons and two neutrons). The other will not. According to our best understanding of the Universe, there is absolutely no way to predict which of the uranium atoms will decay first. We know the half-life of uranium from which we can calculate the probability of the decay but this probability is the same for both atoms. There is no activity inside the nucleus, no gears, no details, no hidden variables which, if we knew them, would allow us to predict the time of the radioactive decay. The time of the decay is unknown and by all indications unknowable. Uranium atoms decay by chance, with a certain probability, but without a cause. Radioactive decay is an event without a cause.

When we put the electron into the miniature glass and then detect it in a precise position outside the glass, there is nothing about the electron before detection that causes it to be where it is found. There is no way to know when it will appear outside the glass. We can calculate a probability for quantum-tunnelling to happen, but there is no cause.

The cloud of probability describing the alpha particle in a uranium nucleus is spread out, and some of it is outside the nucleus. That means that once in a while the alpha particle will tunnel out.

This is bad news for common sense which seems to insist that all events have causes. If common sense is wrong and quantum theory is right, our quest for the cause of the Universe may be ill-conceived. Maybe the Universe doesn't have a cause. It could have come into existence in a particular state by chance, with a certain probability but without a cause.

Since we know we need quantum theory to describe the early Universe and we know quantum events have no causes, it seems plausible that the creation of the Universe can be best understood as an uncaused quantum event analogous to the quantum-tunnelling of the alpha particle in the decay of a uranium atom. The Universe may not need a cause to come into existence.

N -- Quantum weirdness 6: empty space is not empty --
Consider the space between your computer monitor and your head. Remove all the air and light from it so there is nothing there. You're left with boring empty vacuum - nothing. So what's to talk about?

Lots. What we call empty space is filled with quantum fluctuations that cannot be eliminated. You can't see them because they are too small. Quantum fluctuations seem to make up the very fabric of space. Just as it is silly to try to separate a shirt from the cloth it is made of, it is silly to try and separate the idea of a vacuum from the quantum fluctuations that give the vacuum its structure.

The study of the vacuum is one of the most important areas of current research. The latest evidence indicates that these quantum fluctuations are vital parts of any cosmology since they are responsible for:
1 making the Universe expand
2 creating all the structure in the Universe (galaxies and clusters of galaxies)
3 controlling the density of the Universe

Quantum fluctuations give the vacuum an energy that can be measured. We call it vacuum energy or 'zero-point' energy. It is much like the lowest energy level of an electron in an atom. But vacuum energy exists in the absence of atoms and everything else. Empty space is not empty. It is filled with vacuum energy.

Consider a microscopic pendulum. When it is swinging it has energy. When it is still it has no energy. However, the uncertainty principle tells us that it can never be perfectly still (see below). If it were, we would know its position and its velocity exactly - which the uncertainty principle forbids. If we look at its small, sharp tip very carefully we will see that it is not perfectly still. So there is a tiny amount of uncertainty in its position and this is equivalent to a tiny amount of energy, a minimum amount of energy that cannot be eliminated - zero-point energy.

What do pendulums have to do with empty space? Our most accurate description of empty space tells us that space is filled with a seething froth of particles of every kind continuously coming into and going out of existence. These fluctuations are like the residual oscillations of the pendulum - they cannot be eliminated. There is an irreducible minimum amount of these fluctuations which gives the vacuum an energy.

How do we know these fluctuations exist? The Casimir Effect (see below), which was predicted by Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir in 1948, is a measurable consequence of quantum fluctuations. Also, astronomers have recently found strong evidence that not only is the Universe expanding but that this expansion is accelerating. It is believed that this acceleration is closely related to the energy of the vacuum.

* What is the Uncertainty Principle? *
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that the precise position and precise velocity (or momentum) of a particle cannot be known at the same time. Instead there is a trade-off. If you know the position very well, you cannot know the velocity very well. Precision of one precludes precision of the other.

* The Casimir Effect *
When two metal plates are placed parallel to each other a small distance apart, a force pushes them together. This is the Casimir Effect. The plates act like fixed ends of a guitar string, allowing only certain vibrations or zero-point oscillations (quantum fluctuations of particles coming into and going out of existence) to occur. Vibrations with wavelengths equal to or less than the distance between the plates can occur between the plates, whereas vibrations longer than this distance cannot (but still occur outside the plates). The net effect is a greater pressure on the outside of the plates (because there are fewer vibrations between the plates).

O -- Quantum weirdness 7: two kinds of vacuum --
Empty space has a fixed amount of energy, but another quantum weirdness complicates the story. Apparently there are two kinds of vacuum: false vacuum and true vacuum. We live in the true vacuum, but in the very early Universe, sometime before 10(-30) seconds after the Big Bang, the vacuum was different. It was false. Its lowest energy state was not really the lowest possible. Here's an analogy that might help.

Imagine a room full of plastic balls. The balls jostle around a bit like the quantum fluctuations we've been discussing. Suppose the floor drops out from under the roomful of balls and everything crashes down into the basement. The energy of the fall makes the balls zoom around every which way. But soon the balls settle down into a minimum jostling state. The jostling on the first floor corresponded to the zero-point energy around a tremendously high potential energy of the false vacuum. The jostling in the basement corresponds to the zero-point energy around the much lower potential energy of the true vacuum. During the fall a tremendous amount of energy became available to the balls. The enormous potential energy of the false vacuum has become real. The structure of the vacuum has changed, and the ground-level energy has diminished.

One of the most important ideas in modern cosmology is inflation. Inflation is a short period of tremendous expansion early in the evolution of the Universe. It occurs a fraction of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang and lasts for only a fraction of a trillionth of a second. This short period of expansion is caused by the transition from the false vacuum to the true vacuum.

During inflation the false vacuum decays to a lower state, thereby dumping all the energy (the difference between the old zero-point energy and the new zero-point energy) into the Universe. This energy-dump heats up the Universe, fills it with particles and stops inflation. So the source of all the energy and matter in the Universe is the energy of the false vacuum - the higher ground state energy of the early Universe.

Hopefully the zero-point energy we have today is as low as it can get. If not, the floor will fall out from under us and a new inflationary epoch will heat the Universe and destroy us all.

Now with our new quantum concepts we can describe the Universe in a new way:
1 In the beginning the Universe may be described by a cloud of probable universes existing in a stable, timeless state.
2 Without cause, like a quantum fluctuation, the Universe tunnels into existence.
3 The Universe is a froth of spacetime foam in which time and space were indistinguishable.
4 The floor drops out of the false vacuum as it becomes the true vacuum. This causes a rapid expansion known as inflation. All the potential energy of the false vacuum is dumped into the Universe in the form of matter and antimatter. This stops inflation. After mutual annihilation there is a small excess of matter.
5 The matter is not uniformly distributed over the Universe. Rather, the imprints of quantum fluctuations in the early Universe remain and act as the initial seeds that can be seen in the COBE map. Under the influence of gravity over the next few billion years, these seeds become all the rich structure of galaxies, galaxy clusters, filaments, walls, and voids that we see around us today.

P -- The beginning of time --
In quantum theory, sometimes the more precise one tries to be, the more confused one becomes. The things we are trying to measure (exact positions and trajectories) do not exist in the way we have conceived them. A beginning of time may be one of those misconceptions.

In 1983, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle proposed a new solution to the problem of the creation of the Universe. Their proposal uses a 'no-boundary condition' in which time does not have an abrupt edge. The beginning of time is rounded off like the end of a shuttlecock.

Imagine you’re an explorer travelling to the South Pole. You head south, always south. When you get to the pole, you find you can't go any further south. There is no edge or boundary preventing you from going further south. It's just that further south does not exist. If you go further south you start heading north. The direction south becomes meaningless at the South Pole.

In Hawking and Hartle's model, if you could time-travel back to the Big Bang you would see no boundary on the rounded surface. But every direction you travelled would be into the future. Near the Big Bang the past does not exist because the nature of time changes.

Not only is there no time before the Big Bang, in the Hawking-Hartle model there is no precise, one-dimensional time at the Big Bang. That's because it was at this point that time began. The beginning of time may be 'rounded off', like the South Pole. And because of this rounding off, you can't get south of the South Pole or earlier than the Big Bang. Hawking's interpretation of this rounding off is: "Instead of the talking about the Universe being created ... one should just say: the Universe is."

* In the beginning time and space are indistinguishable *
In Einstein's special relativity, time and space are distinct. When spacetime distances are computed, space and time contribute in different ways. In Hawking and Hartle's proposal, the Big Bang has the nice property of being 'rounded off' because space and time are indistinguishable dimensions and contribute in the same way to spacetime distances. Mathematically and physically time becomes another dimension of space. The three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time we are all accustomed to becomes a four-dimensional space with no boundary in time. There is no first moment worth speaking about. It's as if the spacetime of special relativity has become spacespace and the beginning of the Universe has become a place with no time.

Q -- Are there other universes? --
In quantum theory, the cloud of probability describing the electron is defined at all possible positions in space. But in quantum cosmology, the cloud of probability describing the Universe needs to be defined at all positions in the abstract space of all possible universes. Hawking and Hartle define 'all possible universes' as all universes that have the beginning of time rounded off (see Section P). That's one possibility.

Another is that a multiplicity of universes can be found in the chaotic inflation models of Russian physicist André Linde. In his models, our entire Universe is one small blob-like protrusion from a network of similar universes. This infinite network of universes is called the multiverse. In the multiverse, 'before the Big Bang' does have a meaning: it refers to the existence of the multiverse before the Big Bang when our particular Universe protruded from it. The multiverse from which it came may or may not have had a beginning.

The Holy Grail of physics is to combine quantum ideas with gravity: to create the so-called 'Theory of Everything'. Superstring models may be the best candidates for such a theory. According to superstring models, our four-dimensional spacetime is part of the real but much larger universe which has 10, 11 or more dimensions. Our familiar three dimensions are special - they have unrolled into an existence we can perceive, while the other hidden dimensions are curled up. But long ago, closer to the Big Bang, all dimensions, including ours, were curled up.

Most quantum cosmologists deal with the creation of the Universe within a pre-existing framework of laws. But the big question is, which came first? The laws of the Universe or the Universe itself? What needs explanation is not only where the box came from and how the stuff got into the box, but also where the rules, which we use to explain all this, came from.

[Javen]

That is alot of things just to convince that the Big Bang happened.Its way to complicated and the universe billions of years old no way.I would say at the most 10,000 years if that.

[JediBendu]

The radioactive waste the US is about to store in the Yukon mountains has a half life of greater than that.
It's not way too complicated - the mechanism is simple, it's just that we're seeing it after the fact and are trying to make sense of it. It's like being stuck inside a box and trying to work out what the postage says on the outside. You know your stuck in the mail truck, you know your moving, but you have no idea how you got in the truck, much less how you got in the box.
where did that analogy come from? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[JediBendu]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2002228580829.gif

[Javen]

How come not one Scientist or one person has ever seen an animal evolve?

[Darth Opinionated]

Beacuse it happens only when you are not looking!!!!!! Duh!!! :dunce:

[Meche]

Originally posted by Javen@Aug. 30 2002 - 20: 04
That is alot of things just to convince that the Big Bang happened.Its way to complicated and the universe billions of years old no way.I would say at the most 10,000 years if that.
Um... huh? What's that kind of reason, "it's too complicated or incredible for me to understand or believe, therefore it's not true." "No way"? That's the best reason? What do you base your 10,000 year guess on?

As for seeing an animal evolve... we did see some evolve so*I don't know what you're talking about. Certain bacteria is one example since they reproduce so fast. Vertebrates evolve more slowly though...

[Javen]

^Oh I get it so now after ive said that I wasnt putting anyone person down for believing this and im only questioning it.So now im called basically an idiot because
I did not explain myself in a scientific way?

[Javen]

It is an observable fact that the addition of certain types of energy, such as heat, always bring about disorder rather than structure. The evolutionary theory ignores this fact with the supposition of the Big Bang. By assigning approximately 12 to 15 billion years to the formation of the universe, the evolutionary theory masks the fact that the addition of chaotic energy always results in chaos. This time scale is based solely on the assumption that given enough time and a "steady addition of energy, it is possible for order to come about" However, even with the addition of billions of years, the evolutionary theory continues to contradict the observable natural laws of nature.

The second law of thermodynamics holds that all natural systems degenerate when left to themselves .This means that without interceding factors, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials, rather than increasing in complexity, Evolutionary scientists are clearly aware of the rigidity of this natural law, yet continue to maintain that by adding extreme amounts of time and energy to a single-celled organism, the formation of life occurred in opposition to the natural laws of the universe. The question now raised considers whether the simple addition of energy and time is enough to bring about life.


Take under consideration an organism in decay. A once living organism, such as a cell, will possess all the materials necessary for life even after it has died. Based on the theory of evolution, it would stand to reason that an organism could be regenerated after death by simply adding sufficient amounts of energy; but, this is not the case. Rather, the internal organization of a deceased organism decreases" with the addition of energy .In fact, increasing energy levels speed up the decomposition process, explicitly contradicting the evolutionary train of thought.

It is clear to see that the Big Bang theory simply does not work. Even if evolutionists were able to answer questions concerning the origin of the Big Bang, they could not possibly dispute the very laws of nature that can be observed today.


(There is that Scientific or better than a NO WAY for you???)

[Meche]

No it is not scientific. You totally butchered the second law of thermodynamics. Things constantly grow and become more complex or orderly all the time, or else you wouldn't have gone from an embryo to where you are now, and snowflakes wouldn't form either. Do you even know what the big bang is? I noticed you referred to it as an explosion, but... it's not exactly.

And don't forget that the law is only applicable to CLOSED systems. Earth is not a closed system, nor are all the other parts of the universe, so of course each part can evolve.

Your key phrase was "without interceding factors". Different systems interact all the time. We're here right now probably because a star exploded far away billions of years ago.

Go back and re-read the law.

[Javen]

Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies
gives conflicting data.Such a space expansion would dilate time in distant space.

Any random change in a living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.

Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits.

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed

In the fossil record we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter


3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory



In a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.

[JediBendu]

Javen

The AIDs virus is an example of evolution at work - the virus can evolve in a matter of hours and is observed in the laboratory. *It one of the most stongest examples of evolution there is. *The virus doesn't die with the new drugs, it evolves with them - those copies of the dna that are immune to the drugs suvrvive and pass there dna on to the next generation, the drugs, while killing the vast majority, don't kill all of them. The species lives on.
Another example is the Y chromosome. *It only appeared 300 million years ago (via the SRY gene) and at that time had up to 1500 genes. *Now it has 40. *Unfortunately the Y inverted so recombination with the X is all but impossible now (only 5% of the Y can match up with the X). *Luckily about 200 million years ago we received a boost of about 500 genes (where? is up to speculation). *If we didn't get that we'd be in trouble - marsupial Y chromosomes only have 6 or 7 genes, they didn't receive the top up.
What it means is that the male species may die out (a possibility we're exacerbating by the amount of phosphates we're pumping in to the environment) or the human genome be evolve again, as it did with the advent of the Y chromosome (there are already species with XY chromosomes that are female eg the Armenian mole vole).

[Javen]

Aids is evolution?So what your trying to say is Aids in now trying to become a human?

If humans originated in a primordial ooze, then evolved from a single cell into a pollywog into a lizard into a mammal into an ape into a Neanderthal into early man into modern man . . .how come we haven't evolved in 6000 years? Not a single improvement, after having just completed billions of years of constant evolution. But we still need clothes, since we evolved all our fur off. We still eat meat, we still live the same length of time, we still have the same physical limitations as the earliest human beings who left the first graffiti on a rock.Sounds suspiciously like another scientific explanation for how man got here.The Creation story has not changed. The other theories are constantly changing to avoid their inevitably pointing to Creation -- not the other way around.

[Meche]

Originally posted by Javen@Sep. 01 2002 - 16:31
The Creation story has not changed. The other theories are constantly changing to avoid their inevitably pointing to Creation -- not the other way around.
I seriously believe that if you actually looked up the answers to all of your questions and your jumping to conclusions over your misinformation and attachment to the Creation story, or at least knew what the hell evolution is (hint: it is NOT an attempt to become human), you wouldn't have posted that.

Read the posts starting from Aug. 01 2002 - 23:52 here (http://www.galacticsenate.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=129&st=540) and here. (http://www.galacticsenate.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=129&st=555) If you dare. I'm not going to bother repeating what I posted there. Yelling about how scientific theories change only shows a poor understanding of how science works.
Dang links keep changing.

[JediBendu]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Aids is evolution?So what your trying to say is Aids in now trying to become a human? [/b][/quote]

No, AIDs is an example of evolution. As the AIDs dna replicates (in order to spread to more cells) variations appear in the copying process, some of which will make it immune to the drugs that are trying to stop it. Others that don't have the variation will be suseptable to the drug and die. Those that do, survive a little longer and create more copies of their [now drug resistant] dna. There is no design or intent, it's a simple mechanism that allows for modifications which are beneficial to the species to be passed on to the next generation. The animal kingdom is like a snapshot or horizontal slice of the evolutionary tree, from which the hypothesis was originally formed. AIDs is an example of is application considering the virus can become drug resistant in a matter of hours.
AIDs is not trying to become human style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Javen]

Yeah I know what Evoltion is or suppose to be.

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Meche Ive been interested in Thermodynamics for awile and they explain if you really dig deep into ito just how complex the universe truly is to just evolutionize or Big Bang here and no I dont just mean an explosion either.You say I butchered my little rant of Thermodynamics before maybe you should go back and read that again since you wanted me to read your stuff again.I was going to write some more on here but decided not to cause I already have.I know about things to Im really not that stupid as you and Jedibendu make me out to be.I think you both have given me a run in here and I dont dislike you both just cause I dont agree with you.
But I will say these few things.

Can something become more complex and more ordered by random, accidental and direction-less chance?

Indeed, the universe is the ultimate display of order and everything within the universe is governed by fixed laws.

The planets of our solar system rotate with precision, balance and velocity, with each planet depending on the others to achieve the harmony required for perfect motion.

Yes, everything we observe is ordered and everything displays complexity, to a greater or to a lesser degree. Atoms and molecules themselves testify to this great mystery, and yet these are the mere building blocks of the other great marvels in our universe.

Have you ever observed something become more complex and ordered by complete randomness, without prior instruction or information?

Your truthful answer to this question is, of course - NO! It goes against the most form of logic. Never has something been observed to become more complex and more ordered without any external interference; it doesn't happen!

[JediBendu]

Javen I don't think you're stupid - far from it. Anybody who questions ANYTHING is demonstrating what intellect is all about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Can something become more complex and more ordered by random, accidental and direction-less chance[/b][/quote]
Blows you mind doesn't it! I could only imagine Darwin's face when he said the same thing. It's not quite random, and it's not quite accidental either, the environment plays apart eg mammals would never have been given the chance to evolve had not the dinosaurs been wiped out. For a mammal back in the Jurasic, small was decidedly better. That's why it's referred to as Natural Selection - Nature determines what genes would be beneficial, not the species itself.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The planets of our solar system rotate with precision, balance and velocity, with each planet depending on the others to achieve the harmony required for perfect motion. [/b][/quote]

The motion isn't precise, nor balanced - we're in eliptical orbits, Venus rotates in the oposite direction to it's revolution, unlike the rest of the planets, our axis is tilted and there's evidence that it could tilt back - we're wobbling in space! Plus the Earth's rotational velocity is also slowing down a fraction of a second each year. The moon's even scraping a bit of our atmosphere with each rotation. The planets are not static - they can be fairly accurately predicted using Newtonian laws for sure, but not precisely.
Logic really does get thrown out the window when it comes to quantum physics and chaos mathematics. Truth be known, I can't even comprehend some the stuff they come up with. Thing is this form of 'scary/twisted/bizarro' science is still in it's infancy. Theories are being rejected as fast as they're formed.
Does my head in.

[Kit]

Granted some of this belongs in the In The Light thread. *I'm going to post anyway. *I do side in your corner, Javen. *Until more evidence arises, you cannot really get me to buy the Big Bang theory-- and that's not really an invitation for someone to harass me and all or give me a bunch of reasons why it did happen (sorry to sound callous there). Evolution I don't buy the full story of either (this is were I get into the in the light thing), personally I believe that God controls evolution. *I have gathered this because I'm not going to buy the full story of a theory that even the scientist who made it didn't un