evolve from?

Please bother to do a little research before asking such a broad question. :bugeye:

wikipedia (Human evolution) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

Seriously, what do you mean? How far back? We evolved from other species of hominids, and before that from austraolpithecines, and you can keep tracing back for 3.8 billion years (not that we know every step in the chain with 100% certainty).

Please bother to do a little research before asking such a broad question. :bugeye:

wikipedia (Human evolution) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

Do you seriously think I could possibly be that lazy.
I want people to tell me in there own words.

Seriously, what do you mean? How far back? We evolved from other species of hominids, and before that from austraolpithecines, and you can keep tracing back for 3.8 billion years (not that we know every step in the chain with 100% certainty).

ok, as far back as the big bang.

Seriously, what do you mean? How far back? We evolved from other species of hominids, and before that from austraolpithecines, and you can keep tracing back for 3.8 billion years (not that we know every step in the chain with 100% certainty).
What are astraolpithecines?
Do evolutionists still believe that we originally came from apes?
If so, why did we evolve from apes, yet apes still exist...meaning what causes a specie to 'branch out' and evolve into another species entirely, yet the original specie remains, rather than turning into the new species?

The austrolopithecines were a genus of hominids from the Pliocene, members of which may or may not have been in our direct line. I am not certain of the current state of the debate on this point. The hominids were a much more diverse group before homo sapiens emerged.
We did not come from apes, we are apes. We and the other apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangs and gibbons) are all different from our common ancestor. So the apes that we - and they - evolved from are certainly no longer around.
Species split from each other when one group becomes isolated in some way from another. This isolation could be one of distance, geographic barrier, behavioural difference, etc.

What are astraolpithecines?
Do evolutionists still believe that we originally came from apes?
If so, why did we evolve from apes, yet apes still exist...meaning what causes a specie to 'branch out' and evolve into another species entirely, yet the original specie remains, rather than turning into the new species?

First, as an aside, "apes" is a generic term. It's like saying "mammals." Even if man evolved from "mammals" mammals could (I hope obviously) continue to exist.

Second, evolution is not always "replacement." If a small number of cobras moves into a new area, they will over time adapt to the new area and be different from their ancestral population, yet their ancestral population can easily continue to exist unchanged, back in the original habitat from which the new population originally arose. Even if man evolved from chimpanzees (he did not, but for argument's sake) chimps are free to continue on.

Generally the answer to the question of how the original species survives is that: the new species developed iun response to a particular niche thatthe original species did not fully exploit. So long as their original niche exists, though, alongside the new niche, then both species can thrive.

ok, as far back as the big bang.
:rolleyes:
I dont think humans go that far back!

Do you seriously think I could possibly be that lazy.

You wouldn’t be the first. :shrug:


I want people to tell me in there own words.

Okay, if that’s true then ask a more specific question. The fact that you’ve then specified....

ok, as far back as the big bang.

…suggests to me that you’re simply trolling. :mad:

…suggests to me that you’re simply trolling. :mad:

because I am asking you not wikipedia! geez.

Okay, we'll play it your way....

Modern humans evolved from human-like ancestor organisms. Question answered! :D

( ....and in my own words.)

Laladopi, did you find my answer adequate? I am quite happy to expand upon it if it helps, but an indication of how far off the mark of what you wer ehoping for would be useful.

Do you seriously think I could possibly be that lazy.

Yes, you demonstrate that time and again.

I want people to tell me in there own words.

Do you mean their own words? You are too lazy to even spell correctly, and too lazy to google, or read the links provided to you.

Yes, you demonstrate that time and again.

examples please, I would assume that people could just explain in their own words.

Do you mean their own words? You are too lazy to even spell correctly, and too lazy to google, or read the links provided to you.[/QUOTE]
excuse me for my grammar, no I am not too fucking lazy to spell correctly and you would have to be a retard to not understand the ways of google, so stop assuming things, like your better than me. jerk. I think you need to relax.

ok, as far back as the big bang.

Wtf.. lol :D

What do you think lala ?

I know that humans evolved from the common ancestor of monkeys, chimpanzees and Gorillas about 5 million years ago...eventually there was a split and hominids arose and throughout. In my own words.

Everyone is always assuming things and jumping to illogical conclusions on my own behalf, which none of you know nothing of.

I just asking <expletive deleted> people for their own specifics so that you know for sure what your ideals have brought you too, i.e beginning of live and the transformation of humans started, One thing I will ask because I was unable to find an exact quotation from google, was the big bang the recipe for life in , was everything post big bang exist now just in different forms or mutations?

Zen & motorcycle maintenance.

It goes something like this

He assigns his students a paper. Write about anything! Half the students can't think of anything to write about. So he says to a student, write about the tail end of a quarter - and the student wrote pages and pages.

Modern humans, species Homo sapiens, first appear in the fossil record ~130kya, but DNA analysis suggest the speciation occurred ~200kya. There are no other species of humans (genus Homo) now in existence, but there was a steady stream of them starting around 7mya, when the two genera of Homo and Pan (now represented by the two species of chimpanzees) split off from a common ancestor. A number of human species migrated successfully from Africa to Asia and Europe, but those lines were dead ends, except for Homo neanderthalensis, who existed in Europe until about 25kya when the first sapiens arrived. Trace anomalies in European DNA suggest that the Neanderthals were not killed off or out-competed to extinction, so much as that modern humans interbred with them and assimilated them into their own much larger population.

The family of Great Apes (now including humans, orangutans, the two gorillas and the two chimps) and the family of Lesser Apes (gibbons) separated 18mya. The apes split off from the New World Monkeys 25mya.

It's important to understand that many species of the superfamily of apes (Hominoidea) still exist, and that H. sapiens is one of those species. Just as it's important to understand that a large variety of primates still exist, and apes are primates, as are Old World and New World monkeys, lorises, ai-ais, lemurs, etc. Considerable speciation has occurred with in the order Primata, but the order itself continues to thrive. Just because one ancestral species of a taxonomic group diverged so greatly from its relatives that it gave rise to a new taxonomic group, does not mean that the original taxonomic group ceased to exist. Other species that existed at the same time remained within the same classification.

The same is true of many other taxonomic groups of animals. Within the class Reptilia, species of crocodiles existed more than 100mya, but those species have been replaced by their descendants today. So even though those particular crocodiles no longer exist, crocodiles still exist. The same is true of apes.

One clade of mammals split apart into primates, tree shrews and other related groups ~70mya. Going further back, the Euarchontoglires or Superprimates, whose modern members include the rodents, rabbits and other moderately close relatives of the primates, separated from the rest of the mammals ~90mya.

The Eutherians, whose members today are all the placental mammals, split off from the marsupials and monotremes ~125mya. The first mammals appeared ~200mya. Mammals and birds evolved from two ancestral species of reptiles, an order that still exists, and reptiles descended from an ancestral species of amphibians, which also still exists. The other descendants of the early amphibians are still amphibians. Amphibians evolved from an ancestral species of fish, and a wide variety of fish descended from other ancestral species still exist.

The first vertebrates arose ~500mya. Vertebrates and other chordates (sharks, eels and other animals with cartilaginous instead of bony skeletons) are one phylum of Bilateria, animals with bilateral symmetry and an internal body cavity. This group includes most of the living non-microscopic animal species (but not all, e.g. jellyfish), and it split off from the simpler animals ~550mya.

The first fossils of animals appear ~600mya, but non-observational evidence suggests that they might have appeared 1bya.

Animals, plants, fungi, and the other kingdoms encompassing the most complicated organisms are members of the domain of Eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are defined by having a nucleus in each of their cells. The two other domains of terrestrial lifeforms, whose cells have no nucleus, are the bacteria and the archaea, which includes very simple, difficult-to-classify organisms such as viruses.

Without observational evidence of fragile microscopic organisms whose remains could not possibly have been preserved, life on earth is generally acknowledged to have first existed ~4bya. DNA analysis has not established as "true beyond a reasonable doubt" (my own borrowing of legal language to replace inscrutable scientific language) that all three groups of organisms (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea) share a common ancestor. Therefore the possibility that life arose independently more than once cannot be completely ruled out, although the similarities that exist make that possibility difficult to entertain.

The mechanism by which self-catalyzing chemical reactions gave rise to true organic matter is not yet fully understood. The level of complexity at which we would categorize these reactions as "life" has not been established. This entire process of "chemical evolution," as it were, is more properly called abiogenesis. Biological evolution begins with the first transformation of one type of organism into another, not with the appearance of the first organism ever.

The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is an extremely important one, which is often overlooked in laymen's discussions of the history of the universe. Evolution is a canonical scientific theory with abundant evidence of many types, which is "true beyond a reasonable doubt." Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. For the purposes of a scholary discussion on a website devoted to science, it must be recognized that "evolution" on earth began sometime after the solidification of the planet, and it is meaningless to apply the word to any earlier period. Our understanding of the behavior of the universe in the distant past is full of gaps.

I just asking fucking people for their own specifics so that you know for sure what your ideals have brought you too, so, I gave you specifics and asked if they were adequate for your purpose. you either ignored this effort by me on your behalf, or applied the perjorative adjective fucking to me, along with other posters. Either way it seems a little ungrateful.

One thing I will ask because I was unable to find an exact quotation from google, was the big bang the recipe for life in , was everything post big bang exist now just in different forms or mutations?I am sure this sentence meant something to you. It means very little to me. You seem to be saying 'Hey! There were things post Big Bang are they still around now, but just in different form?"
If that's not what you meant you need to rephrase it.
It would also help if you could be more specific. Since the Big Bang was about energy and matter and both are still around, then yes. Since the form of matter/energy at the initiation of the Big Bang were nothing like the present, then no.
Everyone is always assuming things and jumping to illogical conclusions on my own behalf, which none of you know nothing of. You don't want to hear this, but your writing style is crap. It is difficult to figure out what you mean. People are not jumping to conclusions, they are trying to understand your incoherent questions as best they can.
The reward they get for this effort is you being rude back to them. Do you think that might have limitations as a way of dealing with the world?

so, I gave you specifics and asked if they were adequate for your purpose. you either ignored this effort by me on your behalf, or applied the perjorative adjective fucking to me, along with other posters. Either way it seems a little ungrateful.

I am sure this sentence meant something to you. It means very little to me. You seem to be saying 'Hey! There were things post Big Bang are they still around now, but just in different form?"
If that's not what you meant you need to rephrase it.
It would also help if you could be more specific. Since the Big Bang was about energy and matter and both are still around, then yes. Since the form of matter/energy at the initiation of the Big Bang were nothing like the present, then no.
You don't want to hear this, but your writing style is crap. It is difficult to figure out what you mean. People are not jumping to conclusions, they are trying to understand your incoherent questions as best they can.
The reward they get for this effort is you being rude back to them. Do you think that might have limitations as a way of dealing with the world?If you think of it as the big bang, or the "start" so to speak.

...then everything has been thought of, your birth, your incarnation into the world (the moment where you and everyone else agree to that you are real - not something you would like to miss out on) Just look up to those eyes and you'll be fine, the start is not easy either though.

so, I gave you specifics and asked if they were adequate for your purpose. you either ignored this effort by me on your behalf, or applied the perjorative adjective fucking to me, along with other posters. Either way it seems a little ungrateful.

I am sure this sentence meant something to you. It means very little to me. You seem to be saying 'Hey! There were things post Big Bang are they still around now, but just in different form?"
If that's not what you meant you need to rephrase it.
It would also help if you could be more specific. Since the Big Bang was about energy and matter and both are still around, then yes. Since the form of matter/energy at the initiation of the Big Bang were nothing like the present, then no.
You don't want to hear this, but your writing style is crap. It is difficult to figure out what you mean. People are not jumping to conclusions, they are trying to understand your incoherent questions as best they can.
The reward they get for this effort is you being rude back to them. Do you think that might have limitations as a way of dealing with the world?

But for some out of all the people that correct me you seem to be the least malicious in the sense that you are teaching me rather than ridiculing me.
Ok so the big bang, the big explosion of stuff, the original content of the actual happening, does it still exist in the same simply for or has it been like a domino effect that looks like a tree with many branches, I know I do not have the best writing skills, had to take extra classes throughout high school for my disability but I must say, I have gotten better. I suffer from obsessive and racing thoughts which have an affect on what I'm actually trying to say, I'd take med actions but I always suffer from the most severe side affects. There is a difference between telling me knowledge than just being a jerk about things.

The first vertebrates arose ~500mya. Vertebrates and other chordates (sharks, eels and other animals with cartilaginous instead of bony skeletons) are one phylum of Bilateria, animals with bilateral symmetry and an internal body cavity. This group includes most of the living non-microscopic animal species (but not all, e.g. jellyfish), and it split off from the simpler animals ~550mya.



Good post Frag - however my pedantry needs to make a point - Bilateria is not a phylum.
Vertebrates are all of the phylum chordata (vertebrata is a subphylum) - Bilateria is a subregnum - a higher taxonomical level than phylum - below kingdom, above phylum - for example a lobster is bilaterally symmetrical but it is a member of the phylum arthropoda but still part of the kingdom Animalia - a jellyfish is part of the animalia kingdom but has radiate symetry and therefore sits in the radiata subregnum and phylum cnidaria.


slightly drunk so I hope that makes sense :D

ps here's a a great animal taxonomy search engine in case you are interested - I've found a few discrepancies / disputed taxonomies in the Echinodermata but otherwise its very good indeed:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html

Good post Frag - however my pedantry needs to make a point - Bilateria is not a phylum.
Vertebrates are all of the phylum chordata (vertebrata is a subphylum) - Bilateria is a subregnum - a higher taxonomical level than phylum - below kingdom, above phylum - for example a lobster is bilaterally symmetrical but it is a member of the phylum arthropoda but still part of the kingdom Animalia - a jellyfish is part of the animalia kingdom but has radiate symetry and therefore sits in the radiata subregnum and phylum cnidaria.


slightly drunk so I hope that makes sense :D
truly.

But for some out of all the people that correct me you seem to be the least malicious in the sense that you are teaching me rather than ridiculing me.
Ok so the big bang, the big explosion of stuff, the original content of the actual happening, does it still exist in the same simply for or has it been like a domino effect that looks like a tree with many branches, I know I do not have the best writing skills, had to take extra classes throughout high school for my disability but I must say, I have gotten better. I suffer from obsessive and racing thoughts which have an affect on what I'm actually trying to say, I'd take med actions but I always suffer from the most severe side affects. There is a difference between telling me knowledge than just being a jerk about things.

The big bang is a cosmological event where the universe that we know inflated from a small point. It really has little to do with the study of biological evolution.

What? Does that mean it can not be a starting point from what I am saying?

What? Does that mean it can not be a starting point from what I am saying?

I'm not sure what you mean... maybe a paraphrase of the intended question will help.

examples please, I would assume that people could just explain in their own words.

The above is an example of you being too lazy to correctly capitalise a sentence, although you emphasized the 'I' in capital, which is quite telling.

excuse me for my grammar, no I am not too fucking lazy to spell correctly and you would have to be a retard to not understand the ways of google, so stop assuming things, like your better than me. jerk. I think you need to relax.

Do you mean you're ?

Btw, I am relaxed, it's you getting aggressive and swearing, not me. Now, if you are capable of spelling correctly, and using Google, go do it.

Also, you contradict yourself, you say you 'assume people could explain' in your first paragraph, but later tell me to stop assuming. One rule for you, another for me, eh?

You must feel real good about yourself.

The above is an example of you being too lazy to correctly capitalise a sentence, although you emphasized the 'I' in capital, which is quite telling.



Do you mean you're ?

Btw, I am relaxed, it's you getting aggressive and swearing, not me. Now, if you are capable of spelling correctly, and using Google, go do it.

Also, you contradict yourself, you say you 'assume people could explain' in your first paragraph, but later tell me to stop assuming. One rule for you, another for me, eh?

I am at a fault, I will do better.

It's just your putting your words in a very condescending way.

Does this mean I should leave this site, because of my disability?

Just stop saying I'm being lazy because that's not the case.

No, you don't have to leave because of your disability. People around here have a terrible habit of not reading every post in a thread, so you'll get duplicate responses and missed information. Just be patient if people ask you to clarify, because a lot of the knowledgeable posters may want to help, but will need to know precisely what you are asking before they can do so.

Have you read Fraggle Rocker's post?

Yes. That what I was precisely looking for.

Does this mean I should leave this site, because of my disability?

Just stop saying I'm being lazy because that's not the case.

What was that cannabis avatar all about? You have a disability, or a drug problem?

I suffer from obsessive and racing thoughts which have an affect on what I'm actually trying to say,.Life is about choices. One choice we have when posting on this forum is when we push the Submit button. Since you know you suffer from racing thoughts and you know others find your writing difficult to follow, you could make the choice not to submit until you have spell checked your post, re-read it at least twice to ensure it is clear, then made the necessary edits. The choice is yours. At present you are suffering negative consequences (criticism) of a negative choice (post without care). The choice is still yours.

Life is about choices. One choice we have when posting on this forum is when we push the Submit button. Since you know you suffer from racing thoughts and you know others find your writing difficult to follow, you could make the choice not to submit until you have spell checked your post, re-read it at least twice to ensure it is clear, then made the necessary edits. The choice is yours. At present you are suffering negative consequences (criticism) of a negative choice (post without care). The choice is still yours.

The thing is I do my spell check, re-read my posts and not till like hours later when I read it again, do I find my mistakes. Obviously, I'm not being forced to do anything. But I will admit to my faults and stride to get better.

lala, my guess is that you misunderstand what Big Bang is. Bing Bang happened way before even the Earth existed.

lala, my guess is that you misunderstand what Big Bang is. Bing Bang happened way before even the Earth existed.

I know this, I'm using the big bang in reference, to the beginning of everything, from the seed to the growth of the trunk, branches, leafs, etc.

Yes, but branches, leaves and trees happened way later than Big Bang. This reference makes little sense, since you always talk about biological things. May the formation of the Earth would make a better reference point?

May the formation of the Earth would make a better reference point?

Yes, this is much more sensible than the Big Bang.


….from the seed to the growth of the trunk, branches, leafs, etc.

I think this looks like a great resource of information that is pitched in the appropriate way. It seems to detail the formation of the Earth and the rise of life from single cells to present day humans. Have a look and let me know what you think.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

Yes, but branches, leaves and trees happened way later than Big Bang. I think this was a metaphor.

Maybe, but why use all biological stuff for metaphor?

I know that humans evolved from the common ancestor of monkeys, chimpanzees and Gorillas about 5 million years ago...eventually there was a split and hominids arose and throughout. In my own words.
Well, there you go :)

Everyone is always assuming things and jumping to illogical conclusions on my own behalf, which none of you know nothing of.
Yea.. your post there (the one about the big bang) was just a little bit absurd, don't you think ?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

thanks for this reference.

May the formation of the Earth would make a better reference point?

no, it wouldn't
for that statement would only condense what I am getting at.
from complete beginning to present.

Maybe, but why use all biological stuff for metaphor?

why not, the tree's grown and silhouette is the appropriate manner I'm using it for, no biological purposes.

Well, there you go :)

Yes, but before that, and before that eventually meeting up with the big bang.

why not, the tree's grown and silhouette is the appropriate manner I'm using it for, no biological purposes.

Could you have used planets, stars and galaxies?

to an extent, The tree is just a good and understandable basis.

no, it wouldn't
for that statement would only condense what I am getting at.
from complete beginning to present.

Unfortunately there is no evidence of a "beginning". A reference point has to be taken and the "Big Bang" is probably the most difficult one to choose from especially when asking questions about biological evolution on Earth.

Unfortunately there is no evidence of a "beginning". A reference point has to be taken and the "Big Bang" is probably the most difficult one to choose from especially when asking questions about biological evolution on Earth.
Not even necessarily on earths biology but abroad, But seeing how difficult it must be to begin to understand the "big bang" in full, my question must be unanswerable.

You don't need to understand the Big Bang to get fairly deep understanding of biology.

true to a certain extent exactly, but true "fairly" deep in deed but not deep enough for me to conclude such things.

for anyone in that matter.

The Big Bang is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. If we discovered tomorrow an alternative and better explanation for the CMBR and all the other pieces of evidence on which the Big Bang theory is based it would have zero effect upon our understanding of biological evolution.

The Big Bang is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. If we discovered tomorrow an alternative and better explanation for the CMBR and all the other pieces of evidence on which the Big Bang theory is based it would have zero effect upon our understanding of biological evolution.

I don't agree, correct me if I'm wrong but what has come upon earth from 4.5 billion years ago till now, that was not in affect before it's beginning? Is what you are saying that radiation shooting throughout space is liable for not being able to contribute to what we are today, then they must not be a connect, but how is that possible? I take your words for thought and do not disclose them but I am interested in how the big bang can not be traced into the energy and matter here on earth now.

I don't agree, correct me if I'm wrong but what has come upon earth from 4.5 billion years ago till now, that was not in affect before it's beginning? Is what you are saying that radiation shooting throughout space is liable for not being able to contribute to what we are today, then they must not be a connect, but how is that possible? I take your words for thought and do not disclose them but I am interested in how the big bang can not be traced into the energy and matter here on earth now.

It is certainly true that the beginning of the universe had an impact on everything that came after it, but that does not mean that useful lines cannot be drawn. I mean, suppose your best friend calls you up, crying. If you asked "What happened?" Would it be useful for them to begin with the Big Bang and work forward? Whatever caused them to cry, the Big bang certainly influenced that too, so if you really want to know what happened... And if you really want to know the biography of any person, or why how WWI started or what tomorrow's lottery numbers will be, the story could always start at the big bang.

The truth is though if we changed our understanding of the Big Bang, it is a given that we would only change it in ways that allow for the current world to exist. If we embraced a theory that made current existence impossible, we'd be embreacing a theory that would seem nonsensical. In effect, we do not look at the Big Bang and then work forward, we start with current, directly observable facts and work back.

Well said. The theory that made current existence impossible would not only seem nonsensical, it would be a wrong theory.

It is certainly true that the beginning of the universe had an impact on everything that came after it, but that does not mean that useful lines cannot be drawn. I mean, suppose your best friend calls you up, crying. If you asked "What happened?" Would it be useful for them to begin with the Big Bang and work forward? Whatever caused them to cry, the Big bang certainly influenced that too, so if you really want to know what happened...

The truth is though if we changes our understanding of the Big Bang, it is a given that we would only change it in ways that allow for the current world to exist. If we embraced a theory that made current existence impossible, we'd be embreacing a theory that would seem nonsensical. In effect, we do not look at the Big Bang and then work forward, we start with current, directly observable facts and work back.

You are talking about something particularly specific, difference is that our present biological state is much like most, I am curious to the contraction to the beginning. about my friend crying that is happening now it is not derived from the past but of the present. its filled with no knowledge that is needed.

So my inquiries here cannot be answers.
no body knows.

You are talking about something particularly specific, difference is that our present biological state is much like most, I am curious to the contraction to the beginning. about my friend crying that is happening now it is not derived from the past but of the present. its filled with no knowledge that is needed.

So my inquiries here cannot be answers.
no body knows.

I'm not even sure what your inquiries are...

Is what you are saying that radiation shooting throughout space is liable for not being able to contribute to what we are today, then they must not be a connect, but how is that possible? I am not saying that at all. Here is what I am saying.
1. The Big Bang theory is our current best guess as to how the Universe began (or at least started in its current form.)
2. An alternative explanation of how things came to be might be possible.
3. Whatever explanation we arrive at is irrelevant because it explains away a set of conditions that existed at some later time.
4. It is these set of conditions - collapse of giant molecular cloud, formation of accretion disc, planetary formation - that determine the consequent development of life. These conditions are present regardless of our interpretaion of what preceded them.

You are talking about something particularly specific, difference is that our present biological state is much like most, I am curious to the contraction to the beginning. about my friend crying that is happening now it is not derived from the past but of the present. its filled with no knowledge that is needed.

So my inquiries here cannot be answers.
no body knows.


No. Your friend crying is every bit as much connected to the Big Bang as evolution. Everything that happens in the present only does so because of what occurred in the past. If the past had been different, the present would be as well. In any event, whatever made your friend cry is in the past.

If the Big Bang affects the past, it necessarily affected the here and now. Anything else is sophistry.

You are, though, trying to trace evolution back to the big bang, which is very much like taking a squirt of urine and trying to figure out where the cloud formed from which the rain fell that produced the orange that was turned into juice that was fed to the man who excreted it...except that doing that trick with urine is way easier because the causal chain is so much stronger and more direct and simpler to trace.

Not to mention the fact that to *really* under stand it you would have to track the world lines of many googols of particle over the history of the universe, the trouble you are having is the 13 billion years of entropy have spread the information you want to the to the point where it's irretreivable. To take another weak analogy, unscambling an egg is child's play, informationally speaking, to that trick.

Jesus, why is everyone humouring lala?

The sentences she writes make little sense. Let's try and pin this down to one topic.

First, lala, do you want to know about cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution?

Yes, but before that, and before that eventually meeting up with the big bang.

I think I know where this is going.. :bugeye:

What I've been talking about, see I haven't done a good enough job for people to get it, but it doesn't matter anyways because I've heard enough.

What I've been talking about, see I haven't done a good enough job for people to get it, but it doesn't matter anyways because I've heard enough.
Nevertheless, could you answer Phlog's question. Didyou want to know about cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution?

Nevertheless, could you answer Phlog's question. Didyou want to know about cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution?

It seems like she wants to respond with "And before that ? And before THAT ?" etc.
It looks like we're headed towards some sort of religious 'argument'..
I could be wrong of course..

I think you are. I believe she is just confused. Of course, I could also be wrong. It happened before - 1977, I think.

I think you are. I believe she is just confused. Of course, I could also be wrong. It happened before - 1977, I think.

A very good year by the way :D

I think you are. I believe she is just confused. Of course, I could also be wrong. It happened before - 1977, I think.

Oh im plenty confused. There isn't going to be any religious arguments because I have yet to form a basis of my beliefs.

Nevertheless, could you answer Phlog's question. Didyou want to know about cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution?

yes, to an extent.

Jesus, why is everyone humouring lala?

The sentences she writes make little sense. Let's try and pin this down to one topic.

First, lala, do you want to know about cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution?

Why are you a jerk?

But I am talking about before the beliefs of cosmology, before abiogenesis began and evolution its first moment, after the big bang, biology to begin.

lala, that sentence does not make sense. You really have to try harder. I think this is what you meant:
Wait a moment. I cannot figure it out. What you have written really does not make any sense at all.

This makes some sense:But I am talking about before the beliefs of cosmology, before abiogenesis began and evolution its first moment.
But you are mixing up beliefs (beliefs in cosmology) with reality (abiogenesis). So are you talking about cosmology as a belief or as a reality? It's just to confusing.

Please try again. I mean really try. I'm not sure how much more of this I can take. I wan't to help, but you have to meet us more than 10% of the way there.

But I am talking about before the beliefs of cosmology, before abiogenesis began and evolution its first moment, after the big bang, biology to begin.


“…before abiogenesis began”? Biology did not exist before abiogenesis, and this is a biology subforum.

If I understand you correctly (which is no mean feat :cool:), you’re asking about the cosmological processes that led to the formation of our Solar System and the planet Earth, and the planetary science processes that produced the raw organic materials that were utilised during abiogenesis to form life. Yes?

If yes, then these are planetary science and chemistry questions. Sciforums has Earth Science, Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology, and Chemistry subforums which would be more appropriate for such questions. But, if you want to ask about abiogenesis (formation of life from inorganic substrates) or evolution (changes in existing life in response to selective pressures) then this is the appropriate subforum.

So, as others have already asked, what specific questions do you want to know? If you can’t answer succinctly then there’s little point in leaving this thread open any longer.

All of the above, the whole story in your own words, from what you have gathered about such things.

All of the above, the whole story in your own words, from what you have gathered about such things.Get real. The whole story , even a shortened version would take a couple of decent sized books. Fraggle, or someone, already gave you a precis, of a summary, of a condensed version, of an abridgement, earlier on. If you want more, you need to ask something specific. If you can't do that I am left with two options to consider a) you are a troll and should be ignored b) you are irredeemably stupid and should be ignored. Please don't tell me I've been wasting my effort till now. Ask a specific question for ****'s sake.

All of the above, the whole story in your own words, from what you have gathered about such things.

Well there’s the thing. :wallbang: It is totally unreasonable to expect anyone to describe “all of the above in their own words”. Even minor aspects of each of these processes are the subject of whole textbooks and specialities. A more specific question is required. Examples might be: Why did life form on Earth but not Venus? Did the sugar molecules that are in DNA come from comets or from the Earth? Does the formation of life on Earth have anything to do with the Earth being formed from the debris of a previous nova?

But you are clearly unwilling or unable to ask more specific questions, so I think I’ll end this here.

(I’ll entertain re-opening if you actually want to ask a specific question.)