Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wasrad

The four horseman of the apocalypse, now

Recommended Posts

4) Evolution. Through random mutation, crossbreeding and natural selection the organisms evolve. It's all conditioned by the physical laws that greatly reduce the number of possible directions.

Have you ever encountered a theory about mutation rate and evolution being occasionally enhanced by the periodic collapse of the Earth's magnetic field?

It's well known that the poles flip every couple 100,000 or million years or so.  But before north and south can switch completely, there is a brief (decades to centuries) period when there is little or no magnetic field to channel the sun's ionised particles around the Earth.  It's during these periods when the rate of mutation occurence is enhanced.

A particularly longer than usual pause occurred when the dinosaurs vanished.  And we all know how much big cold-blooded lizards need to lie in the sun.  I guess they were askin' for it.

Those who favour this theory also use it to explain that:

- smaller creatures representing smaller targets were more likely to prevail;

- sharks and other sea creatures remained relatively unchanged by being protected by water;

- creatures with fur and feathers had a similar but lesser advantage;

- nocturnal creatures that slept in the ground had a much greater advantage;

I'm wondering if this theory is still being proliferated or has it become extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard it, but more along the lines of it causing mass extinctions, not mutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall reading that one of the greater mysteries about evolution is its uneven pace.  Paleontologists have trouble explaining why life evolved so much more quickly during some periods than others. An accelerated mutation rate is one attempt to explain this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big bang theory is generally reliable. But it still doesn't account for creation. How did those gasses that spontaneously combusted exist in the first place? I don't know of any theories, aside from religious accounts of creation, that explain how things were created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big bang theory is generally reliable.  But it still doesn't account for creation.  How did those gasses that spontaneously combusted exist in the first place?  I don't know of any theories, aside from religious accounts of creation, that explain how things were created.

Why did it have to be created?

Why did everything have to start from nothingness?

Why did everything even have to have a starting point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big bang theory is generally reliable.  But it still doesn't account for creation.  How did those gasses that spontaneously combusted exist in the first place?  I don't know of any theories, aside from religious accounts of creation, that explain how things were created.

"Before" the big bang, space-time was compressed into a singular point. I put quotation marks around before because it wasn't really before. Time is not an absolute property. When space-time was compressed to one point, no time line existed. It is exoctic to us humans who intuitivly appriciate time as linear, but general relativity has shown that it isn't the case. Time is not an intrinsic property. Quantum mechanics shows many example of that.

So, what happened according to current theories is that a time invariant particle tunelled through the space-time well. While it was time-invariant, it was not space invariant which caused a fluctuation in the singularity which in turn lead to a huge matter-antimatter explosion and voliá: you have space-time and matter.

How certain is this? Not at all. When the space-time was compressed into a singular point none of our "normal" physical laws existed. So the mechanism could have been very different from what we observe in 'normal' universe.

As always, in the end you have to make at least ONE assumption that you can't prove. You have to have at least one point of reference. The creation of the Big Bang can be explained by making scientifically plausible assumptions. And that's at least as good as any religious theory.

Here's a good NASA web page on the subject - sort of a Big Bang FAQ:

Big Bang Cosmology - Origins of the Universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sub-atomic quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time. They don't conform to the same rules as everything else, because of special qualities they have. Similarly to the way tachyons can break the speed of light because they have no mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sub-atomic quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time.  

Time being the keyword here. Which kind of loses its meaning when space-time is compressed into a singular point.  smile_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]Similarly to the way tachyons can break the speed of light because they have no mass.

Dude, you need to scale back on your Star Trek watching. wink_o.gif Tachyons are theoretical particles with negative energy (mass). They have never been found. Since they would be quite detectable if they existed most serious scientist consider them fictional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sub-atomic quantum particles pop in and out of existence all the time.  

Time being the keyword here. Which kind of loses its meaning when space-time is compressed into a singular point.

Does that make it meaningless to say before the Big Bang?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. smile_o.gif That's why I said:

Quote[/b] ]"Before" the big bang, space-time was compressed into a singular point. I put quotation marks around before because it wasn't really before. Time is not an absolute property. When space-time was compressed to one point, no time line existed.

It's really very difficult for our mind to comperhend a notion of no timeline. We would argue that something had to cause the transition from nothing (singular point) to the big bang. Causality automatically implies a time line. One should keep in mind though that in that singularity the laws of physics as we know them did not exist. So one cannot in any way assume that causality applies. There may very well had been an effect without any cause. wow_o.gifsmile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There may very well had been an effect without any cause.   wow_o.gif  smile_o.gif

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>OMG...</span>  wow_o.gif

wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but I was only using it as an example of how weird subatomic particles can be. I don't watch star trek, probably got hold of it from Red Dwarf or some sci fi book.

Quote[/b] ]Time being the keyword here. Which kind of loses its meaning when space-time is compressed into a singular point.
Time being irrelevant in that sentence and serving only to illustrate that such things happen. FFS, stop trying to nitpick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was another universe before the big bang, and the only survivor was Galactus:

galactus.gif

...at least, according to the Marvel Comics theory of creation... tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big bang theory is generally reliable.  But it still doesn't account for creation.  How did those gasses that spontaneously combusted exist in the first place?  I don't know of any theories, aside from religious accounts of creation, that explain how things were created.

Well if u want to know where those gasses came from i want to know where this god came from.

Another possibility is that this world is like the matrix tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if u want to know where those gasses came from i want to know where this god came from.

Another possibility is that this world is like the matrix tounge_o.gif

Why don't you ask him? biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... the entire question of how the universe began is moot because 'began' predicates the consistency of time in a linear form...

That's some trippy stuff  smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess Einstein must of been a pothead. biggrin_o.gif

Einstein.gif

only god knows what he did put in his pipe and how he got his haircuts tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO getting rid of cigarettes wouldn't stop all cases of lung cancer, is it still a bad idea?

Yes, because (as much as I think it is a disgusting and pointless habit) people have a right to smoke and poison their bodies if they want.

Next thing you'll be telling me suicide should be illegal!  tounge_o.gif

Maybe that was a bad example. I agree that people should be able to do pretty much what they like with their own bodies, but the problem lies with the health risks for others around the smoker; children being especially vulnerable. I should have said banning smoking in public places instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO getting rid of cigarettes wouldn't stop all cases of lung cancer, is it still a bad idea?

Yes, because (as much as I think it is a disgusting and pointless habit) people have a right to smoke and poison their bodies if they want.

Next thing you'll be telling me suicide should be illegal!  tounge_o.gif

I say take out the addicting nicotine. Then we'll see who still wants to poison their bodies.

And what about the people who want to quit, but can't because it is addicting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOUGH! ghostface.gif

EDIT: You can't smoke in a public place here, I can't drive my car at 200Km/h in a public place. TOUGH. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×