Some people ask why we live in such a big universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 25, 2015

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s an interesting question which gives rise to a responding question: How do those people know that some other type of universe should exist?

The photo is made up of 411 individual photos, and spans about 40,000 light years through space. If you were to download it to your computer it would be near the equivalent of downloading a fully fledged, 3 hour, high definition movie to your hard drive, since the photo is 4.3 gigabytes of hard drive space. Remember, it’s just a photograph. It’s currently the sharpest picture ever taken of the Andromeda galaxy, and if you wanted to show the whole thing on a screen, you’d need about 600 HD TV’s to fit the whole picture.

If you visit the SpaceTelescope.org you can enjoy zooming in and out of the photo without downloading it to your computer.

[Now that last sounds like a good idea.]

To understand why we never hear any more about how Americans have landed on the moon but only about pointless, possibly tax-funded, controversies about other universes, see fingertips.

Hat tip: Daniel Quinones

Comments

Zachriel, man don't back off now dude with that common descent mumbo-jumbo! They always see through that anyway. We will finally put those delusional ID fanatics in their place with actual empirical evidence! Break out that snazzy new protein/gene protein that you bragging about! I'm excited! I especially want to show that Behe character up as much damage as he has done undermining atheistic claims of 'blind, pitiless, indifference'. Who does he think he is challenging such sacred nihilistic beliefs? :)bornagain77_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: You have actual experimental evidence of unguided Darwinian processes producing a protein/gene??? While the evidence for common descent is not sufficient, it is necessarily, and that evidence starts with the nested hierarchy.Zachriel_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

You have actual experimental evidence of unguided Darwinian processes producing a protein/gene??? Well by golly, don't be bashful, break that experimental puppy out and lets take a gander! We will shut those nasty ID proponents, such as Dr. Behe, down yet (cue evil laugh) You don't mind if I point out that Darwinists have a extremely difficult time explaining protein binding sites much less proteins do you? Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461bornagain77_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: you cannot produce experimental evidence demonstrating even one protein/gene arising by unguided Darwinian processes. We did provide evidence. You ignored it and attempted to change the subject.Zachriel_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, It is sad for you, and your atheistic beliefs, that you cannot produce experimental evidence demonstrating even one protein/gene arising by unguided Darwinian processes.
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD - Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - video https://vimeo.com/118128889
A skeptic of the grandiose claims of Darwinists, such as myself, realizing that without that empirical support that you need are not even in the realm of experimental science in the first place, can just sit back all day long and point out that everything else you may point to as evidence for Darwinism is just unsubstantiated conjecture without that crucial piece of substantiating experimental evidence. Moreover, in regards to the 'other evidence', neither the fossil record nor genetic evidence, contrary to what you may imagine, supports your Darwinian claims for gradualism. As referenced earlier,,,
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin January 29, 2015 Excerpt: Rather than showing gradual Darwinian evolution, the history of life shows a pattern of explosions where new fossil forms come into existence without clear evolutionary precursors. Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem: "We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus -- full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . ."98 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup091141.html
and
Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php podcast - Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on (Darwin's) Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - March 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-14T16_17_31-07_00
Not good evidence, to put it mildly, for the atheist who wants to prove he is the result of 'blind, pitiless, indifference'bornagain77_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: No, first start with experimental evidence The nested hierarchy is evidence. Ignoring it won't make it go away. bornagain77: Thanks for the smile, but, as usual, it does not honestly address the fact that ‘eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern’ as you claimed Gee whiz. The word arboreal in the sentence refers to the environment of the posited ancestor. They lived in trees.Zachriel_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

"Start with the nested hierarchy." No, first start with experimental evidence demonstrating that your grandiose Darwinian claims of gradualism are possible. Moreover, in regards to historical evidence, the Cambrian Explosion, and fossil record itself, demonstrates the appearance of different forms of life is very 'un-tree' like. Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution Casey Luskin January 29, 2015 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup091141.html 'monkeys live in trees' Thanks for the smile, but, as usual, it does not honestly address the fact that ‘eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern’ as you claimedbornagain77_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: First problem, you have no actual empirical evidence that the unguided Darwinian evolution of color vision is possible Start with the nested hierarchy. Zachriel: binocular, trichromatic vision is an inherited trait in diurnal primates, hypothesized as due to their arboreal evolution. bornagain77: Second problem, ‘eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern’ as you claimed Heh. Arboreal, as in monkeys live in trees.Zachriel_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Zachriel as to your claim in 28
"binocular, trichromatic vision is an inherited trait in diurnal primates, hypothesized as due to their arboreal (tree-like) evolution."
Two minor problems. First problem, you have no actual empirical evidence that the unguided Darwinian evolution of color vision is possible:
Bill Nye, Nicholas Wade, and the Origin of Human Color Vision - Stephen C. Meyer January 6, 2015 In the experiment, the allegedly ancestral protein functioned as a light detector with a particular stable structure before the alterations to its amino acid sequence. It functioned as a light detector with a slightly different set of optical properties with the same stable structure (i.e., fold) after the alterations. Same protein structure; same basic function (light detection); with a modestly altered range of frequency detection. Even if this experiment had demonstrated what random mutations can do, it would have shown they can not do much. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/bill_nye_nichol092471.html Notwithstanding Grand Claims to the Contrary, Human Color Vision Still Presents a Major Evolutionary Enigma - Casey Luskin January 15, 2015 Excerpt: Statistical methods predicted certain amino acid sites were functionally adaptive for human-like vision -- but experimental work showed otherwise. Moreover, the experimental methods identified various amino acid sites that were important to the protein's function, but those were not found to be under "positive selection" by the statistical methods. A 2009 paper by Nei et al. in PNAS heavily critiqued Yokoyama's work. They noted that statistical methods for inferring natural selection are "not useful for identifying adaptive [amino acid] sites."5 They conclude: "It is important not to be overenthusiastic about statistical signatures of positive selection without biological confirmation."5 I've written a lengthy review of problems with trying to use statistical methods for inferring natural selection in genes here. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/notwithstanding_1092751.html
Second problem, 'eyes don't assume a treelike pattern' as you claimed
“The reason evolutionary biologists believe in "40 known independent eye evolutions" isn't because they've reconstructed those evolutionary pathways, but because eyes don't assume a treelike pattern on the famous Darwinian "tree of life." Darwinists are accordingly forced, again and again, to invoke convergent "independent" evolution of eyes to explain why eyes are distributed in such a non-tree-like fashion. This is hardly evidence against ID. In fact the appearance of eyes within widely disparate groups speaks eloquently of common design. Eyes are a problem, all right -- for Darwinism.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/its_a_shame_rea083441.html
Moreover, the premier paper from Darwinists explaining the supposed Darwinian evolution of the eye is a "tour de force of unverified speculation"
Evolution of the Mammalian Eye: Ho-Hum, No Big Deal? - Stephen A. Batzer March 21, 2013 Excerpt: Thus, the (1994) Nilsson and Pelger paper is a tour de force of unverified speculation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/evolution_of_th070331.html
Since Darwinists like to believe that they are the champions of science, (although science cannot even be grounded in materialism in the first place), I was hoping for something a bit more, well, 'scientific' substantiating their claims that eyes can easily evolve, rather than the usual bluff and bluster we get from them.bornagain77_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Me_Think, Okie Dokie, that was a bit unfair. I will settle for a monkey writing a book instead of accurately constructing an exponential chart of the entire universe, (which took the collective work of many 'human' geniuses over many years). :) Monkey Theory Proven Wrong: Excerpt: A group of faculty and students in the university’s media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. Then, they waited. At first, said researcher Mike Phillips, “the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it. “Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard,” added Phillips, who runs the university’s Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies. Eventually, monkeys Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe and Rowan produced five pages of text, composed primarily of the letter S. Later, the letters A, J, L and M crept in — not quite literature. http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/monkeysandtypewriters051103.htm :) The story of the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator Project Excerpt: Starting with 100 virtual monkeys typing, and doubling the population every few days, it put together random strings of characters. It then checked them against the archived works of Shakespeare. Before it was scrapped, the site came up with 10^35 number of pages, all typed up. Any matches? Not many. It matched two words, “now faire,” and a partial name from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and three words and a comma, “Let fame, that,” from Love’s Labour’s Lost. The record, achieved suitably randomly at the beginning of the site’s run in 2004, was 23 characters long, including breaks and spaces. http://io9.com/5809583/the-story-of-the-monkey-shakespeare-simulator-projectbornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 31,
Oh well, now for the fly in the ointment of your whole theory. You now need to just catch a monkey using numbers and language (telescopes, microscopes and such) so as to construct exponential charts of the entire universe, and to then realize that his visual acuity and egg was at the center of that exponential chart of the universe that he had just constructed. Then you would finally have proof of ‘the image of God’ also being present within monkeys
Forget monkeys, even you won't be able to construct exponential charts and would have no idea how to control the satellites to take CMBR and analyze it to derive the size of universe. That doesn't exclude you from being the 'image of God’, right? Moreover men don't have eggs. Does that mean all men are not 'image of God?'Me_Think_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, thanks. I was not able to access the chart from the link I clicked. Thus chock one up for you. I thought there might be somewhat greater variation in egg size due to unique embryo-genesis for each species. I was wrong in my hunch. I guess you are right, mammals of somewhat proportional sizes are the center of God's exponential universe as far as visual acuity and egg size goes. But then again God cares for every creature! :)
Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care.
Oh well, now for the fly in the ointment of your whole theory. You now need to just catch a monkey using numbers and language (telescopes, microscopes and such) so as to construct exponential charts of the entire universe, and to then realize that his visual acuity and egg was at the center of that exponential chart of the universe that he had just constructed. Then you would finally have proof of 'the image of God' also being present within monkeys and that we humans are not all that special after all! Good luck with that! :) You will need it, especially given this recent paper that just came out:
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202
Even the co-discoverer of natural selection says that the difference is 'unbridgeable'
"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russel Wallace - An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.
Wallace is in very good company
"Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine" - Kurt Godel Kurt Godel and Alan Turing - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video https://vimeo.com/92387854
David Berlinski, in his unique style, gets this mathematical point across very clearly:
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
Moreover, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. this unique ability to process information that humans possess, is the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU
As well, as if that was not 'spooky enough', due to advances in quantum mechanics, information, not material, is now found to be foundational to physical reality:
Quantum physics just got less complicated - Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,",,, http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html "it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Greater MercyMe https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84924572&v=T9XFO1oSk68&x-yt-ts=1422411861
bornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: Your 1929 reference on mammalian eggs did not mention ape eggs specifically and the chart was inaccessible. From Hartman 1929: "But throughout the Eutheria, the mammals above the marsupials, the egg is very uniform, with not much over a two-to-one variation in size, which holds from rat to man, from bat to horse, from mouse to elephant and whale." Here's a few specific results: Bat, 95-105 Dog, 135-145 Gibbon, 110-120 Gorilla, 130-140 Horse, 135 Human, 130-140 Mouse, 70-75 Rhesus, 110-120 Whale, 140 bornagain77: Thus, from what scant evidence we have, we have evidence of discontinuity of egg sizes amongst mammals. From your own comment, Eutherian eggs are within a narrow range. Primates, in particular, have very similar size ova.Zachriel_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, I suspected that visual acuity was approximately the same, (although your 1940 reference is a bit dated), it would be nice to see actual cycles per degree measurements to see exactly where the acuity for each species lands. What I doubted, (due to the information I listed 26 and 27 and you apparently did not understand due to your Darwinian blindness), is that the egg size could vary since embryonic development is shown to be unique for both chimps and humans. Your 1929 reference on mammalian eggs did not mention ape eggs specifically and the chart was inaccessible. This following 1961 reference does not mention apes either, but is more specific as to the incongruent variations amongst mammals than your 1929 reference is: The sizes of mammalian eggs are by no means proportional to the sizes of the adult mammals: the horse's egg is rather less than twice the diameter of the mouse egg and about the same size as the rabbit egg (Figs. 9 and 10). Variation in egg size is considered to be attributable largely to differences in the content of non-living yolk materials, but differences in nuclear size suggest that the amount of active cytoplasm also varies. The eggs of the placental mammals measure 60 to 180 x in diameter (vitellus alone), those of rodents occupying the lower part of the range. The egg of the field vole Microtus agrestis (Fig. 24) is the smallest mammalian egg so far recorded (Austin, 1957b). Very occasionally, 'giant' eggs are found, which are 30 to 40 per cent larger in diameter than normal ; these have been described in the rabbit, rat, mouse (Austin and Braden, 1954c; Austin and Walton, i960) and cotton-rat (Austin and Amoroso, 1959) (Fig. 11). The egg of the Australian native cat Dasyurus is of notably larger dimensions, namely 240 /x in diameter, but much the largest mammalian eggs are those of the oviparous monotremes, the spiny anteater Tachyglossus and the duck-billed platypus Ornithorhynchus, in which the vitellus at ovulation measures 3*5 to 4 mm. in diameter (Flynn and Hill, 1939). Sea-urchin eggs (Arbacia) are much the same size as rodent eggs, the vitellus having a mean diameter of 74 jit (Harvey, 1956). By comparison, fish eggs vary between 400 jl and 150 mm., and frog eggs between 700 fi and 10 mm. (Bcatty, 1956a). On the other hand, the egg of the bryozoan Crista is only about 18 it in diameter and the oval eggs of the parasitic worms Ascaris and Clouorchis have diameters of about 60 and 45 jit, and 28 and 14 /x, respectively. Further information on egg size is given by Hartman (1929), Boyd and Hamilton (1952), Beatty (1956a), Costello et a. (1957), Austin (1961a). http://www.archive.org/stream/mammalianegg00aust/mammalianegg00aust_djvu.txt Thus, from what scant evidence we have, we have evidence of discontinuity of egg sizes amongst mammals. Perhaps you can find a better reference than my 1961 reference. I can't seem to find a more up to date reference with more precise measurements of human eggs compared to great ape eggs. It would be interesting to nail this measurement down more precisely.bornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Chimpanzees have binocular vision, of course. Concerning visual acuity, see Spence, Visual acuity and its relation to brightness in chimpanzee and man, Journal of Comparative Psychology 1934: "Man, chimpanzee and monkey appear to have about the same order of visual acuity." Chimpanzees also have trichromacy. See Grether, A comparison of human and chimpanzee spectral hue discrimination curves, Journal of Comparative Psychology 1940: "in all probability chimpanzee color vision is basically like that of man, and hence trichromatic." As for the size of the ovum, not needing a large yolk, in Eutheria it doesn't vary by much more than a factor of two, and are very close in size among anthropoid apes. See Hartman, How Large is the Mammalian Egg, The Quarterly Review of Biology 1929. Have no idea how your links added anything of relevance. In any case, acute, binocular, trichromatic vision is an inherited trait in diurnal primates, hypothesized as due to their arboreal evolution. Apparently, chimps are the ‘center of the universe’.Zachriel_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 Also of interest: Glycan carbohydrate molecules are very complex molecules, rivaling DNA and proteins in terms of complexity, which are found primarily on a cell's surface and are found to be very important for cell surface functions, such as immunity responses. Yet, are found to show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,”; This Non Scientific Claim Regularly Appears in Evolutionary Peer Reviewed Papers - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012 Excerpt: Indeed these polysaccharides, or glycans, would become rather uncooperative with evolution. As one recent paper explained, glycans show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,” for they “occur in a discontinuous and puzzling distribution across evolutionary lineages.” This dizzying array of glycans can be (i) specific to a particular lineage, (i) similar in very distant lineages, (iii) and conspicuously absent from very restricted taxa only. In other words, the evidence is not what evolution expected. Here is how another paper described early glycan findings: "There is also no clear explanation for the extreme complexity and diversity of glycans that can be found on a given glycoconjugate or cell type. Based on the limited information available about the scope and distribution of this diversity among taxonomic groups, it is difficult to see clear trends or patterns consistent with different evolutionary lineages. It appears that closely related species may not necessarily share close similarities in their glycan diversity, and that more derived species may have simpler as well as more complex structures. Intraspecies diversity can also be quite extensive, often without obvious functional relevance." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/this-non-scientific-claim-regularly.html Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules - A Whole New Level Of Information - article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bO5txsOPde3BEPjOqcUNjL0mllfEc894LkDY5YFpJCA/edit Moreover, Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates which are not reducible to DNA sequences: Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA - Jonathan Wells - 2014 Excerpt: Embryo development (ontogeny) depends on developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), but dGRNs depend on pre-existing spatial anisotropies that are defined by early embryonic axes, and those axes are established long before the embryo’s dGRNs are put in place.,,, DNA sequences do not specify the final functional forms of most membrane components. Still less does DNA specify the spatial arrangements of those components. Yet their spatial arrangements carry essential ontogenetic information. The fact that membrane patterns carry ontogenetic information that is not specified by DNA poses a problem for any theory of evolution (such as Neo-Darwinism) that attributes the origin of evolutionary novelties to changes in a genetic program—-whether at the level of DNA sequences or dGRNs. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.2bornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Not to be nit picky but I have reasonable doubts,,, The Red Ape - Cornelius Hunter - August 2009 Excerpt: "There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html for instance: Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas chimpanzees have an actual bone involved in their reproductive system: Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM as well A False Trichotomy Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/ Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes. http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.htmlbornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

great apes have comparable vision as well as comparable-sized eggs. reference please.bornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: The rat’s world is very blurry. Yes, and a sparrow has better visual acuity than people. So? bornagain77: You need to find a species that matches .1mm visual acuity and egg size. Why do we "need" to do that? Other great apes have comparable vision as well as comparable-sized eggs. Apparently, chimp zygotes are the ‘center of the universe’.Zachriel_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Zachriel,,, visual acuity is the measure we are talking about, i.e. .1 mm! Please try to pay attention: The rat's world is very blurry. Visual acuity is measured in cycles per degree (cpd), a measurement of the number of lines that can be seen as distinct within a degree of the visual field. Acuity of humans is about 30 cpd, normally pigmented rats is 1 cpd, and 0.5 for albino rats (Prusky et al. 2002, 2000; http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatVision.htm human vision http://www.ratbehavior.org/images/WaterLily.jpg Normal blurry rat vision http://www.ratbehavior.org/images/WaterLilyRedGreenCBblur.jpg You need to find a species that matches .1mm visual acuity and egg size. Good luck with that. Then we will move on to your next stumbling block.bornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: In humans, the depth of focus is from 2.3 meters to infinity (Campbell 1957). But in human and rat zygotes, which are at the 'center' of your universe, not quite that good. Adult rats appear to be better than adult humans in terms of depth of focus. Not sure your point, but even with your human visual acuity, you envision a Pollyanna world.Zachriel_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Much better try Zachriel, But you fail on visual acuity: Depth of focus: Combined with poor visual acuity, rats have an enormous depth of focus. Depth of focus is the range of distances at which an object is in equivalent focus for an unaccomodated eye. In humans, the depth of focus is from 2.3 meters to infinity (Campbell 1957). In rats, the depth of focus is from 7 centimeters to infinity (Powers and Green 1978), which may be due to the small size of the rat's eye and its poor acuity (Green et al. 1980). http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatVision.htm and you fail on other humorous fronts but lets take it one step at a time shall we?bornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: Moreover, your dust mite example comes in at 10^-3.5 not 10^-4 Apparently, rat mites are the ‘center of the universe’. bornagain77: (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters Apparently, rat zygotes are the ‘center of the universe’.Zachriel_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

"So right in the middle is within four magnitudes by your estimation.(?)" And exactly why do you presuppose that 10^0 meters should have been found to be at the 'privileged' center in the exponential scale? Moreover, your dust mite example comes in at 10^-3.5 not 10^-4 Scale Of The Universe - exponential graph http://htwins.net/scale2/?bordercolor=white You would have done better with tardigrades to try to counter the surprising finding: Meet tardigrades (commonly known as water bears or moss piglets), one of the most interesting species on the planet. They are not afraid of extreme high and low temperatures, pressure and radiation. Boiled water and liquid helium doesn't scare them. Tardigrades can survive almost a decade without water. And they are the only animals known to be able to survive the vacuum of space. And yes, they are very tiny. The biggest adults may reach a body length of 1.5 mm, the smallest below 0.1 mm. http://www.thefunlearning.com/2011/06/tardigrades.html The water bear (tardigrade), the most extreme animal on our planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUC0_HjNFBs Moreover, given that atheists can't even begin to give a coherent explanation for life and consciousness in the first place, I find the fact that both the human egg and 'conscious observation' is at 10^-4 to be 'surprising'. What is not surprising is that you as an atheist would pretend it does not matter.bornagain77_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters So right in the middle is within four magnitudes by your estimation. Apparently, the dust mite is the 'center of the universe'. In the time of Newton, it was thought that stars were at a distance of about 3e15 meters, and the smallest observable objects seen in microscopes were about 1e-6 meters. The 'middle' of that is about 5e4, about the same in terms of magnitude.Zachriel_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Methink, the exponential scale of the universe was not appreciably different in Christ's time. Just because they did not have accurate knowledge of the scale of the universe matters not one wit as to what the scale actually was and is. Atheistic materialists are the ones who were/are gung-ho to tell everyone that we have no significance whatsoever in the universe. That the exponential scale of the universe would reveal a 'central position' for both human sight and the human egg is something that is unexpected on the atheistic premise of 'blind, pitiless, indifference'. Thus this evidence, along with the lines other evidences I presented, constitutes 'surprising' evidence against that atheistic premise. That you, as an atheist, would try to downplay it is not surprising. Yet, if you were honest, as I hoped that you might be, you would have admitted that it is a very interesting finding. ,,, That you would squabble over the 'not just nearly' term is, in my book, to argue over minor semantics. As the graph itself shows, when the cursor is placed exactly in the center of the exponential graph then human vision and the human egg are indeed in exactly the exponential middle of the graph. Perhaps I will qualify the 'not nearly' phrase in my notes with a 'as far as the exponential graph itself is concerned' caveat so as to not upset mathematical purists. But, the overall point stands. It is a surprising finding that, given atheistic premises, should not be as it is. You again confused a few issues in your last statement. Thus I suggest to you again that you read the Collins paper I cited in post 8 so as to understand what you are attempting to criticize and so as to properly keep the issues in order. It does not reflect well on you to confuse issues.bornagain77_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 15
First I am talking about the OBSERVABLE diameter of the universe. I am not talking about the expansion rate of the universe when I state we are currently in the exponential middle of possible sizes.
People during Christ's time could observe nothing more than the Troposphere, and people during Galileo's time-with his optic telescope- could see no more than low res moon and Jupiter- that was their observable universe. Aren't you just supporting my point that we are more privileged than People during Christ's period ?
You can gripe that that is not really in the exact, precise, exponential middle if you want, but as we use to say in the military, it is certainly close enough for government work!
Well, you were the one who said: (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!).
You also made a quip about Gorillas. If Gorillas could build fires your criticism might hold up to scrutiny.
We were talking about how human sight is fine-tuned to see the 'not just nearly' exponential center of Planck length and Universe size, not about fire making.Me_Think_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Me_Think you state:
You don’t seem to understand what 74.3 Km/Sec/Mpc means. It means that a galaxy at 1 Megaparsec distance (3.26 Light years) is moving away at speed of 74.3 Km per second.
There are several nuances in play here. First I am talking about the OBSERVABLE diameter of the universe. I am not talking about the expansion rate of the universe when I state we are currently in the exponential middle of possible sizes. Please re-read what I originally said (it is different from what you originally copy and pasted). 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang approximately 14 billion years ago, which is the diameter of the (present) universe. Moreover, it is an approximation. I rounded up just a bit from 8.8 x 10^26 meters to arrive at 10^27 meters. To be exact I would have referenced the following
The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 gigaparsecs (46 billion light years or 4.3×10^26 meters) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 29 gigaparsecs[16] (93 Gly or 8.8×10^26 m). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size
and would have also referenced this
1.616 x 10-35 m planck length http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#Value
and would have also referenced this
the human egg and visual acuity of humans are both approx. .1 mm Relative sizes of eggs http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26842/figure/A3721/?report=objectonly
The effect of 'being in the exponential middle' is most clearly 'felt' in the following exponential graph. Where, when the interactive bar is placed right in the middle of the exponential graph, the human egg and human visual acuity are presented:
The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
You can gripe that that is not really in the exact, precise, exponential middle if you want, but as we use to say in the military, it is certainly close enough for government work! And it is certainly closer to being in the exponential middle than the approximation that was made in this following 2006 book which was titled to reflect the surprising finding of 'exponential centrality' for humans:
The View from the Centre of the Universe by Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack Excerpt: The size of a human being is near the centre of all possible sizes. http://popsciencebooks.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/the-view-from-centre-of-universe-nancy.html
There are more nuances in play, but I thought I would clear that up first. You also made a quip about Gorillas. If Gorillas could build fires your criticism might hold up to scrutiny. I suggest you read the Robin Collins link I cited in post 8 so as to better understand the 'discoverability/livability optimality thesis’, and the discovery that was made using that thesis. There is also a video on the topic. Search Robin Collins Greer/Heard forum. That should get you there.bornagain77_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

No Me_Think, the 10^-4 exponent is still the middle exponent now as it was then regardless of the neglible amount that the universe has expanded since the time of Christ (or even since the origin of humanity). Thus my comment that the exponent for the human egg and human observation is directly in the exponential middle of sizes remains correct regardless of the fact that the distance for how big the observable universe is is several thousand years bigger than it was then.
You don't seem to understand what 74.3 Km/Sec/Mpc means. It means that a galaxy at 1 Megaparsec distance (3.26 Light years) is moving away at speed of 74.3 Km per second. In an hour that galaxy will be 267480 Km away [ 3600 x 74.3]. How do you say that the observable universe is the same in Jesus Christ time and our time (even if we take the expansion rate to be less during Christ's time)?. You seem to also suggest that Gorilla- which has sight equal to humans is also a privileged species!
Moreover as pointed out previously, the anthropic inequality prevents ANY advanced civilization from living 2 trillions years into the future
No. I hope not! Our Sun would burn off in 5 to 6 billion years, but your claim that we are at a privileged moment to observe CMBR is ridiculous because we do have millions of years of Human generation left. Even if manage to live just another 1000 years, we still can't claim 'this' is the right moment. If the 'right moment' stretches for 1000 years and more, it is not the right moment, it is the 'right' 1000 years.Me_Think_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

No Me_Think, the 10^-4 exponent is still the middle exponent now as it was then regardless of the neglible amount that the universe has expanded since the time of Christ (or even since the origin of humanity). Thus my comment that the exponent for the human egg and human observation is directly in the exponential middle of sizes remains correct regardless of the fact that the distance for how big the observable universe is is several thousand years bigger than it was then. Moreover as pointed out previously, the anthropic inequality prevents ANY advanced civilization from living 2 trillions years into the future:
Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8469673/ Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency. Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now. http://christiangodblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
At least one scientist is far more pessimistic about the 'natural' future lifespan of the human race than 20,000 years:
Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist - June 2010 http://www.physorg.com/news196489543.html
As far as the universe itself, star formation is far past its peak and the universe will not even have any habitable stars 2 trillion years into the future
Star formation slumps to 1/30th of its peak - November 6, 2012 Excerpt: They find that the production of stars in the universe as a whole has been continuously declining over the last 11 billion years, being 30 times lower today than at its likely peak, 11 billion years ago. Dr Sobral comments: "You might say that the universe has been suffering from a long, serious "crisis": cosmic GDP output is now only 3% of what it used to be at the peak in star production!" 'If the measured decline continues, then no more than 5% more stars will form over the remaining history of the cosmos, even if we wait forever. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121106114141.htm
Here is Krauss's article on the subject:
The End Of Cosmology? - Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer Excerpt: We are led inexorably to a very strange conclusion. The window during which intelligent observers can deduce the true nature of our expanding universe might be very short indeed. http://genesis1.asu.edu/0308046.pdf
At the 38:10 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Huterer speaks of the 'why right now? coincidence problem' for dark matter and visible matter:
Dragan Huterer - 'coincidence problem' - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTJc1Y7duM#t=2290
As well, the fine-tuning of the expansion of the universe, by itself, is one of the most powerful evidences of Design:
(Commenting on the 1 in 10^120 fine tuning of the expansion of the universe), "Hugh Ross states an analogy that does not even come close to describing the precarious nature of this cosmic balance [between too fast and too slow] would be a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports." Eric Metaxas - Miracles - page 49 Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (1 in 10^120 Expansion Of The Universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/
Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by 'Dark Energy', that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses:
Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. The Truman Show – Truman walking on water – screenshot picture http://gaowsh.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-29-at-5-09-50-pm-2.jpg
Music:
Kari Jobe - I Am Not Alone (Live) https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=bfveawSAHJA&x-yt-ts=1421914688
bornagain77_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply