Denial of Evolution VI.

[Write4U]

I'm going back to see if they solved the origin of the Murchison Meteorite.

Have you seen this yet;
http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/meteorites/murchison/index.html

It seems inescapable that the earth's composition was enhanced by meteorites such as Murchison Meteorite, which means that there must be other, much older planets where these amino acids and other complex compounds were formed.
The sun is but a young star and there must be millions of older stars with planetary systems. A few collisions and presto we have the seeds of life scattering throughout the universe and must have been present in the cosmic cloud which yielded the formation of our sun and planetary system, and the greater solar system or may have arrived and landed somewhat later.

These meteorites must have been the debris of planet/planet or meteor/planet collisions and ended up in in the earth, making it possible (in view of our solar "comfort zone') to cook up a living organism in the primordial soup, with the aid of these complex molecules.
I am confident that earth life is unique to earth, regardless of life elsewhere in the universe, but we can say that life on earth was a gift from many dying planets.

 

[Write4U]

I have isolated these words just because they are different to my hypotheses. What I will say please realize that I may not be right either.
1. "As the the protostar collapses it gains in gravity" I can see what you mean but gravity is dependent on mass, so the amount of gravity must remain the same. But I accept that as the density goes up the gravitation force on each fallen particle will rise also, but this would be balance by the centrifugal forces so to get continuing collapse there has to be loss of heavy particles carry this energy, and lost of heat radiation (so the velocity of the particles slows they lose centrifugal force, gravity moves the masses inwardly then gravity increases due to the increased density, heat energy is removed and so the collapse continues.

I'll attempt to answer that now.
When enough mass has accumulated its gravity will collapse further but with an increase in heat and pressure, until nuclear fusion begins at which time the collapse of the sun stops due to the outward pressure from the nuclear fusion. This is the stage where the sun is no longer a proto star but a self sustaining system with metallic (heavy) planets able to orbit because of their mass and momentum and resistance to heat.
IMO, at this stage orbits can be established, relatively to a stable sun with a defined area of effective gravity. Seems to me that at this point stable orbits can be established by surrounding matter, and the rest of the process is well described in the other links.

2. "but also increases its spin and increasing the speed of the surrounding matter." The compressing matter has a lower mechanical energy than the matter already flung off, so the transfer of energy by increasing the speed is debated. I will grant that in my hypotheses the radiant energy drives the flung off material further away due to radiant energy so this may slow the collapse of the flung material.

I can't answer this one, except that it is my understanding that gravitational compression causes heat. On second thought, a spinning sun does not make the spacetime fabric itself spin, only affects the fabric of spacetime gravitationally and that force is experienced by anything in its gravitational field.

Lastly, as the entire system was also moving through space it encountered many more particles and matter, which when with in the reach of the center's gravity kept adding matter even as it had exhausted it's own immediate surroundings.

I read somewhere that is is possible that a supernova created a shock wave which compressed our cloud and forced an enormous amount of particles and dust toward what was to become the gravitational center of the cloud. This might account for a proto sun to gain in mass and gravity due to pressures from outside (of our cloud).

 

[Robittybob1]

When enough mass has accumulated its gravity will collapse further but with an increase in heat and pressure, until nuclear fusion begins at which time the collapse of the sun stops due to the outward pressure from the nuclear fusion. This is the stage where the sun is no longer a proto star but a self sustaining system with metallic (heavy) planets able to orbit because of their mass and momentum and resistance to heat.
IMO, at this stage orbits can be established, relatively to a stable sun with a defined area of effective gravity. Seems to me that at this point stable orbits can be established by surrounding matter, and the rest of the process is well described in the other links. ...

Well remember we justified having this discussion in the evolution thread for we were looking to see if life came into the Solar System or did it develop here.
I think what you have described is basically very good.
Points I want to make is:
1. the center of the Sun is the hottest point and is where the thermonuclear reactions will occur right.
So what temperature will be on the outside of the developing Sun? (I doubt if it is hotter than it is today.)
2. the proto-planetary disc is like a very large version of the rings of Saturn so even if the proto-sun is glowing hot why would the heat of the protosun penetrate the thick dust cloud? (get an edge on view of the rings of Saturn and see if you can see through it.)

That is the reasoning behind doubting your statement from Wikipedia about the temperature at the distance of 4 AU.

..Perhaps this may help in our discovery

The formation of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.
and
The inner Solar System, the region of the Solar System inside 4 AU, was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, so the planetesimals that formed there could only form from compounds with high melting points, such as metals (like iron, nickel, and aluminium) and rocky silicates. These rocky bodies would become the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). These compounds are quite rare in the universe, comprising only 0.6% of the mass of the nebula, so the terrestrial planets could not grow very large.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

.

It is not clear from the article at what time the event that they are estimating occurred, "the region of the Solar System inside 4 AU, was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense".
There is just no way the radiation from the Proto-sun would ever heat the dust disc to that temperature out to that distance.
Why would it be hotter then than it is now?

 

[Write4U]

Well remember we justified having this discussion in the evolution thread for we were looking to see if life came into the Solar System or did it develop here.
I think what you have described is basically very good.
Points I want to make is:
1. the center of the Sun is the hottest point and is where the thermonuclear reactions will occur right.
So what temperature will be on the outside of the developing Sun? (I doubt if it is hotter than it is today.)

I ran across this Q&A and this which sounded about what I was trying to propose re the proto sun and apparently is a common occurrence in star formation.

Due to gravity the clouds will start to shrink. The infalling masses accelerate and will heat up. The cloud begins to radiate in the infrared wave lengths and is then in the protostar phase.

After 100,000 years or so the core density and temperature will become high enough so that nuclear fusion can start. This is called the T Tauri phase named after the stars for which this was first discovered. At this time the star is still surrounded by dust and gas, which will be slowly blown away by the radiation pressure.

Deep inside the core of the young star Hydrogen is being converted into Helium. This "burning" of Hydrogen produces a counter pressure to gravity that will stop the gas cloud from further shrinking. The gas cloud becomes a stable star. This is the present state of our Sun.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. the proto-planetary disc is like a very large version of the rings of Saturn so even if the proto-sun is glowing hot why would the heat of the protosun penetrate the thick dust cloud? (get an edge on view of the rings of Saturn and see if you can see through it.)

That is assuming the edge of Saturn is directly pointed at the sun. But what if the rings are perpendicular to the sun? Moreover, Saturn is so large and so far away that the sun probably does not have much influence on Saturn at all, except for gravity.

The surface temperature of the planet, Saturn, is approximately -218.47 to -308.47 degrees. Deeper inside the planetary cloud (Saturn is a gas giant) the temperature is estimated to be about -140C

Whereas the sun's surface temp is about 5,505C and its core about 15,000,000C.

That is the reasoning behind doubting your statement from Wikipedia about the temperature at the distance of 4 AU.

Wiki could be wrong, they are always asking for edits and/or revisions as science discovers new information. But I quoted it in good faith.

 

[Write4U]

Well we have discussed the evolutionary process of the solar system and the probability that complex molecules and amino acids may have arrived on earth via meteors and meteorites.
The question is then if the solar system itself has also produced these complex molecular systems and combined to form the first cell. Can we even separate the evolution of life on earth and possibly other planets from the physical evolution of the universe itself and are we just another evolutionary expression of the infinite complexity of spacetime itself?

 

[Robittybob1]

Well we have discussed the evolutionary process of the solar system and the probability that complex molecules and amino acids may have arrived on earth via meteors and meteorites.
The question is then if the solar system itself has also produced these complex molecular systems and combined to form the first cell. Can we even separate the evolution of life on earth and possibly other planets from the physical evolution of the universe itself and are we just another evolutionary expression of the infinite complexity of spacetime itself?

I have never heard of anyone asking a question like that before. It is a very deep question.

 

[Robittybob1]

I ran across this Q&A and this which sounded about what I was trying to propose re the proto sun and apparently is a common occurrence in star formation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is assuming the edge of Saturn is directly pointed at the sun. But what if the rings are perpendicular to the sun? Moreover, Saturn is so large and so far away that the sun probably does not have much influence on Saturn at all, except for gravity.


Whereas the sun's surface temp is about 5,505C and its core about 15,000,000C.



Wiki could be wrong, they are always asking for edits and/or revisions as science discovers new information. But I quoted it in good faith.

I don't doubt you were quoting it in good faith, but what i have tried to do for two years now is to make a case for an alternative view. Funny thing has been as more and more information come in there were plenty of large planets found well within this range of their suns that were large water worlds. I had been proposing the Earth was more of a water world too early on. Even a million comets carrying amino acids would never deliver enough to start a primordial soup of even the thinnest gruel you could imagine.
I keep thinking we have to have somewhere special to mix the broth.

Now I might have lead you up the wrong path, for I was trying to make you think about how effective the early Sun might have been at shining into the protoplanetary disc. I imagine it was just about complete darkness in the middle of it, so I can't see why they would say it was so hot?

Was this Universe evolving? Yes, it was evolving in the sense of changing but surely not in the sense of evolving in the "Evolutionary" sense surely. Let's look at the definition of evolve.

Thanks to Dictionary.com for the definitions of e·volve

Verb
1. Develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
2. (with reference to an organism or biological feature) Develop over successive generations, esp. as a result of natural selection.
Synonyms
develop - expand - unfold

So you are using definition 1, I think or do you think it is definition 2 that you are using?

 

[Write4U]

I don't doubt you were quoting it in good faith, but what i have tried to do for two years now is to make a case for an alternative view. Funny thing has been as more and more information come in there were plenty of large planets found well within this range of their suns that were large water worlds. I had been proposing the Earth was more of a water world too early on. Even a million comets carrying amino acids would never deliver enough to start a primordial soup of even the thinnest gruel you could imagine.
I keep thinking we have to have somewhere special to mix the broth.

Now I might have lead you up the wrong path, for I was trying to make you think about how effective the early Sun might have been at shining into the protoplanetary disc. I imagine it was just about complete darkness in the middle of it, so I can't see why they would say it was so hot?

Was this Universe evolving? Yes, it was evolving in the sense of changing but surely not in the sense of evolving in the "Evolutionary" sense surely. Let's look at the definition of evolve.

Thanks to Dictionary.com for the definitions of e·volve

Verb
1. Develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
2. (with reference to an organism or biological feature) Develop over successive generations, esp. as a result of natural selection.
Synonyms
develop - expand - unfold

So you are using definition 1, I think or do you think it is definition 2 that you are using?

Actually I was viewing it in more general terms and included both as well as the synonyms.......

 

[Robittybob1]

Actually I was viewing it in more general terms and included both as well as the synonyms.......

I thought so. So it isn't really EVOLUTION then is it? Same source. Dictionary.com
ev·o·lu·tion
noun
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth

 

[wellwisher]

If go back to relativity and time dilation, it is interesting to consider watching evolution on earth, from a time dilated reference close to the speed of light. Since your time would be moving much slower, the evolution on earth would look like time lapse photography. All the day to day randomness would blur into bulk effects making it appear more ordered.

Say we looked at the two million years of the rise of man in one minute time lapse. It would appear like the same initial critter is transforming before your eyes. Say you use time lapse set at 1 billion years in one hour. Then Adam appears created before from the dust, right before your eyes.

 

[arfa brane]

Diseases are evidence of natural selection "in action".

Since given a population of humans, there are some individuals with "natural" resistance to some disease, the plagues were just natural selection of resistant individuals.
Medicine reverses this process by curing diseases in people who don't have any natural immunity.

In that case, are humans evolving into disease-prone animals?
Just askin'.

 

[Write4U]

I thought so. So it isn't really EVOLUTION then is it? Same source. Dictionary.com
ev·o·lu·tion
noun
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth

I understand the thread was intended to argue for or against the process of "evolution" v the fundamental principle of the word "creation"
I feel that in order to argue evolution of life one must understand the fundamental principles of the word "evolution".

ev·o·lu·tion, [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA
noun
1.
any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2.
a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3.
Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

4.
a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

5.
a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

It is clear that evolution is a process changing something from one state of order to another more complex state of order through a series of connected events.
This is why we say the creation of the universe from a singularity, the instant change from nothing to something (give me leeway on that),
But thereafter we experience the evolution of the universe itself, in accordance with natural laws and Constants. This fundamental function applies to everything in the universe including living organism and Darwinian evolution is not exempt.

IMO, the proof lies in the pudding.
Creation (the BB) by a single mega-quantum event, releasing all universal energy at once cannot have been but purely chaotic.

But once energy and matter (which must obey certain physical laws of behavior) became materialized, the universe began to Evolve from that point on, in accordance with natural laws and constants.

Man was not created during the Inflationary epoch, man was still a collection of randomly scattered particles, dispersed over trillions of miles. But the Potential for his eventual existence started with the appearance of the first particle (when universal time began) and evolved along with every other potential which has become reality (which we can physically observe), from the moment the universe cooled off sufficiently to allow matter to be formed from energy.
The Universe was created, Man evolved.

 

[Robittybob1]

The Universe was created, Man evolved.

That is seems like your edict. (or whatever the word is)

So going back to a created universe what part does the creator play for once things are in motion every other event seems more or less a consequence? Does the creator just have to stand back a watch the fireworks display?

 

[Write4U]

That is seems like your edict. (or whatever the word is)

So going back to a created universe what part does the creator play for once things are in motion every other event seems more or less a consequence? Does the creator just have to stand back a watch the fireworks display?

That is only when you assume that the Causality for the BB is God to begin with.
I call this causality, Potential. There is no demonstrable difference between God and Potential, except for Intentional Intelligence, which in Potential is called the Implicate.

 

[Robittybob1]

That is only when you assume that the Causality for the BB is God to begin with.
I call this causality, Potential. There is no demonstrable difference between God and Potential, except for Intentional Intelligence, which in Potential is called the Implicate.

Where are you getting these ideas from?
Implicate?
Potential?
Intentional Intelligence?

That was my assumption - "the Causality for the BB is God to begin with", which possibly equates to the 12th dimension in String Theory - "the input of the energy".

 

[Write4U]

Where are you getting these ideas from?
Implicate?
Potential?

David Bohm (theoretical physicist)

Intentional Intelligence?

The general definition of God, the sentient creator. Correct me if I am wrong.

That was my assumption - "the Causality for the BB is God to begin with", which possibly equates to the 12th dimension in String Theory - "the input of the energy".

I can understand your reasoning, but it does not say that in string theory does it?

The energy-scale at which the stringlike properties would become evident is so high that it is currently unclear how any of the forms of the theory could be tested.

Yes, these are strings of energetic potential, not physical objects, they are "potentials" and from reinforcing potentials in this potential field springs the Implicate which may become reality.

Please read up on David Bohm, I think you will find much in common.
http://david-bohm.net/

 

[Robittybob1]

David Bohm (theoretical physicist)


The general definition of God, the sentient creator. Correct me if I am wrong.



I can understand your reasoning, but it does not say that in string theory does it?



Yes, these are strings of energetic potential, not physical objects, they are "potentials" and from reinforcing potentials in this potential field springs the Implicate which may become reality.

Please read up on David Bohm, I think you will find much in common.
http://david-bohm.net/

Thanks for your honesty for I was in the process of searching these words on the net, and they were pointing back to "David Bohm".
You also correctly pointed out "I can understand your reasoning, but it does not say that in string theory does it?" Also true that is why I used the word "possibly" in the sentence "which possibly equates to the 12th dimension in String Theory", for at the time they were talking about 11 dimensions only (but that was a few years back).
Is there a twelfth dimension yet?

 

[Write4U]

Thanks for your honesty for I was in the process of searching these words on the net, and they were pointing back to "David Bohm".
You also correctly pointed out "I can understand your reasoning, but it does not say that in string theory does it?" Also true that is why I used the word "possibly" in the sentence "which possibly equates to the 12th dimension in String Theory", for at the time they were talking about 11 dimensions only (but that was a few years back).
Is there a twelfth dimension yet?

I haven't a clue.

I am not opposed to the concept of God (by any other name), I am opposed to the concept of a "sentient" god as a first choice. By Ockham's razor the assumption of a (traditional) God would present the most complications than all other possible solutions.
My first question of a sentient god would not be "why am I here but "what was your motive"?
An iimpersonal, mplacable plenum needs not answer such a question. IT needs to answer only "I am that, I am"

 

[Ophiolite]

It is clear that evolution is a process changing something from one state of order to another more complex state of order through a series of connected events.

It may be clear to you, but it is not clear to thoughtful members of the biological community. Evolution involves a change in allele frequency. There is no requirement that this produce a more (or less) complex genotype, or phenotype.

 

[Robittybob1]

It may be clear to you, but it is not clear to thoughtful members of the biological community. Evolution involves a change in allele frequency. There is no requirement that this produce a more (or less) complex genotype, or phenotype.

It may not be more complex but one the has an advantage, so at least that maybe described as an improvement (even if only temporary, for the niche may only be temporary).