Did the universe evolve?

[Iamme]

I have never heard this theory before. This is my own theory. If you have heard it before, then it is a coincidence as far as I'm concerned, because *I* never have.

We are readily accepting the theory of evolution as fact...not theory. Correct? But evolution has been confined to the organic world.

But has anyone ever considered that the mysteries of the universe may be unlocked if we consider that the elemental particles didn't emerge, but 'evolved'?

Do not confuse the *expansion* of the universe with evolution. Two separate issues. Evolving means one thing changing into something else. And I am not even thinking along the lines of hydrogen turning into helium, either, because that deals with a set of laws that enabled this to happen. I am refering more towards one competing energy or particle competing with another, and the best one won out. The best one enabled it to continue to whirl away, where another got swallowed up into a gravitational black hole, for example.

We all know that whether or not you blieve in God, that the Universe as we see it was caused *SOME*how. Even God would have more than likely created it in steps as opposed to giving the magic word and having it go 'poof', as there is no such evidence of this. The closest thing to poof was the Big Bang..but after that, not everything just went immediately poof.

Maybe it's a stretch to consider such a thing that there were competing energies and particles and the best ones ...the ones that could work, won out. But this could open our minds to the possibility that extreme order did not necessarily occur at the onset. That it was only those things that *were* of order, that worked, that were able to move on and help create the next fundamental building blocks.

I should write Discover magazine about this. What do you think?

 

[SpaceFluffer]

We are readily accepting the theory of evolution as fact...not theory. Correct?

Absolutely not. Evolution is a theory. An extremely well-tested and well-motivated theory that makes accurate predictions, but a theory nontheless. I suggest you go get yourself a dictionary.

But has anyone ever considered that the mysteries of the universe may be unlocked if we consider that the elemental particles didn't emerge, but 'evolved'?

...

Maybe it's a stretch to consider such a thing that there were competing energies and particles and the best ones ...the ones that could work, won out. But this could open our minds to the possibility that extreme order did not necessarily occur at the onset. That it was only those things that *were* of order, that worked, that were able to move on and help create the next fundamental building blocks.

But a hydrogen atom can't compete with another atom in the same way that an organism has to do so to survive. There is also no reason to compete - what is the benefit? Do hydrogen atoms eat, sleep or procreate? Not the last time I checked.

I should write Discover magazine about this. What do you think?

I think you should read more about cosmology and evolution, then hopefully you'll see that your idea makes no sense.

 

[John Bentley]

I think you would like a book called "Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin. It's easy to read, and explains your exact theory, and how it could be working to produce whole universes whose end goal is... But that would be telling.

Get it. It's great fun to read, regardless of what you think about the theory as a whole.

And don't let Fluffer put you off.

 

[drkitten]

I have never heard this theory before. This is my own theory. If you have heard it before, then it is a coincidence as far as I'm concerned, because *I* never have.

We are readily accepting the theory of evolution as fact...not theory. Correct? But evolution has been confined to the organic world.

That's because only organic things reproduce.

Evolution, broadly defined as "descent with modification" requires the notion of a parent-object who can pass properties down to a child-object -- and furthermore these properties must themselves be heritable, and yet modifiable.

The idea that the universe "evolves" is thus impossible unless we can establish some sort of family tree of universes, where one universe "creates" another and so forth.

Similarly, the idea that, as you put it, "the elemental particles didn't emerge, but 'evolved'" is impossible unless one elemental particle can create another with slightly different properties.

I should write Discover magazine about this. What do you think?

If you're lucky, you'll get a letter rather like this in return.

 

[John Bentley]

Don't let new drkitten put you off, either. What they say is correct, but it's always fun to speculate. Which Smolin does to the nth degree. Really to the point of scientific heresy, which is what makes it fun to read.

 

[Iamme]

(new drkitten)

Similarly, the idea that, as you put it, "the elemental particles didn't emerge, but 'evolved'" is impossible unless one elemental particle can create another with slightly different properties.

(Iamme)

Well there you go. You are stating my case. Maybe that's what happened.

 

[Ziggurat]

(new drkitten)

Similarly, the idea that, as you put it, "the elemental particles didn't emerge, but 'evolved'" is impossible unless one elemental particle can create another with slightly different properties.

(Iamme)

Well there you go. You are stating my case. Maybe that's what happened.

No, this makes no sense. Elementary particles of a given type (say, electrons) are identical on a quantum level. They are identical to such an extent that if you put two of them in a box and take one out, there is no concievable way to determine which one you took out. Such perfect equality doesn't mesh with the idea of particles evolving. Now it's conceivable their properties changed, which would basically be equivalent to fundamental physical constants changing, but that would apply to EVERY electron changing exactly the same way. Biological evolution is therefore a completely inappropriate analogy. There's just no meaningful connection between the two.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I agree with Ziggurat. The key to evolution by natural selection is that there is a hereditary mechanism handed down from generation to generation. This provides material from which external circumstances select. If you can't demonstrate heredity among subatomic particles, the analogy fails.

However- if you think our universe is just one bubble in a quantum foam which fills a multiverse of space times infinitely bigger, each bubble having a different set of physical laws, then you might view the fact that some of those bubbles (including. obviously, this one) allow life to exist implies an evolutionary process among universes.

Of course it would be directionless and other universes might evolve where life does not exist but other, far stranger processes do happen.

It's good science fiction, but it's hard to see how it could ever be more.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Re: Re: Did the universe evolve?

Absolutely not. Evolution is a theory. An extremely well-tested and well-motivated theory that makes accurate predictions, but a theory nontheless. I suggest you go get yourself a dictionary.
[/B]
But a hydrogen atom can't compete with another atom in the same way that an organism has to do so to survive. There is also no reason to compete - what is the benefit? Do hydrogen atoms eat, sleep or procreate? Not the last time I checked.
I think you should read more about cosmology and evolution, then hopefully you'll see that your idea makes no sense. [/B]

Evolution is a fact. There are theories within to describe how it works. We know Gravity is a fact. The theory comes in to describe how it works.

Well, this is all explained better at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[drkitten]

Don't let new drkitten put you off, either. What they say is correct, but it's always fun to speculate.

Speculation is fine, but the editors of Discover are busy people and will not appreciate being burdened with the products of your speculation.

I can similarly speculate about whether the Millenium Falcon or the Enterprise is a faster starship, about whether Gandalf or Merlin is smarter, or whether or not Batman would be able to beat Superman in a fair fight. But I don't bother magazines with such questions.

 

[Alkatran]

Well sure, we already have a theory of evolution for the cosmos: thermodynamics.

It states that heat is the type of thing which survives the best so everything eventually becomes heat and doesn't change back!

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Re: Re: Re: Did the universe evolve?

Evolution is a fact. There are theories within to describe how it works. We know Gravity is a fact. The theory comes in to describe how it works.

Well sure, but I was responding to lamme's suggestion that we are

Originally posted by lamme
accepting the theory of evolution as fact

which we certainly do not. The 'theory' part of evolution is theory, not fact.

 

[Iamme]

Speculation is fine, but the editors of Discover are busy people and will not appreciate being burdened with the products of your speculation.

I can similarly speculate about whether the Millenium Falcon or the Enterprise is a faster starship, about whether Gandalf or Merlin is smarter, or whether or not Batman would be able to beat Superman in a fair fight. But I don't bother magazines with such questions.

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

Ha!! You lose. You missed your big chance. Look at the movie they did where Freddie Kruger vs. ....um...who did he go up against? Anyway, if you have a mind that can come up with some of this stuff that initially might sound like nonsense, you might interest someone with this nonsense more than what you could have hoped for.

 

[John Bentley]

Speculation is fine, but the editors of Discover are busy people and will not appreciate being burdened with the products of your speculation.

Hmm, perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I wasn't encouraging lamme to submit his idea to Discover, but simply to have fun with his idea, and giving him a reference which deals with his idea in depth.

I can similarly speculate about whether the Millenium Falcon or the Enterprise is a faster starship, about whether Gandalf or Merlin is smarter, or whether or not Batman would be able to beat Superman in a fair fight. But I don't bother magazines with such questions.

Could you be a bit more condescending and patronizing? Is there something I'm missing here? Is lamme a persona non grata? Y'all are being quite arrogant, and you usually aren't like that, new drkitten, so is there some bad blood between you and lamme or something?

 

[Just thinking]

Re: Re: Re: Did the universe evolve?

Evolution is a fact. There are theories within to describe how it works.

Well put.

All too often opponents (and even proponenets) make this same mistake in statement ...

Evolution is the fact -- it is Natural Selection that is the theory.

That said: I do not believe there was any Natural Selection involved in the Evolution of the Universe -- except involving living organisms.

BTW -- what evidence exists to even propose such a theory?

 

[athon]

Ok he's my 0.8 pence (converted from Australian currency...).

Evolution is not a fact. A fact, by all definitions, is a descriptive quality or quantity. It's a fact that there is one human being at this computer, typing away. I can't evaluate a colour, a number, a weight of an observation or phenomena...those are facts.

A theory is a model designed to make predictions based on facts. I can string together numerous facts as evidence for a theory.

The problem is, people get confused by theories as they seem to carry varying weights. No two theories are equivalent, as they are supported by different facts. Evolution describes a way we can arrive at the variation we observe in today's living systems.

As far as theories go, there is overwhelming evidence in the means of facts that support it as a model. But it will never be a 'fact' as Evolution is not an observable value. It is not a 'fact' that man and ape evolved from common ancestors. It is a robust theory.

As for whether the universe 'evolves', I disagree with a lot of the points put forward. To me, evolution is a selective process that selects a system best suited to its environment. As long as you have an environment that varies with time, and systems within it that compete for resources, then you will have evolution. Don't forget, pre-life chemistry could be considered as a series of competing reactions.

I think it comes down to whether you think there is a need for a kind of inheritance protocol (i.e., genetics in living systems) for a system. I don't believe so; I think inheritance is an evolved feature itself that helps retain information.

I certainly don't think the universe itself can 'evolve' as such, but to limit living systems to the laws constructed to explain biological evolution I think is limiting.

Athon

 

[Just thinking]

Evolution is not a fact.

Do you believe the Universe does not follow deffinitions 1, 2 and 6 from here? [You must please type in the word evolution.] Even deffinition 4 (the one you are probably using) is restricted under the topic of PHYLOGENY.

A theory is a model designed to make predictions based on facts. I can string together numerous facts as evidence for a theory.

That is what's known as Natural Selection.

 

[athon]

Do you believe the Universe does not follow deffinitions 1, 2 and 6 from here? [You must please type in the word evolution.] Even deffinition 4 (the one you are probably using) is restricted under the topic of PHYLOGENY.

That is what's known as Natural Selection.

Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at. I'm not suggesting that evolution is biologically exclusive. I'm saying that it is common for systems that change with time and compete with other systems for resources will follow the same laws as the model we currently use to explain the modern facts of biodiversity.

Evolution is not a fact. The diversity of species is a fact, as I can go out and count them based on determined characteristics. However, the way we are using the term 'evolution' denotes the theory that we use to explain such an observation.

Athon

 

[Eos of the Eons]

There is enough conclusive (and observable) evidence that makes evolution a fact the same way that gravity is a fact. It in fact happens. There are theories to explain these facts. In time, some of the theories become facts. Species' diversity is observable.

 

[cbish]

First off, this thread seems to be debating a Theory v. Fact. That's not the tactic lamme is using. He's saying evolution can't happen because the carbon atom hasn't changed since the beginning of time. To extend his comparison, nothing has ever changed. And, I never typed this post!