foodchain

I'd agree with those who said that there is little problem in allowing/helping people to survive despite genetic defects. It will allow more diversity, potentially giving us new abilities, or at least resistance to more diseases. In any case, they are still a disadvantage, especially for having children as opposed to just surviving, so they are unlikely to replace better genes.

 

A more worrying aspect is that rich people are not having tons of children. Being rich generally means the rich person has good traits (hard working, intelligent, socially connected, genes from a parent with good traits, etc). It's pretty much a measure of how successful they are. If they used their resources to have more children, then these good traits would be passed on to more people. Instead they frequently have less children.

 

In any case, I doubt that this will become a problem before we figure out how to change our genes intentionally, then both these problems will become irrelevant.

Thats the thing though, how do you label good genes, how do you know how NS is operating on any particular human population? More so down to an individual level.

I personally have no clue, for instance with bill gates you know the guy is super rich, one of the richest people in the world actually. On the flip side the blue screen of death sucks and computers are not environmentally friendly by any means. In fact they typically get sent to third world counties where the poor can work in contact with poisonous compounds breaking them down while having no protection or subsequent healthcare. So in a science fiction type of tone maybe overpopulation and money spell disaster like ice ages, but such is speculation. I just do not understand how you would actually denote NS on a small level. I would surely degree that a crippling disease in an individual might not allow that person to live in say a era of the caveperson, but then again living past thirty was probably considered a miracle in those times.

Doing physics without math is a form of self abuse. It is even worse than doing *shudder* philosophy. Physics is not biology. If you are afraid of or incapable of doing math stop trying to pretend you are doing physics. You are not.

while I agree it would be easy to point out fields like biophysics or biochemistry or say structural biology or even microbiology. universal or fundamental laws would be sort of lame if they only worked in physics also. I plan to study QM at university while at the same time I will be a life science major, so I would hope that my plans are not based on something that does not exist..

Now think about what would happen if he actually did win. How could it fail to take the wind out of the rhetorical sails of extremists? How could it fail to deal a terrible blow to international Islamic terrorism? How could it fail to make diplomacy in general a few notches easier from day one? We could show the world we really are the Land of Opportunity that we were once known as. And if that's not good enough for you, we can stick it to the French, who for all their egalitarian rhetoric have minorities (specifically blacks and Arabs) who are absurdly under-represented in political offices. And who wouldn't love that?

I regularly participate in state elections but I fail to vote for presidential elections for some reason. I think this goes back to how Gore lost and the subsequent events of that in terms of how W Bush got elected. That being said I think one of our modern political issues is how political issues tend to segregate into parties. I don’t mean that minority races do not far well depending on either being democrat or republican for instance, just that difference is treated heavily in America pretty much regardless of form.

Personally I do not want to vote for Obama simply over the issue that I am tired of devoutly religious presidents with no real plans to tackle global warming. Even if obama is a democrat, a party it seems more poised to act liberally in regards to preventing global warming, most of it seems to lack ever really coming about, I just do not see Obama as something far from this mold. Plus early on in his campaign career for president he seemed to favor fighting heavily for Baghdad in the Iraq war. I did not view this as any great departure from the "stay the course" mentality of our current president. Though now as this stance as changed I guess is broadcast how much of that change is really just politics in a sense of party politics only for votes? I really did not see a democratic congress voted in on a slogan of change doing much anything really.

I view is that its more or less more of the same with being elected having far more importance then doing any kind of a good job for political America.

Here I am again, posing such question. I think we spoke about this before, but not for a while, and I'm still unsatisfied with teh asnwers. I think the reason is my own lack of properly explaining the question that's bugging me.

 

So I'm giving it another try.

 

We (humans) are part of nature. We're also quite resourceful, so I don't think we'll go extinct any time soon, unless some catastrophe happens (hence, regardless of my attempt to define what I see as the "problem" that leads to my question, I don't think we'll die off as a species because of that so called "problem") - so don't take this as a 'doomsayers' hypothesis.

 

I'm just wondering here.

 

 

It seems that we are sort-of circumventing Natural Selection in our own evolution; that means that instead of Nature "selecting" the most-adapted qualities and having the non-adaptive qualities die off or not reproduce, we allow all sorts of "defects" to continue existing - from having eyeglasses to being born with mental retardation.

 

(Please don't take my description as if I recommend killing of - or stopping the aid to- anyone who has "defects". I am NOT. I'm just trying to make my point.)

 

 

Since we also developed our own sense of morality (that doesn't seem to exist MUCH in nature in terms of "allowing" defects to continue existing/multiplying), I don't see this situation changing. I don't think it SHOULD change, either, ethically speaking, but this thread is not about ethics. It's about evolution.

 

I'm wondering, then: What do you think the outcome of this situation will be in the long run? I've heard in a science radio show (forgot where) once the idea that we might ahve to rely much much more on technology to keep our existence - so perhaps "bionic" people, or genetic engineering to the level of practically 'replacing' nature, etc.

 

Do you think this is going to have a long term effect on our evolution? Are we not allowing our own species to adapt to nature (that we also change quite rapidly, too, without allowing ourselves to "get used"/"evolve"/"adapt" to the changes)? How do you see humanity in a few million years? Where do you think we're going with this Human Selection as opposed to "Natural Selection" ?

 

Anyways, this is just a theoretical, philosophical thought. Please don't get into an ethical discussion here, it might be an interesting one, but it's not my point at all. I'm strictly thinking about evolutionary changes and "path" here.

 

So.. speak philosophy, not ethics. We can open a new thread for ethical evolution choices if you think it's interesting enough to discuss.

 

~moo

I do not think that will occur. I think the issue you bring up with population however will occur. What I mean is simply as our population grows and NS as you put it is not performing constant strong selection on such that those individuals will I guess be "allowed" to live. One of the problems though to bring up is that NS is some unphysical force. If someone with glasses is doing well like say Bill Gates then, well, he is doing right? Then again I how do you label NS in any modern human culture, as it would relate to biotic or abotic variables.

I would also have to say that at least human civilization is doing well enough to have such large populations. Saying that I still think variability is the environment over time will still be the big test.

There's no reason why evolution is incompatible with intelligent design. Keep in mind that us intelligent people sometimes use evolutionary algorithms to design stuff (mostly when we don't know what we're doing, cause it works anyways). In that sense, using evolutionary algorithms to design life would be a good design strategy if life is intended to continuously adapt/evolve. Or we could still be "unfinished", with our universe being the design parameters for the evolutionary algorithm.

 

In any case, the major problem with intelligent design is that it is not incompatible with anything.

Then try this out.

I have a speculation that the origin of life ties into fundamental forces at play in nature. In particular QM. I think for instance the reality of how important thermodynamics is to say chemistry can be used by decoherence and einselection. I think such could be used in context with the earth as a system evolving in time in say the solar system or how far out you would like to go. I think its via changes in say radiation operating on matter within the context of a system continually attempting to reach the local minimum that first brought along life in the form of say fixers if you want. I think its this the generated the first biological systems and that subsequent evolution of a causality of such. basically that you got clumps of matter that took on a certain chemical/physical form to process energy and via variation in this energy you found variation being selected for in the systems themselves, or mutation.

so why cannot my speculation be taught alongside say ID, it has just as much proof really scientifically speaking, in fact what really separates the two? I mean what constitutes something of a true scientific reality that should be taught alongside evolution as a different possibility scientifically and what standards would define such? Personally I think I have more proof in the fact my speculation predicts absolute zero type of conditions of an environment would never ever spawn life.

In fact I think a year of absolute zero would wipe out all life on earth if the earth was to move to such a state.

I am still waiting for glorious ID to produce any actual science past speculation like I have posted above that cannot predict anything or have any sort of empirical or logical support.

you know this is annoying, why couldn't a "greater entity" have worked through evolution?

I don’t think science will tell you its proved that some supernatural whatever does or does not exist, but that’s sort of beyond the point. Proponents of ID seem to already hold on to some proposed factual reality that they would impose that scientifically has no backing, they would even like to have this put along side say basic science curriculum in public education. To me I think that is what the problem comes down to.

If you want to know personally I don’t care whatever anyone wants to believe, but if science has proven anything its that it can reach lets say a factual representation of something, so if we want to teach science, we as a culture I would suggest should stick to teaching what is science. To add in ID in a class such as biology that covers evolution is sort of silly, simply because one it has no scientific standing that I know of and two you really could put anything you want there, such as the FSM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

<YT-AWAY> here`s one, how about capturing the energy from a falling weight and using that to lift soil from out a hole, as long as the weight was more massive per volume that the soil removed it would keep falling forever

I don’t see how it could keep falling as to where, and also I think eventually that the change would reach a limit or hit some kind of equilibrium.

As for my idea on a perpetual motion machine is there any amount of mass of say any type of matter that could be say molded into a star and hooked up to a plug type apparatus, say you make a model star but you keep sucking the energy out to keep it just below some threshold of going nuclear?

What does concern me is that while, as you say, the reality of evolution should not be in doubt, the precise mechanisms especially for macroevolution and - at the other extreme - the development of eukaryote cellular architecture, remain obscure.

 

My concern in this area is not our ignorance of these matters - that represents an opportunity for research and futue understanding - but the glib way many dismiss these uncertainties as being of little or no consequence. Indirectly, it provides creationists with ammunition that can convince lay persons.

Well I would simply point to while Recapitulation theory or ontogeny expresses phylogeny is not as extreme as say Haeckel originally put forward its very far from being wrong, so for all of biology i think the best place to start showing a layperson which I could consider myself easily would be not only developmental biology but simply phylogenic relationships. it just becomes more difficult when you have to go from say a molecular level to an ecological level because as you would frame it you cant easily pass off so much information in a five minute discussion. Simply put biological systematics cannot be explained in a short burst of online posts. This is why talkorigins is such a good site for instance.

Just for the sake of commentary on this topic we don’t know all the variables that would feed into the probability in the first place, or that science simply has no ascertained that yet. The earth has gone through serious changes some more serious then others, so to say that its mathematically proven in the first place is a farce because of such. Such people should have already won more Nobel prizes then I care to think about for so many different reasons for such math to be correct in the first place.

Also if we want to stretch this farce out into the universe, I think with taking the entire universe into consideration that it would be statistically favored that at least one planet in the entire universe would have the right conditions, but this is just speculation as again its hardly like we know exactly what is required to plug into some probability matrix or what not anyways, so again, politics built on less then a factual representation of what’s being talked about.

Plus this also deals with biopoiesis and not life in regards to evolution, which we already have again an overwhelming amount of empirical support along with logical or mathematical support that can be shown to be true such as with genetics or more particularly population genetics. Also in labs they can force evolution to occur on say a population of bacteria, this can and has been done numerous times plus speciation has been observed in the real world in regards to the time frame in which we were looking for such. Point blank is evolution is supported empirically from a molecular level to a ecological one, there is no real debate on this.

I also don’t think I need to point out that physics does not rely on math only for its endeavors, or that it still requires empirical or experimental verification of whatever topic you would like to bring up, such as relativity or quantum mechanics are not math by themselves. Also history has pointed out on more then one occasion that the use of math by itself cannot suffice as an end all, or in you cant just use math alone.

Also if you want to take it to the point of biopoiesis and not just evolution more and more understanding is being gained there also, such as say protobionts, but this is off topic. I would just like to say in closing that at some point in human history the wheel lived in a state of being to complex to exist or even be understood, it’s a foul excuse to use and really is nothing more then your god of the gaps.

You know what I'm going to say is off topic like usual, but here I go.

 

Matter had to be created. There's no other explanation, now, How? is another issue, but irrefutably matter had to be created.How else could it come into existence? Something had to be nothing before it became so. Atleast to our knowledge something had to come from something, so where did the first something come from? Mind boggling, only a fool wouldn't think so.

homeobox genes like anything else can be understood via evolution as in they happen to be a product of it like anything else. Raising that in conjunction with ID is like saying because there is a missing link currently in understanding the appearance of any species is completely the same line of "garbage" thinking that makes ID anything but a science. You can fit anything you want in an unknown variable, but to satisfy for the ID they don’t have to prove it, imagine how easy this must have been say 150 years ago when a lot of everything we understand now simply did not exist.

As far as for where matter came from well we have the big bang, so even in that we have a physical mechanism that does not require any form of ID or its god of the gaps filler to make reality exist. Also I think its simply where you want to look in many cases, if we want to inject some form of personal bias into the whole equation as far as I know we cant destroy energy, or various conservation laws exist. Upon collision a particle and its anti partner for instance can annihilate into what? A photon that can return back into being a particle with mass much like the search for a particle called the higgs boson.

Plus the definition of matter is a dodgy one or is not some absolute static reality currently for a definition. Being agnostic none of this matters really as being some answer to a question put forward by supporters of ID overall but again as far as evolution is concerned do you not think that in all the time it has been studied by so many people consistently over the world that if evidence that pointed towards something else then variation and selection were not what allowed for evolution that someone would have come forward with such evidence or mechanism?

See this is the whole problem to me. Why does complexity have to equate to anything then what it really means, in that we don’t know everything yet. Complexity is a relative term that does not have to last. I use to look at developmental biology as highly complex, now after learning about such for a long period of time I would have to say its not so complex in regards to simply understanding it, as for the mechanism itself being complex will that’s sort of evolution is it not, being life evolved from what is at least known now a microbial form not nearly as complex.

Plus if nothing could gain any level of complexity why would we even have anything in the first place, nothing should exist without direct evidence for a creator because its all rather complex, yet as far as I know science cannot find any evidence for such in a mechanism or a how something works past speculation that never pans out to actual proof of any kind.

This to me does not denote an answer to the question but then again ID is a western ideology that deals with a monotheistic point of view or typically it evolved from Christian thinking in particular genesis which points to it being even more of a scam or load of garbage.

On top of this if say complexity is true, how could a creator of all of this, which is obviously as complex if not more so exist on its own? that is a complete paradox that for lack of better words is completely ignored by its followers, they put on blinders because they want something that can satisfy various emotional requirements so they can enjoy life, even if its completely wrong and the most disturbing aspect of all of this is that they would "damn" all of humanity to that vary same condition so they can be satisfied, that’s the real problem to me.

Look, Klaynos, http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com

is a non-quantative hypothesis, right? Although, as well as being supported by a wide range of natural evidence in virtue of a diagrammatic method of representing a nonlocally acting cause, it is supported by a mathematically justified interpretation of quantum physics called Bohmian mechanics and an already mathematically quantified relationship between spiral galaxy behaviour and the expansion of the Cosmos. And, as such. I leave it up to more open minded and, probably, better qualified individuals than you to see whether they can find further mathematical support for the cosmological hypothesis, OK?

 

 

 

All I can say is, blike, read http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com very carefully yourself to see whether it makes sense to you.

the best philosophy can be wrong, so can the best maths, the best hypothesis or in general contemporary human thought on any subject could be temporary and flawed, its the experiment really or the continuous application of such that really wins the day for understanding things. I don’t want to lampoon string theory but for physics its a perfect example that you cant just do math, you also cant just do reason or philosophy either.

While my opinion is that the human species does not know everything yet, that’s all such a statement would mean really. Classical mechanics was to be taken as an end all, save for the real world would not allow for such, evolution to many people seems to complex to occur giving their understanding, the real world however does not care about this. So its really about just trying to keep it real that counts, and honestly that’s the reason I like science over just about ever other human institution on earth for the simple fact that I could care less to live in a "fantasy" land akin to politics or some other idea. With that said I don’t look upon humanity as flawed because we are not all scientific robots looking to test everything, just that to claim something as a fact or something as wrong should take experiment really, or you should have to prove it. I mean if science was like politics, then it would not matter if classical mechanics could not explain everything, it would just be classical mechanics if the majority really wanted it to be that way, what a horrible reality that would be, more or less say hello to a work much like Nazi Germany.

Having studied evolution for forever I can say I don’t know even close to everything about it that is in a book somewhere even, its rather detail heavy, not in terms of issues like natural selection or mutation but proof of such actually in life or biodiversity. Having said this I don’t really think I could honestly say from what I know that evolution was guided by anything else then the natural world and its phenomena, such as light from the sun, or the existence of oceans, or troops of monkeys meeting up.

Plenty, if you accept the nonlocal hidden variables interpretation of quantum physics which the theory clearly supports. And, unlike the Copenhagen type interpretation that describes superposition of states and the collapse of the wave function, such a determinate account as Bohmian mechanics has been systematically worked out in mathematical detail, eliminates the paradoxes in any indeterminate interpretation and describes a distinct cause acting in addition to the forces called the quantum potential.

 

 

 

Um... not really? You mean such a theory would not really be considered too revolutionary for physicists to contemplate? How do you know?

 

Why should this theory need to "match ALL the current experimental evidence better thancurrent theories"? Why shouldn't such a theory, like Bohmian mechanics, just need to as consistent with the experimental evidence as other theories, but derive its additional validity by being clearly supportable when considering other, observable large scale natural evidence, and where other theories could not be so supported?

 

The theory could be if not falsified then seriously undermined and then disregarded if the right kind(s) of dark matter were to be directly detected and identified. I consider that the cosmological theory could be supported by measurement and mathematical calculation and be found to clearly explain more observational evidence than existing theory, and also have considered means by which by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

Being a layperson of physics I don’t know how much weight my words have but its fun to talk about such so who cares.

I don’t know how well bohmian mechanics describes quantum mechanics. I think if it worked it would be used really in its place. I don’t however think that quantum mechanics is the GUT if you will for physics. Simply put there is still a division I think as to if say the classical world emerged from QM, if that’s the case what is the how past the standard model? I have lots of questions, for instance QM is nondeterministic or has that statistical basis right such as Schrödinger equation and uncertainty principal? Yet quanta for what its worth in regards to Planck seem hardly nondeterministic, so what does that mean? Does a BEC state only apply to a small clump of rubidium atoms, why not the universe giving the standard model? What does entanglement hold in store for accelerating universe? Can accelerating universe or big rip defeat gluons?

I also have odd theories which makes things even worse like my biased as in personal and speculative view puts the universe as somewhat a continuum of stuff or at least infinite in existence with form being what changes and form being energy, matter or what not and its mechanics. This places me somewhere away from the standard community, but for the sake of fun I do have such.

Most all of the above though is speculation on my behalf.

Well the baryonic matter or hydrogen discovered could account for some of the massive amounts of matter missing from the universe. I wonder if the hydrogen has taken on any kind of a weird allotrope, that being said I wonder what is bonder with it even in a minor amounts. I know that complex organic molecules have been found in space along with combinations of carbon and titanium, titanium being physiologically inert(?) though as far as we understand does not appear promising though.

As for the dark matter I don’t know why this is not all the rave. Simply put if it exists it points to new physics as far as I am concerned simply because it does not interact with what is standard save gravity.

A monitored or observed collision of galactic clusters supposedly revealed massive amounts of dark matter, that upon impact simply kept going I guess. I think this was the bullet cluster? I think this data is also on the Nasa website.

Simply put you have normal matter which is standard model stuff, yet dark matter is not standard model stuff, thus why I think its exotic and a pointer to new stuff.

Theory of Everything:

 

A theory that unifies the 4 fundamental forces as one...

 

It doesn't solve WHY questions, it solves HOW questions.... Why is not science, how is...

 

Or at least that's how it was explained by a guy with the title Professor of Theoretical Physics.... Who used to be my head of school...

I always thought why and how pretty much went hand in hand. I mean I can say I know why it rains or how it rains, I don’t think it makes to much difference right? I mean if I ask a question like why does rain occur, I get my answer via the how correct? I mean I don’t want to appear fundamentally naive or anything but to explain say the how of the big bang pretty much covers the why right? I mean to go outside of that is to add things on that simply are not there, like saying evolution occurs because of little fairies pulling levers in our cells, that would be a bit more then a why or a how right? Yet I can get the why evolution occurs through the how of it all, such as mutation or epigenetics.

I found this link at Nasa. I don’t know exactly how relevant it is.

"Now, in an extensive search of the local universe, astronomers say they have definitively found about half of the missing normal matter, called baryons, in the spaces between the galaxies. This important component of the universe is known as the “intergalactic medium,” or IGM, and it extends essentially throughout all of space, from just outside our Milky Way galaxy to the most distant regions of space observed by astronomers."

The link is modern as of 2008 is when its posted, here is the link with the rest of the story.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/hst_img_20080520.html

I'm glad iNow gave you the website. If you can't get the full article, e-mail me and I'll send you the PDF.

 

 

 

Untrue. Big Bang was proposed and supported by data long before dark matter and dark energy were found.

 

Dark matter was proposed because the motion of stars within galaxies can only be explained by masses of invisible matter lying outside the orbits of the stars (peripheries of the galaxies).

 

It was originally thought that the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion (dark energy) would refute the Big Bang! However, it has now een shown that this is not the case:

12. MA Buchner and DN Spergel. Scientific American, 280: 62-71, Jan. 1999. Discusses changes in inflationary theory to account for new observations.

4. J Glanz, Microwave hump reveals flat universe. Science 283: 21, Jan 1, 1999. Data on microwave background radiation indicates that universe is flat. Means there must be the cosmological constant. And inflation theory survives.

 

And no, galaxies are not orbiting anything. The motion of various galaxies is not what we would see if they were orbiting anything. As mooeypoo noted, discussion with you will go better if you read a bit of the science and the history. If you had, you would not have made the glaring error that dark matter and dark energy are required for BB.

What I don’t understand is where and how during the big bang did dark matter for instance come about. I suppose it would help if I or scientists involved with such actually knew what it was. then of course you have the dark energy, which is I guess according to science currently a few possible things which coincide with either the big bang or simply is a process of the universe is action. Either way my big hang up, no pun intended, is trying to understand when and how during the big bang did the dark stuff come about.

If I understand things the standard model describes and accurately predicts the behavior of three of the four known fundamental or elementary forces of the universe, weak, strong and so on minus gravity. In relativity you have singularities, which are to point towards error in the model itself, on top of this you have the difficulty of trying to combine the two into a coherent model or I guess a GUT, which is the rave behind string theory because you get a consistent quantum gravity, yet ST failed because it cant be made empirical, or currently is failing is that department overall as to standards. I would imagine all of this has to tie into the big bang along with the higgs boson, so that to me would imply that the dark stuff would also have to be in the mesh unless we are treating the universe and all phenomena as isolated systems, which I don’t think you can do really.

I mean I am not trying to use all of this to pass on some idea of a universal reference frame but you do have a motion that I guess has to stay unitary right? From the big bang up until now correct? So for whatever explains things it has to be able to explain them, A GUT would have to be able to predict not only the big bang, but the stuff that came afterwards right?

If you were to take distilled water and supercool it (take the temp below the boiling point but it still remains in the liquid phase) and then if you were to attempt to drink it, would it freeze in your throat and possibly suffocate you!?

 

Just reading a little of a chem book that I have, the thought occured to me, thought it was interesting.....

You would have to control the environment a whole lot. I know that in carbon nanorods(?) water cannot freeze simply because it does not have the room to obtain such a formation as it grows by roughly 10% I think, not in how much is there just space occupied. So just to use pressure alone I think would be devastating to the individual involved. The same thing happens in under water volcanic vents in which the water should be in a gas phase but because of pressure remains a liquid.

As for drinking something like that well I think its bond energy that is changed on the molecular scale between phases, such as one unit of ice has to react to X energy to change all the involved bonds that make it ice or a solid vs. being a liquid. So if you could control it to the point of being able to drink it there would be I guess a thermal equation of the tissue involved with the amount of super cooled liquid over a period of time. I am sure your subjects muscular hydrostat would not like it at all.

I have been reading up on recruitment papers for planets in the face of global warming I am just wondering exactly how much of a bottleneck on biodiversity humans happen to be generating. I am sure that it will not cause life to go extinct in general, just that modern life will surely have to change via adapting, radiation and of course extinction. The question to me simply is so large though, I mean how will the microbial level of life change, what new niches will it obtain or lose, what will happen to ocean life, or land life? Will certain types of plants emerge or certain phenotypes become dominant?

I mean to create such a shift in the global environment will surely render itself visible down to any level, be it landscape, community, population. I think any particular discernable variable of biotic/abotic relationships making up any modern ecology will change simply because of global warming or global climate change coupled with the reality that life can be studied in an ecological sense in the first place.

Has there been any studies on say any particular taxa looking for convergent evolution of phenotypes on such already? I think if you could find geographically separated species tending to express similar traits because of such it would be a great pointer to how life may react to such change. I don’t know if this would be the same for all life, and eukaryotes and prokaryotes have some difference, as do plants to animals.

That’s the thing though, anything you think about you already know about, even if through association.

I cannot think of anything 100% novel. For as long as I have been using this question at social gatherings of any type I have never been able to see someone beat it, in thinking of something truly novel. The thing then to me is of course the aspect of learning, which means of course like the bronze age to the computer age, or that its environmental really I think, which would make perfect sense I guess in how the neuron would work, even if its weird to think chemical/physical bonds leading to some structure like a brain cell would allow the existence of a Twinkie.

Well I think the observable universe is to be a product of the big bang if I have my facts in order, so I am just confused as to why the dark stuff is so different. I have read up of course at places like wiki and other locations on the net, but it lacks to me as my curiosity is just to much simply because its so exotic and or unknown really. As far as dark matter is that to be simply just say certain types of matter(with mass?) in bulk? As far for the energy aspect is that a vacuum effect or something to do with spacetime warping or what is dark energy really?

If the universe originated with say the big bang why is dark energy and or matter so exotic compared to the rest of the universe. I mean to suggest that physical laws are constants of nature suggests a very strong homogenous universe then in regards to such Which connects with the big bang right? So basically I just don’t understand why dark matter and or dark energy happens to be so exotic then such as basically impossible to observe outside of us thinking it exists for various reasons.

Aha. Well I feel foolish, I actually posted there. It had functionally the same title too. Thank you.

If I really could help you I would point you towards cellular and molecular biology really.

I know and to think that some people have mutations that will decohere over variable expressivity to say basically teh heart exploding sometimes in a fetal stage you really have to come and question some things in life. I mean you look at say modern molecular machines and nano technology and the technology and logic and understanding involved I think is actually scary if you spend any time actually thinking about it over say the next step really, more so in regards to quantum computers. not that its going to open up some gateway, its just more or less if say quantum mechanics and relativity can both model but cannot be incorporated into one, that the next stage will probably derive from both, and in that you have what I could only think would be basically something that modern people probably at large would reduce to anarchy in regards to civilization from understanding, I mean what if such a base of understanding cracks biologic evolution and its realized that we are all highly evolved bacterial mats operating on some environmental energy vacuum of various geometry that’s relative, I basically don’t think about such anymore as its far more sane to just stick to enumerating various factoids, other people can press the envelope.

I am relatively new to the Forum so take it easy.

 

However, despite the life cycle of bacteria (20 minutes per cell division in rich medium), bacteria have stayed bacteria over millions of years. They also would have more mutation due to the sheer rate of cell division than animals so why have they stayed bacteria? Also the same with flies.

I guess it would be the same reason why we have modern extant species really. The question to me implies that for instance some new gene or protein that can convey a better fitness to an organism in a giving and possibly temporal environment will surely occur roughly the same time in all organisms of specie or at least radiate to all organisms.

I think also that you can have behavioral aspects to evolution that existed as a possibility in the environment giving a certain phenotype/genotype or organism, or that genetic variation to it did not have to occur. This is not evolution in a sense of direct but more or less a variable that can occur and would hold sway on such a process.

With that I would think its more easy to see that evolution occurring spawned primates, yet we don’t just have one specie of primate alive for life on earth total.