Do you Agree or Disagree in the absolute primacy of time,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 16 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]497662[/snapback]</div>

You'll have to give us a better definition than that, Kow; "primacy of time" could mean anything from the price of a cheap Rolex to how many chimpanzees would it take to wind up Big Ben.

What dost thou mean?

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 16 2007, 11:33 PM) [snapback]497678[/snapback]</div>

No.

Your objection is seriously out of date, as is most of the creationist material. Before the discovery that DNA held the keys to most physical development, it was thought that beneficial mutations happened only rarely, and therefore very long periods of time were required. It was unknown what environmental "pressure" generated the mutations. But Stephen Jay Gould and others noted that life literally explodes in the fossil record, with new species appearing very quickly. It isn't the slow, steady state evolution that we have evidence for, but a dynamic explosion of life taking a relatively very short period of time.

Now we know that genetic mutations happen very quickly. Not only that, they happen very frequently. And the majority of them are benign, coded in your own DNA, that matches the DNA of a mouse perfectly. You and the mouse share many sections of DNA, just as you do with all animals as close as the mouse to us. We don't know what these sections of DNA do, if indeed they do anything. But they are the "fingerprint" of the evolutionary process that (I believe) God put in motion to create us. Oh, and the mouse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 16 2007, 11:33 PM) [snapback]497678[/snapback]</div>

No, I disagree with that concept. I'm not schooled enough to talk evolution with precision, but time isn't the ingredient that drives evolution, population and generational turnover are, not to mention environmental factors. Simply put, a species that turns over 100 generations in the time that another species turns over one generation, given similar populations and removing environmental factors, will develop 100 times as many evolutionary branches in the same space of time. That's why there are millions more species of insects than there are of larger animals - their generational turnover is faster than that of the larger animals.

We haven't even catalogued all the extant species of life on this planet, and until we manage to do so (if we ever can, which may be impossible), we'll have a difficult time distinguishing, when new species are discovered, whether they are recent evolutionary adaptations or have been around for awhile.

At the bacterial level significant evolution occurs in months, weeks, days. The misuse of antibiotics is a serious medical issue for precisely this reason.

And even organisms as complex as homo sapiens experience significant evolution in the space of a single century, boosted by jet travel that mixes ethnicities with a rapidity impossible in the days when the fastest human alive was on horseback. We're taller now than we were in 1900.

And, yes, many significant evolutionary events occurred only in the space of many millenia, but by no means all of them. Time is only the space within which the action happens - it itself isn't the driving factor.

MB

 

I want to see where you try to go with this. In the end you always need some time for evolution, as well as for anything else, to occur. Its related to entropy and how its amount increases over time in the universe overall.

 

Small genetic changes within a stable "population" happen very slowly, UNTIL that population is no longer stable. A population "die off" or population explosion can cause rapid changes due to adaptation.

The "explosion of life" pointed to above is due to life spreading rapidly and without restraint, as life races to fill up the available space and resources. There is not much genetic stability during a period like this, since nearly everything is successful with abundant resources awaiting life to use them. This lack of genetic stability can lead to a lot of variation, and different forms do better in different environs.

On the flip side, when resources are scarce and populations die off due to a lack of resources, this is when the "natural selection" forces really kick in hard and frame the genetics of the life involved. The select few that survive the die off may have been faster, stronger, taller, smarter, or just plain lucky, but they made it through the tough patch and now get to pass on their genes to a MUCH smaller population.

To summarize: Evolution (or genetic changes within populations) happen in fits and jumps during periods of ecological instability but is otherwise a very sloooooow process during the rest of the time, while the populations are stable.

 

Is time a figment of our imaginations, too?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 17 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]497773[/snapback]</div>

If evolution worked quickly, the creationists would have died off by now.

Tom

 

All the posts so far in this topic, including the first one, share one thing. They are all based on Uniformitarianism. This is the Grand Assumption. Uniformitarianism is defined as: All the processes that are observed today have gone on and have been the same all throughout history. This is what all geologic history and paleontological history is based on.

Think about this. If the processes have not been the same through history what does it do to all the conclusions that they are based on.

I will site two examples: (There are too many to try to list)

1. Radiometric dating looks at the proportion of two elements in a rock. The assumption is that one element, the radiometric one, started as the only element and has decayed over time to produce two elements. If you know the half life of the first element then it is a simple calculation to determine the "start date" of when the rock was formed. Hence radiometric dating. Again, this is based on the assumption that the processes (half life, and time) are the same as observed now. If they are not then the "date" is incorrect.

2. Limestone/Dolomite. Through the geologic column vast thick deposits of limestone and dolomite exist. If anyone has gone the Grand Canyon you can see the many very thick and uniform limestone deposit. The occurrence of limestone deposits that are so great and so uniform defies explanation except by massive precipitation from chemical-rich waters. Dolomite sediments are not being formed at all today; they also require an exceptional explanation. The processes that are going on today do explain these deposits.

My point is:

There is a lot of evidence that points to the possibility the "Uniformitarianism is not a valid assumption" At least it is not an assumption that whole branches of science should be solely based upon.

I hope is that people will look "outside the box" and not be bound by the limits of Uniformitarianism.

Your thoughts are welcome.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ Aug 17 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]497839[/snapback]</div>

There isn't. Look at the link in my post where "uniformitarianism" is examined.

 

For a specific species to evolve, it's not time necessarily. It's environmental pressures that select for random phenotypes that are most beneficial for survival and reproduction. Location, climate, predators, food supply are examples of environmental pressures. Time is not one. Though random mutations may occur frequently, a meaningful phenotype that selects for better survivability may take one year, or it make take thousands of years.

 

The earth isnt that old right?

So how did we evolve in such a short amount of time?

Bang, we just appeared from a single oganisim?

I still believe we were created......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 17 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]497873[/snapback]</div>

Nice edit.. I almost quoted the original reply. I guess it would have exemplified your ignorance so much more thoroughly. lol

The rest of you have covered this topic quite nicely and short of typing out my usual diatribe on ideas on cellular development there is nothing else I feel compelled to add.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 17 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]497873[/snapback]</div>

Yes it is. 4.5 billion years is quite a long time...

 

Time is an illusion, it isn't "reality" but it's handy for us here. Beyond this life time doesn't exist and doesn't need to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wiiprii @ 2007 Aug 17 10:26 AM) [snapback]497908[/snapback]</div>

I would say control is an illusion, but time? Just a philosophical concept, solely for the benefit of humans? :blink:
No, the watch still ticks even if you're not listening. Our time-keeping devices may be crude approximations of celestial mechanics, but the big idea is very real.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wiiprii @ Aug 17 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]497908[/snapback]</div>

How do you know what exists beyond this life?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wiiprii @ Aug 17 2007, 10:26 AM) [snapback]497908[/snapback]</div>

That's my take on it, too.
Time is relative... just ask Einstein.
My experience is that time can be very elastic and fluid.
Time is merely a tool.

I think that we are all created as an expression of the incredibly fecund creative impulse of the universe... that which some call God, or Goddess, or Evolution, or Chance, or even the big ol' Bang...
It matters not what you call it, it is the thread of Love/Energy/Music/Light that inhabits all the "dark stuff" between atoms.
This energy is always seeking to improve, to grow, to expand... and will make changes in our energy signature as necessary. The energy signature affects the DNA, which in turn triggers "evolution"...

All is One

 

I can time travel. Right now I am going forward.