How did the Universe come to be?

[Conscentia]

Isn't selective breeding just manipulation of evolution?

Arguable.

Darwin used selective breeding as evidence for natural selection.
I would argue that selective breeding is not "evolving" (though in the strictest terms it is, hence my editing of my post in your quote), as it is being directed. The end conclusion of selective breeding, especially in crops, is genetic alteration.
Which is not a part of the natural selection process, and is entirely directed.

I say this with only the most basic grasp of biology required by law in the UK.

Darwin used selective breeding only as evidence for change over time - not as an example of natural selection. He then went onto argue that change could be directed by natural selection, but he supported that with evidence such as his observations of finches the Galapagos.

[Farnhamia]

Arguable.

Darwin used selective breeding as evidence for natural selection.
I would argue that selective breeding is not "evolving" (though in the strictest terms it is, hence my editing of my post in your quote), as it is being directed. The end conclusion of selective breeding, especially in crops, is genetic alteration.
Which is not a part of the natural selection process, and is entirely directed.

I say this with only the most basic grasp of biology required by law in the UK.

Darwin used selective breeding only as evidence for change over time - not as an example of natural selection.

Yes, but with pigeons. Birds don't count, they aren't mammals. Only mammals count. *nod*

[Zottistan]

Isn't selective breeding just manipulation of evolution?

Yes, but it demonstrates artificial selection - not natural selection.

Aren't they both evolution?

[Conscentia]

Yes, but it demonstrates artificial selection - not natural selection.

Aren't they both evolution?

Citing artificial selection provides an incomplete picture, and could lead some to believe that evolution is guided by an agent such as "God".

[The 93rd Coalition]

ZE BIG BANG!

[Zottistan]

Aren't they both evolution?

Citing artificial selection provides an incomplete picture, and could lead some to believe that evolution is guided by an agent such as "God".

People simultaneously believe that and their own interpretations of natural selection, and I don't really see how you could accept artificial selection without accepting natural selection, except by being ridiculously intellectually dishonest.

[CTALNH]

Yes, but it demonstrates artificial selection - not natural selection.

Aren't they both evolution?

Is eugenics evolution?

[The Serbian Empire]

The Big Bang is the origin. The question is what started it off. I have been bouncing between a god and random entropy causing a spontaneous reaction. Either way, there's some holes in the ideas as one suggests something existed before the Big Bang and the other would leave the question of are there more universes and thus it's just a giant series of dominoes.

[Me-lek]

the BAWKS GAWD did it *nods*

[Mavorpen]

The big bang IS still part of the string theory, how ever it is used differently.

You missed the point of my post. Your post stated that the big bang is an incomplete theory that is a part of string theory, implying that the big bang is exclusive to string theory and is only completed by string theory, which is completely and utterly false.

Also while inflation in part is driven by negative pressure it is unknown what mechanism is responsible for inflation.

No it isn't. The current hypothesis is that in the early universe there was a small patch that contained repulsive gravity, which caused the inflation.

[Imperializt Russia]

Arguable.

Darwin used selective breeding as evidence for natural selection.
I would argue that selective breeding is not "evolving" (though in the strictest terms it is, hence my editing of my post in your quote), as it is being directed. The end conclusion of selective breeding, especially in crops, is genetic alteration.
Which is not a part of the natural selection process, and is entirely directed.

I say this with only the most basic grasp of biology required by law in the UK.

Darwin used selective breeding only as evidence for change over time - not as an example of natural selection. He then went onto argue that change could be directed by natural selection, but he supported that with evidence such as his observations of finches the Galapagos.

I said evidence (because that's the word that wiki used), not example.

[Breadknife]

Isn't selective breeding just manipulation of evolution?

Yes, but it demonstrates artificial selection - not natural selection.

I'd argue that demonstrating selection as a driver to variation, natural or otherwise, is sufficient to disprove the "everything has been the way it is since Creation" crowd (which is the more annoyingly and willingly blind to facts sector of the whole YEC movement, in particular), and then we just have to worry about the distinction between undirected natural selection and opportunistic (i.e. semi-directed, but still at the whims of what mutations naturally pop up in the first place¹) 'manual' selection...

¹ Which should be easy to understand, at least for those that don't suspect something Lamarkian takes place.

[Stovokor]

There is only one true answer, I masturbated and thus came life. You're all welcome.

[Conscentia]

Darwin used selective breeding only as evidence for change over time - not as an example of natural selection. He then went onto argue that change could be directed by natural selection, but he supported that with evidence such as his observations of finches the Galapagos.

I said evidence (because that's the word that wiki used), not example.

I'm sorry. Let me fix that:
"Darwin used selective breeding only as evidence for change over time - not as evidence of natural selection. He then went onto argue that change could be directed by natural selection, but he supported that with evidence such as his observations of finches the Galapagos."

[Mostrov]

No it isn't. The current hypothesis is that in the early universe there was a small patch that contained repulsive gravity, which caused the inflation.

Considering the fact that inflation occurred before gravity or any of the fundamental forces existed this evidently makes a great deal of sense, just as you seemingly figuring out what dark matter and energy are.

[The Solar System Scope]

Ha-ha, you cannot explain Big Bang, ha-ha, you cannot explain evolution, ha-ha. View pages 17 and previous for more information.

[Benuty]

I love these threads...it is like watching a Welshman try and perfect a cockney accent.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ha-ha, you cannot explain Big Bang, ha-ha, you cannot explain evolution, ha-ha. View pages 17 and previous for more information.

We can't explain a number of biological processes in our bodies.
They still happen.

[Divair]

Ha-ha, you cannot explain Big Bang, ha-ha, you cannot explain evolution, ha-ha. View pages 17 and previous for more information.

Actually, I can explain both quite easily.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ha-ha, you cannot explain Big Bang, ha-ha, you cannot explain evolution, ha-ha. View pages 17 and previous for more information.

Even if it were true that people couldn't 'explain' the Big Bang or evolution - that inability to explain it wouldn't mean they were untrue.

Fortunately, it's irrelevant - because both can be explained.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I love these threads...it is like watching a Welshman try and perfect a cockney accent.

Sadly it is more like listening to a Welshman trying to perfect a cockney accent.

[Pope Joan]

I am inclined toward the "steady state" with, of course, fluctuations.

The actual Hebrew Bible text for BeReshith (Genesis) does not start with "In THE beginning", but "In A beginning".

So apparently there were or may be other beginnings. Why not? Why insist on being in any way special?

http://kehillatisrael.net/docs/dt/dt_bereshit.html

Why do you consider the Bible in any form a credible source?

I am not using the Bible as a source. One of the poll options was divine creation by God. Traditionally the account of Genesis has been used to support an argument for creation ex nihilo; before Genesis there was zilch, only as God spoke did everything come to be.

I am suggesting that this interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily definitive. There could be a pre existing universe and it would still jibe with this literal reading of the text.

I do not see how this amounts to using the Bible as a source.

[The Solar System Scope]

Whoever gives me the history of the Universe from creation to now will get a telescope.

[Conscentia]

Whoever gives me the history of the Universe from creation to now will get a telescope.

You can send the telescope to astrophysicist Brian Harold May CBE.
http://www.amazon.com/Bang-The-Complete-History-Universe/dp/0801889855

[The Afterlife is Dead]

The universe was sneezed out of a large being, and now we all await the Coming of the Great Handkerchief, when the universe will end.

Silly response from Hitchhiker's Guide.