Login

Join for Free!
118477 members


Big bang and Evoluion

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby gamila » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:59 pm

but there was a big bang which started evolution or life as we know it now
it is called the cambrian explosion -and as colin leslie dean has hown this shows natural selection is wrong

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf


even Darwin said the cambrian explosion showed his theory to be wrong

. "Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)


For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, qare the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).


"The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Evolution of Life," in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)”



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
“The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby robsabba » Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:21 pm

Jamal wrote:OK I agree somewhat, but the fact remains that the so called "big bang" and evolution hold no ground especilly with scientist say that the earth is millions of years old when scientific evidence shows that things we assume take “millions of years” to happen actually don't take that long at all,

Please give us examples of things that we assume take millions of years to happen, but actually don't take that long.


Jamal wrote:and scientific evidence actually points to a young Earth that's about 6000 years old,

Rubbish. There are features on the planet that are less than 6,000 years old (such as Niagra Falls), but there are others that are millions or billions of years old. All the evidence points to a really old planet. Honest YEC "scientists" admit that they only believe the earth is 6,000 years old because of scripture, not because of the physical evidence.

Jamal wrote:which would support the interpretation of 6 literal 24 hour days of the Genesis Creation as recorded in the Bible.

This calculation is from the geneologies in scripture, not from the creation account. If you don't even understand where your "evidence" is coming from, how can you be trusted to understand its implications?
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re:

Postby robsabba » Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:26 pm

Sophyclese wrote:I must say that evolution and the big bang theory are both theories and have many theories that fall under their umbrella. All of said theories are false. THere is no
COMPLETE, SOLID EVIDENCE supporting evolution, the big bang theory, and all theories encompassed by both.

Please define "COMPLETE, SOLID EVIDENCE" in this context. How do we gather such evidence?

Sophyclese wrote:Furthur more, all evidence said to prove evolution can be disprooved by the simple rules that define what is possible in this universe.

Please provide us some of these "simple rules" that disprove evolution. As far as I know, there aren't any.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University


Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby skeptic » Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:10 am

The 'evolution' of the non biotic universe is demonstrable through clear cut empirical evidence. As humans build bigger and bigger telescopes, we see further and further from the Earth. Since the speed of light is limited, this means we are looking further and further into the past. If we compare photographs of massively distant, and therefore way into the past, objects, with closer objects, we see the following differences. Distant in these examples means 8 to 11 billion light years away. Closer means less than 5 billion light years.

1. Distant galaxies on average are smaller than closer galaxies.
2. Distant galaxies (via spectroscopy) can be shown to have a lot less in the way of heavy atoms than closer galaxies.
3. Distant galaxies are closer to each other, than galaxies nearer the Earth.
4. Distant galaxies collide with each other much more frequently than closer galaxies.

As we look at more and more distant objects, with better and better telescopes, we are looking further and further into the past, and hence towards a time much closer to the Big Bang. The results are consistent with a titanic explosion and an expanding universe ever since. In addition to the points above, which are clearly consistent with the universe being smaller and less developed in the past, we also have the observed fact that more distant galaxies are more red shifted than closer ones, strongly indicating that the universe is expanding.

The Big Bang theory predicts that the first stars were made of just hydrogen and helium, and were massive. Each would have lived a very short life and explosively collapsed to create a giant black hole. The black holes would be the core around which the galaxies collected. We cannot yet see these early stars, as they existed so long ago, they are over 12 billion light years away and below the sensitivity of our best telescopes. However, new telescopes are currently under construction, which should see them. Since true science is about testable prediction, I make this prediction. Within another 10 years, the first megastars will be seen, and spectroscopy will show they are made of almost nothing else except hydrogen and helium.

The Big Bang theory is the best model we have of the origin of the universe, and the evidence supports it very strongly.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby Universe » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:59 pm

But if everything started of "hydrogen and helium" where did hydrogen and helium come from? no where? they had to be made by something and whatever that something is what was made by that? it couldn't just pop out of nowhere. I just want a clear explanation.
Universe
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:54 pm

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby skeptic » Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:18 am

To Universe.

I will try a simplified explanation.

You can see the Big Bang in a kind of reverse by looking at nuclear accelerators. As humans build bigger and bigger, and better accelerator/colliders (a bit like building bigger and better telescopes), we are able to increase the energy of nuclear collisions. This busts matter up into more and more basic items.

The Big Bang did the reverse. As an 'explosion' of titanic proportions, the energy at the beginning was utterly mind-blowing. The high energy meant that matter could exist only in its most basic forms, and we had a plasma of free flowing quarks. As time went by, and that concentration of matter expanded, it cooled. The quarks condensed into more basic forms, which in turn condensed into the simplest form of matter, which was almost 100% hydrogen atoms - the simplest and smallest atom.

Due to quantum fluctuations, this hydrogen was not homogeneous. It existed in 'clumps'. As the very early universe expanded, these clumps tended to aggregate with other clumps. About 100,000 years after the big bang, the aggregated masses of hydrogen formed into massive stars.

The gravity of these stars pulled the hydrogen in, creating enormous pressure, and releasing heat, which stimulated the first fusion. Under those massive pressures and temperatures, the hydrogen started to fuse together to form helium atoms, which is how the first significant amounts of helium formed.

In time some lithium also formed, though in small amounts. The first stars were short lived (a few million years only), and the final collapse of each formed a black hole (or so astronomers believe) of enormous mass, around which, later, the first galaxies formed. The next generation of stars were responsible for the manufacture of much of the larger atoms that have come through to the present.

So the reason the first matter was mostly hydrogen, and later some helium, was due to the massive energies of the universe very early on which would not permit larger atoms to exist. The larger atoms came later.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:48 am

Quotations are unnecessary for a thinker. A thinker can be a scientist.
Qualification is not a MUST.

We are too arrogant to look upon ourselves as a higher form of lives.
We are animals with higher intelligence (resulted from the evolution from a simple form into a more complex form of lives).

Political boundaries and Spheres in Ecology has misled the scientists.
If you ingore the truth, history will tell.
However, time is linear. No one can turn the clock back.

Stop ingoring the TRUTH - The presence of a "Conscious Earth".

Evolution is incomplete without realizing "Planets are higher form of lives."

Distances in-between each planet that still alive is a nautral mechanism to avoid competitions.
Since lives are all self-oriented, the natural mechanism of non-competitions in our universe should be the result of evolution of the universe through time. The universe may also be a living entity. (Thus, "lives" is the only principle of our universe. "Lives" are lives in different levels.) - Selfishness in our Genetics. Selfishness of the planets (both microorganisms and plants - living tissues - & reproduction - offspring/animals with a biological structure of brains). Definitions of lives have to be re-written. Evolution becomes a theory by my hypothesis.


"Planets are living objects" is a hypothesis awaiting recognitions from the scientist. A theory explained the operation of our universe by a simple logic. Evolution by both the planet (a consicous Earth) and her offspring (animals). The cause-and-effects in-between microorganisms and a suitable environment for the presence of lives (inside a planet) cannot not be reversed. Otherwise, what make the Earth different? The general belief of the distances and oribit from sun is not even close to the truth behind our world. (They cannot fully explained the situation on the Earth, but "planets as a higher form of lives" does.

The truth is not being bounded by academic subjects.

Reputations in History. Science will tell.

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby skeptic » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:05 am

wong

I do hope you are not being serious.

This is the science forum, and I am trying to express good science. What you are discussing is religion, and pretty damn way out religion at that. How about we stick to what can be demonstrated by empirical evidence?
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:28 am

skeptic wrote:wong

I do hope you are not being serious.

This is the science forum, and I am trying to express good science. What you are discussing is religion, and pretty damn way out religion at that. How about we stick to what can be demonstrated by empirical evidence?


Thank you very much for your reply.

I AM SERIOUS.

Otherwise, I will not spend so much time and efforts in expanding my hypothesis, "Planets are Living objects". It is the only solution and correct direction to explore our universe and the nature of all living objects.

Evolution by microorganisms into (1) animals & (2) plants. Former one is the reproduction process of the planet. Latter one come wih the evolution of the planet itself. Both are the life cycles of a planet (a living object).

Religion is only a branch derived from this one-sentence simply hypothesis (that may shock the world and become the most dominant theory in the future). Evolution is incomplete without my hypothesis.

Science out of imagination is dumb.
First, "Lives" are lives in different levels. Planets are higher level of lives. Their reproduction carried out inside their bodies.
Second, Time is linear. Space is multi-dimensional, so are we. As I used to say, "You can only see a man cutting an apple in front of the mirror with the time goes by." Have you seen a FIVE dimensional space? Scientists have too much imagination. Creativity is a pushing force in science. It does not equal to imagination.
Third, qualifications are not restrictions to a scientific discovery. Maybe the wall is too high for academic freedom. You don't even pay attention to the significance of my hypothesis.

History repeats itself. Old school thinking telling you that "the Earth is a flat land".
Gallieo is not the first one. I will not be the last one.
The EARTH is a consious living object. Planets are in a higher form of lives.

Science may not be good if it is out of your imagination.

Time will give all of us an answer.

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Postby Universe » Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:19 pm

To Skeptic

So like you say "the first matter was mostly hydrogen which was caused by energies of the universe." So how was energy made? Okay where I'm going at with this is not to piss you off I'm just tryin to see how everything was created so that it can make sense of everything else. Okay so everything is black let's erase everything in the universe. Everything is black how did things evolve like hydrogen, helium, etc? If there's nothing how can something become something?

Thanks for your time
Universe
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:54 pm

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby skeptic » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:11 pm

Universe

I am very happy to respond to you. Your question is sane, sensible, and valid, and deserves an attempt at an answer. Where did the energy of the Big Bang come from? Quite frankly, I do not know. I do not think any scientist really knows either.

There is a hypothesis that the Big Bang came from the collisions of two 'branes', which are essentially other dimensional structures which are suggested by certain interpretations of super-string theory. Sadly, we cannot test this hypothesis at this point in time, so we will remain ignorant.

However, science does not have to provide exact answers to everything. Science is the study of the universe via the scientific method. That study is an on-going process, and knowledge continues to increase. There is no shame admitting the bits we do not yet know.

So we do not know how the Big Bang with all its energy came into being, apart from problematic hypotheses. However, the residue of the Big Bang can still be seen within the universe, and such things as the microwave patterns from the original titanic explosion can still be seen through our most sophisticated instruments. From this, and a wide range of other evidences, we can see that the Big Bang actually did happen, and we can measure and deduce the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang.

A real possibility is that there are many universes (the multiverse theory), and Big Bangs are happening all the time, creating new universes. Again, this is merely a hypothesis, as yet untested. Thus, we can only speculate.

To wong.

Your ideas are interesting, but like the multiverse theory, untested and thus only speculative. In science, the process that is required is to form a hypothesis (which you have) and then test it.

The process is to use the hypothesis to develop a novel prediction, which can be tested by novel real world experiments or observations. Such testing needs to be repeated many times, and scrutinised by experts who will try to disprove the hypothesis.

When the hypothesis has survived this process several times, it may be elevated to the form of a scientific theory. At that point, it gets taken seriously by scientists.

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you must present a testable prediction, and then get it tested. Preferably a number of times. If you cannot do this, your ideas will languish in the archives of pseudoscience.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:52 pm

skeptic wrote:To wong.

Your ideas are interesting, but like the multiverse theory, untested and thus only speculative. In science, the process that is required is to form a hypothesis (which you have) and then test it.

The process is to use the hypothesis to develop a novel prediction, which can be tested by novel real world experiments or observations. Such testing needs to be repeated many times, and scrutinised by experts who will try to disprove the hypothesis.

When the hypothesis has survived this process several times, it may be elevated to the form of a scientific theory. At that point, it gets taken seriously by scientists.

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you must present a testable prediction, and then get it tested. Preferably a number of times. If you cannot do this, your ideas will languish in the archives of pseudoscience.


A theory may not be emerged in science laboratories. It always requires an inspiration.
Lives in different levels” is a new concept that can fully satisfy the occurrence of lives on the Earth. Thus, it explained the whole system of our universe.

Imagination has misled scientists and philosophers.
One must realize the facts below:
(1) Soul does not exist. The afterlife is just an imagination.
(2) Time is linear. Space is three-dimensional.
(3) No space arrivals.
(4) Live and Death is a natural process.
(5) Minds generated from brain. Science has explained “consciousness”.

No one will give up such an influential hypothesis.
Qualification is not an obstacle.
I am only 23. I am going to finish it in my lifetime.

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron