Some Logical Questions about the Big Bang and Evolution

Adso de Fimnu

Prince
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
373
Location
Iowa
Hello all. If anyone could help answer these questions, I would be very grateful. Thank you.

"The Big Bang"
1. What, if anything, was the cause of the original bowling ball (or marble, or whatever) that made up all the matter in the universe? Had it always existed, or what?
2. What caused this ball to explode as it did?
3. How could all the matter in the universe have fit into a ball that small?
4. What evidence is there for this theory, other than the fact that all those galaxies, etc. are rushing away from each other at such a great speed?

Evolution
5. Are there any observed instances of macro-evolution, apart from fossil evidence?
6. Has a "missing link" (besides numerous hoaxes) ever been found?
7. What is the relationship between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?
8. Are there, currently, any instances of transition between one species and another?
 
Adso de Fimnu said:
6. Has a "missing link" (besides numerous hoaxes) ever been found?

Depends on your definition. Any species could count as a "missing link" between what came before and what comes after.

However, I think the archaeopteryx remains the classic example. Another good example would be the numerous species that have been found "between" the land-based ancestors of whales and their fully marine, legless descendants.
 
Adso de Fimnu said:
1. What, if anything, was the cause of the original bowling ball (or marble, or whatever) that made up all the matter in the universe? Had it always existed, or what?
2. What caused this ball to explode as it did?
Same answer for both. Particles from other universe randomly popping in until one 'day', by chance, more particles popped in than popped out. This caused the Big Bang. This is pure pothead speculation and is completely unsubstantiated and unverifiable, so in other words, its at least as viable as most other cosmological theories:crazyeye:
 
4. What evidence is there for this theory, other than the fact that all those galaxies, etc. are rushing away from each other at such a great speed?
The cosmic background radiation is pretty hard to explain without the Big Bang.
 
I can't really answer your evolution questions, but I can make some attempts at the Big Bang ones.

Adso de Fimnu said:
"The Big Bang"
1. What, if anything, was the cause of the original bowling ball (or marble, or whatever) that made up all the matter in the universe? Had it always existed, or what?

How would anyone know this? Unless you have some kind of time machine, it's utterly impossible for the moment to know what caused the Big Bang [if it was the Big Bang that started the universe.] All we have, after all, are observations of the universe long after the beginning of the universe -- and we must base our theories upon that.

2. What caused this ball to explode as it did?

Uhhh, see above.

3. How could all the matter in the universe have fit into a ball that small?

Simple. Matter would have been ultracondensed. A black hole is all of a star's [remaining] matter [which is pretty massive, still] compressed into a tiny, tiny space, so it is not an impossibility that the matter of the universe itself could be in a tiny space.

As for four, well, I can't answer that myself. I'm certain someone else could answer, though.
 
"The Big Bang"
1. There is no data about the time before the 'big bang'. There are theories, but none that have any experimental support.

2. The 'ball' was not a ball and it did not 'explode' as such. There was nothing for it to 'explode' into after all. The question is poorly posed.

3. It was the entire universe at that time, so again the question is poorly posed.

4. There is alot of additional evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and the specific ratios of various elements and isotopes to each other. Really you need to take a few university level physics courses to understand most of it.

'Evolution'
5. Depends on how you define macro-evolution, or what you constitute as evidence of its occurance.

6. There is no 'missing link', I assume you refer to the transition from a primate ancestor to modern human?

7. You need micro-evolution to have macro-evolution, but micro-evolution doesn't always lead to macro-evolution. The 'macro' part is an arbitrary label applied by humans to observances of nature. The 'Micro' part refers to the specific mutations that occur in genomes.

8. Again this depends on how you define transition between species, and what you constitute as evidence of its occurance. Scientists certainly feel that there are many recorded instances, people with a bone to pick typically see none.
 
Gothmog said:
2. The 'ball' was not a ball and it did not 'explode' as such. There was nothing for it to 'explode' into after all. The question is poorly posed.
3. It was the entire universe at that time, so again the question is poorly posed.
If it is, I apologize. Regardless, you fail to answer it.
Gothmog said:
4. There is alot of additional evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and the specific ratios of various elements and isotopes to each other. Really you need to take a few university level physics courses to understand most of it.
If that is the only way a simpleton who hasn't taking university-level physics courses can understand, there is little point to this thread. If so, would a moderator please close it?
Gothmog said:
5. Depends on how you define macro-evolution, or what you constitute as evidence of its occurance.
I define macro-evolution as evolution from one species to another, as opposed to micro-evolution, as evidenced by the moths in Birmingham.
Gothmog said:
6. There is no 'missing link', I assume you refer to the transition from a primate ancestor to modern human?
Yes, that is what I refer to.
Gothmog said:
8. Again this depends on how you define transition between species, and what you constitute as evidence of its occurance. Scientists certainly feel that there are many recorded instances, people with a bone to pick typically see none.
I have no 'bone to pick', I simply would like to see solid evidence. Do you have any examples?
 
I'm no scientist, but I've some general knowledge, and I'll try to answer this with the best I can.


1) Nobody knows. That's the huge question mark. I think that some theory is that time didn't existed before the Big-Bang, and as such the question "how long did it existed before ?" has no meaning.

2) Nobody knows. Part of the previous question mark.

3) That is easy to answer. Matter as we know it, is nearly entirely empty, to a point it's frightening.
The distance between atoms, is large. Even in dense formation (like stone), they are quite distant from each other.
The void inside atoms, is simply indredible. If the nucleus was a tennis ball, the electron would be roughly at the distance of the sun (or the moon, I don't remember). Just imagine how many tennis ball you can put into such a sphere, and you can imagine how much you can compress matter.
Even further, the protons/neutrons themselves, are formed of void in equivalent proportions as atoms. And so on.
So you can safely assume we can compress the whole universe into something tiny without problem. Matter is totally empty ^^

4) There is plenty of little hints, which are extremely theoricals, and based on deductions and theories. They also observe the "residual glow" (or something like that), the fact that the temperature of the universe is 3 °K, and not the absolute zero. And they apply to the universe the tools they found by observing and testing matter in strange condition (particules accelerators and so on).

5) Yes, several. Breeding is an easy example (whole races of dogs have been created).
Study of human physiology has also showed evolutive trends (tiny, of course, as humans endure extremely little natural selection, due to them being on the absolute top of the ladder). There is also the chemical-resistant vermins that appear as we use insecticides, and samely the antiobiotic-resistant bacterias.

6) Many times. The problem is, there is ALWAYS a "missing link", because each time another one is found, the question "then, between this one and now, there is a missing link !". Each fossil is a "missing link" by itself, between two state of evolution.

7) If your genes change, you change. That's as simple as that. Micro-evolution is tiny changes in the DNA. Macro-evolution is simply when the accumulated changes in this DNA, shows on the surface and actually change something noticeable in the creature compared to a distinct enough predecessor.

8) Every single being in existance is a transition between one specie and another.
This question shows a lack of understanding in what is evolution.
"species" aren't fixed states, that some creatures jump from one to another in some generations.
"species" are a set of caracteristics, which are shared in sufficient quantity by creatures to let them reproduce between themselves.
Each single life bring a change to the DNA of its children. Sometimes, this change does nothing, sometimes, it reverts a previous change, sometimes, it hamper the child, sometimes it boosts it. When these changes are numerous enough, you can say that there is another specie. It doesn't necessarily mean that the "previous" specie has disappeared. It's possible that only a little group of the previous species, living in a different environment, has changed.
The result is that now, this group can't reproduce with the previous species, and as such, reproduce only between itself. It's a new species.
Each individual in it bring changes to its children. See above and repeat.
 
Adso de Fimnu said:
Hello all. If anyone could help answer these questions, I would be very grateful. Thank you.

"The Big Bang"
1. What, if anything, was the cause of the original bowling ball (or marble, or whatever) that made up all the matter in the universe? Had it always existed, or what?

Several hypotheses on this one, though the short answer is that they are still working it out. As for had it always existed, that's kind of a nonsense question. Time did not exist before the big bang since there were no events to mark the passage of time. It's like asking what lies due north of the north pole. <edit> However, I just remembered an article I read on the possiblity of an oscilating universe, but since nothing from the 'old' universe can affect the 'new' universe in a meaningful way it's still a moot question.
<edit>my answer is slow and simpler that others that posted faster - skip it, I'll jump in when I can.
 
If that is the only way a simpleton who hasn't taking university-level physics courses can understand, there is little point to this thread. If so, would a moderator please close it?
Well, the cosmic microwave background is basically fairly easy.

If the universe once was very hot, dense and uniform (which the Big Bang theory says it once was), there should be a thermal background radiation permeating the universe, pretty much constant in all directions. We're seeing precisely this. We do not have any other ready explanation for this radiation.
 
1) we do not know, and as it looks we may never know. Why? Because (the way I understand all the scientiic gibberish) we get a quantum mechanics problem when trying to model or measure it.
2) see 1)
3) see 1) It was NOT amtter comparable to what we see, feel, weigh NOW!
4) lotsa! But a LOT of what I read and wasn't able to follow intellectually may have to be refined as Steve Hawkin changed his theory of black holes (i.e. what matter does when it gets extremely dense)

5) yes! especially in birds speciation has repeatedly been observed. I won't even bother to name the many cases we see in bacteria (and viri, though not deemed alive the change in their RNA or DNA ia also influenced by mutation and selection.
6) thousands! THe problem is that whatever 'gap' the 'link' fills, there's two new 'gaps' (albeit smaller) on both sides of it. So the creationists simply claim that gap isn't being filled and say evolution doesn't happen.
If you want an example I will take the time to look a few up in detail, but off the top of my head we have
- bird evolution in the late mesozoic (about 15 species)
- late Cretaceous/early Cenozoic bird evolution (Hesperornis & Co.
- whale evolution in the Cenozoic (about species)
- ceratopsian evolution in the very late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous (Archaeceratops liaoningensis, Hongshanosaurus sp., just to name two)

want more?

- big cat evolution in the Cenozoic
- docodont and multituberculate evolution in the Mesozoic
- basal 'Therapsid' evolution.........
7) Microevolution is the biochemical (genetic) changes, resulting in immediate small changes. Most are intra-specific.
Macroevolution is the process repeated time and time again, resulting in speciation visible in the fossil record, e.g. (not quite exac, but this will do as a short definition)
8) Yes! If we assume a certain number opf species in existance RIGHT NOW (which is a bit hard to do as we lack good knowledge of the deep sea and the tropical rain forest and the biology of many many plants and espeically micro-animals (plankton, e.g.) and fungi), well, then there are as many cases of speciation going on.


Surprised?

That's ebcause many people have an inexact definition of 'speciation'.
Basically, each species has a genepool, including all the possible permuations of all expressions of all genes present in all the animals living RIGHT NOW! Obviously, the tiniest change in one gene in one animals that produces offsprings already changes the genpool. In the long run, there will be in the future progeny that would (if time-travelled to this time) be unable to reproduce with todays animals.
a new species!

this is called species drift (direct translation from german, do not know english term).

what you probably think about is a split - one species having offspring that drift in opposite directions, leading in the long run to two species.

Well, that is also happening! For example, many birds show an increase in chaning pattern of behavior in certain areas where populations got isolated through climate change.

But one of the most striking examples is Orcinus orca, the orca. Today, there are three 'group' - stationary coastal animals, wandering coastal, and deep sea orca. All three are morphologically so similar that nobody can tell from a carcass what group the whale belonged to (i.e. if fossils were found there would be ONE species!). But these three groups use different 'languages', to the point that a warning call from one group will be totally ignored by the others. They simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND each other.
And they do not mix, mingle and mate!

Clearly, tiny changes in each population will in the long run lead to three different species, so different that even the boney will be enough to tell them apart.
 
Adso de Fimnu said:
"The Big Bang"
1. What, if anything, was the cause of the original bowling ball (or marble, or whatever) that made up all the matter in the universe? Had it always existed, or what?
2. What caused this ball to explode as it did?
3. How could all the matter in the universe have fit into a ball that small?
I heard of a theory that states that if enough dark matter gathers in one place, the universe will implode on itself, and then explode. The resulting explosion would be another big bang.
 
If it is, I apologize. Regardless, you fail to answer it.
It’s like trying to answer ‘is the volume of the universe red?’ Just doesn’t make sense. We don’t have data about before the big bang, there are models that take the universe back to tiny fractions of a second (like 10^-50 and such) and then run it forward. This is where the predictions of the various isotope ratios come from. So the original form of the universe became the form we know today through the known forces of nature.
If that is the only way a simpleton who hasn't taking university-level physics courses can understand, there is little point to this thread. If so, would a moderator please close it?
There are other ways, that is just the easiest way – otherwise you could study on your own or get a private tutor. Sorry, but some seemingly simple questions have very complicated answers.

I define macro-evolution as evolution from one species to another, as opposed to micro-evolution, as evidenced by the moths in Birmingham.
If you define macro-evolution as identical to speciation, then there are many examples. New species are produced in the lab and agriculture all the time.

Yes, that is what I refer to.
Then yes, there is no missing link. The morphological line is continuous.

Examples of speciation can be found on the talk origins web page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

They do a decent job of summarizing a bunch of cases and discussing what is meant by ‘species’.
 
Adso de Fimnu said:
Evolution
5. Are there any observed instances of macro-evolution, apart from fossil evidence?
no . most evidense in this had been over-stated.
6. Has a "missing link" (besides numerous hoaxes) ever been found?
no. an interview with Mary Leakey (who spent her whole life searching for these missing links) said to the Associated Press in Dec 10,1996 : " All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." To be fair it needs to be noted that Mary was still an evolutionists but wonder if man would ever find these links.
7. What is the relationship between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?
the difference between these two is like a patch for Civ3 (micro-evolution) and change Civ3 to Doom 3 (macro-evolution). the idea that if we continue patching Civ3 with small changes until Doom 3 is the same saying a lot of micros add up to macros. The big problem with this idea the eventually the game will no longer work without huge jumps in the programming to still have a game. Because of this there are those in biology and biochemist questioning this.
8. Are there, currently, any instances of transition between one species and another?
no or this could be yes, it's all how someone defines "species"

P.S. there are many ideas and definitions for evolution . here an interesting articles seem to be written with biology teachers in mind. as far as I know this isn't a creationist article or has anything to do with creation.

www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf
 
Smidlee: you have no idea what you are talking about! We have been through this a hundred times, but you always refuse to inform yourself on the macro-(micro stuff, you always retreat from threads when you run out of answers.

it is tiring the smart and informed people here.

Denying evolution makes you appear uneducated and slow in the uptake, btw (IMO)
 
OK, started reading the PDF.

the big thing is they go on and on what is meant by evolution in various NON-scientific senses.

the scientific sense ENCOMPASSES them (the correc tusage) ALL!
 
1. What, if anything, was the cause of the original bowling ball (or marble, or whatever) that made up all the matter in the universe? Had it always existed, or what?

Beats me

2. What caused this ball to explode as it did?

Possibly Dark Matter/Energy. Possibly an overabundance of matter as opposed to anti-matter.

3. How could all the matter in the universe have fit into a ball that small?

At this point in time it most likly wasn't matter at all. Matter, atoms, and all other subatomic particles didn't come into exsitance till sometime after the big bang, simply because it was too hot for them to even exist. Not sure on how hot it was before the Bang though

4. What evidence is there for this theory, other than the fact that all those galaxies, etc. are rushing away from each other at such a great speed?

Previously mentioned cosmic background radiation.
 
carlosMM said:
OK, started reading the PDF.

the big thing is they go on and on what is meant by evolution in various NON-scientific senses.

the scientific sense ENCOMPASSES them (the correc tusage) ALL!
Which non-scientific sense, #5, or #6? (Terms #5 and #6 taken from article.) This article is about what I've been saying for years. You people keep changing definitions on me in mid-sentence. It's like fighting a wave on the ocean. You've got the 'formless' part of Sun-Tzu down pat, I'll say that.
 
Big Bang
-Actually, some scientists are beginning to reject the idea that matter can not be created or destroyed, and start to lean towards the idea that gravity is the thing that can't be created or destroyed. (This would require that you believe in parallel universes though).
-With the idea that matter CAN be created, we can assume that the emutrons (smallest particle of matter) would be able to multiply as long as the universal gravity stays the same.
-The universe was created at Bose-Einstein condensate state which later became unstable and exploded.
-Cosmic Black Body Radiation is evidence that there was a big bang, and the blue/red shifts are means to measure how long ago this event happen.

Evolution
-They were able to grow fungi in such extreme environments that the later generations from each environment wasn't able to cross-breed with the ones from the other environment. That's evolution.
-There's also evidence that a monkey evolved into a President.
 
stratego said:
Evolution
-They were able to grow fungi in such extreme environments that the later generations from each environment wasn't able to cross-breed with the ones from the other environment. That's evolution.
'Mere evolution', yes. But in what way does it validate #5 or #6 evolution?
 
Back
Top Bottom