The only thing I would respectfully disagree with is that "something cant be created out of nothing" If you mean that "matter" and space itself couldnt suddenly appear from nothing. It can : in the sense that space and time ( or spacetime) did not exist before the big bang and both were created by it. What was there "before" the big bang is debateable, and would be almost impossible for us to describe in terms we could relate to today. It would be mathematical. There may have been some form of field in which a fluctuation could result in the birth of the universe ( one theory ) but the fundamental premise of the big bang is that there was no space or time prior to it. This is difficult to conceptualise
I agree it comes down to mathematics but we must comprehend surely the meaning on 'Nothing' the word itself implies absolutely nothing which athieism says is what happens when we die. I cannot think in any logical manner, that something no matter how miniscule could be created from nothing, never mind a big bang theory. It is beyond total comprehension and no scientist can explain it to me in any way which would make sense.
Mass is just a form of stored energy - E=MC ( squared - couldnt find superscript ) - shows that we can convert mass into energy. In a similar way a perturbation in a field could cause large amounts of energy to become mass.
That`s true. I`m sure I remember reading from somewhere that matter is basically a denser form of energy where the particles are vibrating with a lower amount of energy. As I understand it, matter cannot exist in a solid form within a vaccuum. If one of us was suddenly teleported into space, then we would explode as there would be no air pressure to force our particles into a solid, physical form. I would imagine the reason why solid forms of matter can exist in space is because the gravitational pull of a large mass of matter (e.g a planet), is what holds the matter together in a solid form within the vaccuum of space itself. So for "The Big Bang" to occur in the first place (whether an explosion, rapid expansion or otherwise), there must have been a massive centre of mass or concentrated energy existing in one spot for it to expland outwards and form galaxies. Now that mass could not have existed in isolation without a central gravitational core which held it altogether in the first place. So where did that come from
Another question is where did the earth`s atmosphere come from? Life on earth cannot exist without an atmosphere. Did the atmosphere arise as a complete fluke from a set random physical reactions?, Or did a creator give the earth an atmosphere so that it could provide all living creatures with life itself. Is it a coincidence, divine intervention, or is there a scientific explanation for why a planet such as earth is the correct distance from the sun for life to exist without being too hot or too cold, AND to have an atmosphere which provides life to exist in the first place?
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2007 20:33:46 GMT by alexraybould
Another question is where did the earth`s atmosphere come from? Life on earth cannot exist without an atmosphere. Did the atmosphere arise as a complete fluke from a set random physical reactions?, Or did a creator give the earth an atmosphere so that it could provide all living creatures with life itself. Is it a coincidence, divine intervention, or is there a scientific explanation for why a planet such as earth is the correct distance from the sun for life to exist without being too hot or too cold, AND to have an atmosphere which provides life to exist in the first place?
The exact origin of the Earth's atmosphere is not fully understood yet, but I would bet everything I own on the fact that it had nothing to do with a supernatural creator.
The explanation for why the Earth is at the correct distance from the sun for life to exist (called the "Goldilocks Problem") is simple enough to rationalise, although it sounds a bit circular:
If it was NOT at the right point, we would not be here debating it. It is effectively a complete fluke. But when you consider the sheer number of chances for it to occur - dozens of planets around billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies - it is not quite as "coincidental" as you might think. The probability of it happening is finite, and so the chances of it happening are actually quite high.
It's like the National Lottery. There is a 1 in 14 million chance of winning it. But someone wins almost every week.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Nicely put Bujin and very logical. Concievably the other planets in our solar system could one day also support life although by your estimations, you would have to accept therefore that other planets somewhere in the universe must have life forms. It doesn't answer where life came from though in the first place.
Nicely put Bujin and very logical. Concievably the other planets in our solar system could one day also support life although by your estimations, you would have to accept therefore that other planets somewhere in the universe must have life forms. It doesn't answer where life came from though in the first place.
Exactly. That's why scientists are looking closely at Europa (moon of Jupiter) because they suspect that it may well contain life. If life is indeed discovered there, it would certainly ask a lot of questions of the whole creation idea.
It wouldn't answer where life came from (although there have been several plausible theories on this issue for decades), but it would show that life is likely to be quite abundant in the universe.
They've also been looking at Mars for years (remember the martian meteorite a few years back...?) Scientists believe that Mars used to be very much like the Earth back in the early days of the solar system, and it may well have life signs somewhere on the planet. Even if the planet is now dead, the discovery of fossilised life forms on Mars would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries ever - so it's understandable why the scientists were so excited with the martian meteorite!!!
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Mass is just a form of stored energy - E=MC ( squared - couldnt find superscript ) - shows that we can convert mass into energy. In a similar way a perturbation in a field could cause large amounts of energy to become mass.
I would imagine the reason why solid forms of matter can exist in space is because the gravitational pull of a large mass of matter (e.g a planet), is what holds the matter together in a solid form within the vaccuum of space itself. So for "The Big Bang" to occur in the first place (whether an explosion, rapid expansion or otherwise), there must have been a massive centre of mass or concentrated energy existing in one spot for it to expland outwards and form galaxies. Now that mass could not have existed in isolation without a central gravitational core which held it altogether in the first place. So where did that come from
Gravity is a very weak force and it is responsible for the orbit of planets, it acts upon mass, and is responsible for what we term weight.. It is not gravity which holds matter together - that is the far stronger "strong nuclear force" Again though - you should get away from the idea of there actually being any space or mass prior to the big bang. In the first tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, the four fundamental forces : strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity may have not been distinct, rather they may have seperated as the universe went through rapid expansion. You may be able to imagine the whole universe as a tiny point mass during this phase and gravity may have been dominant, but prior to the big bang, neither mass nor space would have existed. Space and time are only 4 dimensions that we can percieve but that doesnt mean there are not others. Not in a Rod Serling type way, but as real entities, but ones which we would be unable to conceptualise, much as a painting couldnt know what "depth" was.
So : space is a vacuum, but gravity acts over huge ( if not infinite distances ) - matter is held together (on an atomic scale ) by the strong nuclear force : which is much stronger than gravity but acts over much shorter distances. The whole universe may have been a tiny point mass, but this would be after the big bang. All mass has an associated gravitational field so the gravitational force of such a mass would be enormous. But prior to the big bang there was no mass nor space, it came into being with the big bang.
The exact origin of the Earth's atmosphere is not fully understood yet, but I would bet everything I own on the fact that it had nothing to do with a supernatural creator.
The explanation for why the Earth is at the correct distance from the sun for life to exist (called the "Goldilocks Problem") is simple enough to rationalise, although it sounds a bit circular:
If it was NOT at the right point, we would not be here debating it. It is effectively a complete fluke. But when you consider the sheer number of chances for it to occur - dozens of planets around billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies - it is not quite as "coincidental" as you might think. The probability of it happening is finite, and so the chances of it happening are actually quite high.
It's like the National Lottery. There is a 1 in 14 million chance of winning it. But someone wins almost every week.
Yes, this is very true. Carl Sagan said something similar when he was discussing the possibility of extra terrestrial life existing elsewhere in the universe. He stated that based on statistical probability alone, bearing in mind the inconceivable number of stars in the Galaxy (nevermind the universe), then if only a minute fraction of these stars had solar systems, and a minute fraction of these contained planets which were at the right distance from the star which made them conducive to sustaining life, then it was a mathematical certainty that life existed elsewhere in the universe.
I think the point I was trying to make was that the odds against life existing on our planet are greatly increased when you take into account the fact that the Earth contains an atmosphere that is conducive to sustaining life. Having said that of course, one could argue that life evolved and adapted to the atmosphere.
But certainly when you take into account the probabilities and statistics involved, it`s a miracle that we are even here debating the issue. Our very existance appears to have been a result of as you say, a complete fluke!
Regarding theories on how life originated in the first place, I remember reading years ago one theory that speculated that life began due to a thunder storm, when lightening struck the ocean, and fused together certain chemical elements, which were in some way able to replicate themselves.
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2007 19:58:17 GMT by alexraybould
I think the point I was trying to make was that the odds against life existing on our planet are greatly increased when you take into account the fact that the Earth contains an atmosphere that is conducive to sustaining life. Having said that of course, one could argue that life evolved and adapted to the atmosphere.
The size of the planet also has a great deal to do with whether or not it has an atmosphere and what the atmosphere comprises of. I do recall a lecture back when I was doing my degree which dealt with atmosphere. It depends on whether the gravitational pull of the planet is strong enough to hold onto the particles of hydrogen, helium and all the other gaseous elements - some of which will be lost into space due to the speed they are travelling, some of which will be held into the atmosphere.
The atmosphere currently consists of Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%), and small amounts of Argon and Carbon Dioxide. Bear in mind that the atmosphere will also have changed over the course of the past few billion years as life affects the atmosphere as much as atmosphere affects life.
Regarding theories on how life originated in the first place, I remember reading years ago one theory that speculated that life began due to a thunder storm, when lightening struck the ocean, and fused together certain chemical elements, which were in some way able to replicate themselves.
I'll go back to Richard Dawkins for this one. Both The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene give two of the theories, both of which are a bit too complicated and lengthy to go into here - especially as 24 has just started... ;D
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
I'll go back to Richard Dawkins for this one. Both The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene give two of the theories, both of which are a bit too complicated and lengthy to go into here - especially as 24 has just started... ;D
Thanks. I`m going to have to reserve a copy of "The Blind Watchman" as soon as I can get a chance as it obviously contains a lot of answers / theories to the questions that I have raised.
I remember an interesting documentary that I saw some time ago which linked perceived physical attractiveness to an evolutionary explanation. Perception research was carried out which showed (not surprisingly), that people perceived other people as more attractive who had physical features which were more in proportional to the rest of their other physical features than people who didn`t. So for example, the bigger or smaller the ears, the bigger or smaller the nose, the wider or narrower the eyes were from one another, the more "unattractive" that person was rated.
The researchers suggested that in cases where the physical features were more disproportionate, this represented an example of a minor mutation in the genetic thread, which of course may be passed on throughout the generations. If from an instinctual perspective, people with less mutations were more physically attractive and hence were chosen as a mate more often than those who weren`t (and theoretically had more children), then this would be almost like nature`s way of ironing out the genetic flaws in the gene pool by reinforcing less mutated genes and weeding out genetic flaws.
Now obviously, most human beings are rational and intelligent enough to be aware that looks aren`t everything. But it did suggest that at an instinctual level, the more attractive the person we see, the more likely we are to wish to reproduce with them (which is something we can all relate to!). At the very least the research did offer an explanation as to what makes someone attractive, and what doesn`t, and why.
Now if this is the case, maybe I was actually wrong when I said that human beings had reached their pinnacle of evolution. Over the course of thousands or millions of years, this effect (although subtle) could alter the appearance of human beings. It also raises the question, is there an instinctual drive within us all to help facilitate the evolution process? Is evolution down to more than just natural selection? Could it be that what we find attractive and what we don`t is designed to play a role in changing genetics, and if so where does this instinct come from?
Last Edit: Jan 29, 2007 19:23:31 GMT by alexraybould
I remember an interesting documentary that I saw some time ago which linked perceived physical attractiveness to an evolutionary explanation. Perception research was carried out which showed (not surprisingly), that people perceived other people as more attractive who had physical features which were more in proportional to the rest of their other physical features than people who didn`t. So for example, the bigger or smaller the ears, the bigger or smaller the nose, the wider or narrower the eyes were from one another, the more "unattractive" that person was rated.
The researchers suggested that in cases where the physical features were more disproportionate, this represented an example of a minor mutation in the genetic thread, which of course may be passed on throughout the generations. If from an instinctual perspective, people with less mutations were more physically attractive and hence were chosen as a mate more often than those who weren`t (and theoretically had more children), then this would be almost like nature`s way of ironing out the genetic flaws in the gene pool by reinforcing less mutated genes and weeding out genetic flaws.
Now obviously, most human beings are rational and intelligent enough to be aware that looks aren`t everything. But it did suggest that at an instinctual level, the more attractive the person we see, the more likely we are to wish to reproduce with them (which is something we can all relate to!). At the very least the research did offer an explanation as to what makes someone attractive, and what doesn`t, and why.
I've seen various articles about research into "attractiveness" and stuff like that over the past few years - although usually the highly watered down versions you get on the BBC News website. I don't know a great deal about them.
Now if this is the case, maybe I was actually wrong when I said that human beings had reached their pinnacle of evolution. Over the course of thousands or millions of years, this effect (although subtle) could alter the appearance of human beings. It also raises the question, is there an instinctual drive within us all to help facilitate the evolution process? Is evolution down to more than just natural selection? Could it be that what we find attractive and what we don`t is designed to play a role in changing genetics, and if so where does this instinct come from?
These questions are a bit out of my area of knowledge - I only really know the very basics about evolution and biology.
I'd say that humans have not reached their pinnacle of evolution yet. We've only been around for a tiny amount of time and I'd hardly be surprised if in 20,000 years time, a humans look very different to what we do now. They probably won't even be called "humans" anymore either. Even though there aren't the selection pressures, the mutations will still occur, so rather than humanity being one species, I suspect it will split.
Of course, that's just guesswork on my part. I think Richard Dawkins might be able to correct me. In fact, I might post the question on his forum...
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
It isn't just attractiveness through sight either is it? It has to do with how people smell too. Different people are attracted to different smells - pheromones, I suppose - from the opposite sex. Those pheremones have nothing to do with physical attraction.
Thanks. I`m going to have to reserve a copy of "The Blind Watchman" as soon as I can get a chance as it obviously contains a lot of answers / theories to the questions that I have raised.
Although it doesn't go into the origin of life - at least, not as far as I've watched so far - it's also worth having a look at the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures presented by Dawkins back in 1991:
I'd say that humans have not reached their pinnacle of evolution yet
This is a very common saying or fallacy with regards to evolution.
We have to think totally differently in this respect, evolution does not have a higher goal in mind..there is no pinnacle of evolution, we have to get out of the mind set that we are (humans) some higher form of evolved being as this is simply not true. Consider all of the organism alive today, if we travel back in time far enough we will reach our common shared ancestor, grandfather of all the apes, fish and all other life forms, all of the life forms we know of today have all been evolving for the same period of time around 3.5 to 4 billion years. Just because we have the capacity to understand the concept of evolution and have lots of great technological tricks does not make us the ultimate evolved being. Using the "pinnacle" mind set we could argue that a sea urchin is far more evolved than us because it can live at depth in water, unaided by breathing respirators and happily thrive...does that make it the pinnacle of evolution? No..of course not, it has simply adapted to its environment in order for it to survive and breed all orchestrated by the non random process of natural selection.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I'd say that humans have not reached their pinnacle of evolution yet
This is a very common saying or fallacy with regards to evolution.
We have to think totally differently in this respect, evolution does not have a higher goal in mind..there is no pinnacle of evolution, we have to get out of the mind set that we are (humans) some higher form of evolved being as this is simply not true.
Yep, you're quite right. I was a bit distracted while writing that response and didn't pick up on that point!
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
I'd say that humans have not reached their pinnacle of evolution yet
This is a very common saying or fallacy with regards to evolution.
We have to think totally differently in this respect, evolution does not have a higher goal in mind..there is no pinnacle of evolution, we have to get out of the mind set that we are (humans) some higher form of evolved being as this is simply not true. Consider all of the organism alive today, if we travel back in time far enough we will reach our common shared ancestor, grandfather of all the apes, fish and all other life forms, all of the life forms we know of today have all been evolving for the same period of time around 3.5 to 4 billion years. Just because we have the capacity to understand the concept of evolution and have lots of great technological tricks does not make us the ultimate evolved being. Using the "pinnacle" mind set we could argue that a sea urchin is far more evolved than us because it can live at depth in water, unaided by breathing respirators and happily thrive...does that make it the pinnacle of evolution? No..of course not, it has simply adapted to its environment in order for it to survive and breed all orchestrated by the non random process of natural selection.
Don`t get me wrong, I agree with you. I think that either you may have misunderstood what I meant, or It could have simply been myself that used the wrong word! When I said "pinnacle" I didn`t mean that human beings were the most advanced form of life on the planet, and all other animal life was subordinate to humans. I was referring to the extent to which human beings could continue to evolve, or the extend to which there was to be no more scope for their evolution. Perhaps the phrase I should have used was "human beings may not have reached a point at which their evolution has been halted as a result of their removal from the primitive wilderness and their current protection by `civilised` society" Apologies if I misled!
This is a very common saying or fallacy with regards to evolution.
We have to think totally differently in this respect, evolution does not have a higher goal in mind..there is no pinnacle of evolution, we have to get out of the mind set that we are (humans) some higher form of evolved being as this is simply not true. Consider all of the organism alive today, if we travel back in time far enough we will reach our common shared ancestor, grandfather of all the apes, fish and all other life forms, all of the life forms we know of today have all been evolving for the same period of time around 3.5 to 4 billion years. Just because we have the capacity to understand the concept of evolution and have lots of great technological tricks does not make us the ultimate evolved being. Using the "pinnacle" mind set we could argue that a sea urchin is far more evolved than us because it can live at depth in water, unaided by breathing respirators and happily thrive...does that make it the pinnacle of evolution? No..of course not, it has simply adapted to its environment in order for it to survive and breed all orchestrated by the non random process of natural selection.
Don`t get me wrong, I agree with you. I think that either you may have misunderstood what I meant, or It could have simply been myself that used the wrong word! When I said "pinnacle" I didn`t mean that human beings were the most advanced form of life on the planet, and all other animal life was subordinate to humans. I was referring to the extent to which human beings could continue to evolve, or the extend to which there was to be no more scope for their evolution. Perhaps the phrase I should have used was "human beings may not have reached a point at which their evolution has been halted as a result of their removal from the primitive wilderness and their current protection by `civilised` society. Apologies if I misled!
Don`t get me wrong, I agree with you. I think that either you may have misunderstood what I meant, or It could have simply been myself that used the wrong word! When I said "pinnacle" I didn`t mean that human beings were the most advanced form of life on the planet, and all other animal life was subordinate to humans. I was referring to the extent to which human beings could continue to evolve, or the extend to which there was to be no more scope for their evolution.
If I understand evolution correctly, there is no such thing as an "extent to which there is no more scope for evolution".
There may be an extent to which we can evolve to where we are no longer called "human". In the same way that homo antecessor is now extinct, maybe in the future, we will evolve to a point where homo sapiens becomes extinct and a new species takes over.
But the process of genetic mutation will never stop (or at least, it's extremely unlikely that it will ever stop!). Whether natural (or artificial) selection is still active or not doesn't really matter. All it really means (IMO) is that without natural selection, our evolution is no longer guaranteed to produce a better species.
I'm probably rambling a bit because I'm thinking as I type...
I just found and glanced over this article which discusses how the future of human evolution might go:
Cockroaches have not evolved for millions of years, their form is pretty much perfect. Although i am sure they could evolve more if they needed to
This is true. If their environment changes, they will change too. I suspect that even cockroaches still mutate, but natural selection doesn't favour those mutations - although that's just guesswork off the top of my head, rather than anything I've read on the subject!
Humans are FAR from perfect and there is a lot of evolving that we can still do. Natural selection is no longer quite relevant, but artificial selection could well be, whether by selective breeding (a la Adolf Hitler's ideals for the Aryan Race) or by use of technology to augment humans through genetic modification.
Natural selection would take effect in humans again if there were some sort of disaster that wiped out a significant proportion of the human species.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
;D
