Did the universe evolve?

[Just thinking]

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.

That is to then say that from the Big Bang model the number of Forces (Gravitational - Electrostatic - Magnetic - Weak Nuclear - Strong Nuclear) has also remained constant. This is not currently accepted among cosmologists in general and has been shown in laboratory experiments to be false -- if there was a singularity origin of the Universe. Anyone can show that Electrostatic and Magnetic are different versions of the same force (Electro-Magnetic). The predicted conditions of an earlier Universe would have combined two more into just 3 forces (I'm not certain which -- I think it's Electro-Magnetic and Weak Nuclear). So the way the earlier Universe behaved was different than that of today's Universe.

To get to Lamme's (or your) stating that the carbon atom has never changed seems to indicate that you are unfamiliar with early cosmoligical models. At some very early stages of the Universe atoms themselves did not exist -- so the claim made is without meaning.

 

[Kiless]

Sorry, I was always taught and continue to believe the 'theory' argument, as Spacefluffer and Athon say (who are both scientists). As to the source of this post, I say write to Discover magazine and you might get an interesting debate started up.

 

[athon]

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.

Eos, evidence and facts are the same thing, in essence. They both support theories which are basically models which make the future more predictable. I think it gets confusing when we (once again) don't define our real meanings. Evolution in Iamme's sense is referring to the model which accounts for the biodiversity we see in today's living world. If you are referring to the 'fact' that an organism is born different to its parents is basically evolution...then it is a fact just as gravity is the 'fact' that masses attract one another.

A species' diversity is observable, but we use a model of evolution to explain it. Imagine it as a family tree; your ancestor's names and relationships can be defined as facts based on your research. The tree itself is a theory; a robust theory, but as it in itself is not an observation it is not ever going to be a fact.

As for Just Thinking's post; well done. The early universe is a good ground to argue that this universe resulted from an evolutionary pressure. The bias of matter to antimatter, for instance.

Athon

 

[Ziggurat]

That is to then say that from the Big Bang model the number of Forces (Gravitational - Electrostatic - Magnetic - Weak Nuclear - Strong Nuclear) has also remained constant. This is not currently accepted among cosmologists in general and has been shown in laboratory experiments to be false -- if there was a singularity origin of the Universe. Anyone can show that Electrostatic and Magnetic are different versions of the same force (Electro-Magnetic). The predicted conditions of an earlier Universe would have combined two more into just 3 forces (I'm not certain which -- I think it's Electro-Magnetic and Weak Nuclear). So the way the earlier Universe behaved was different than that of today's Universe.

I think you're misunderstanding this. This unification of forces isn't particular to the early universe, it happens whenever energy densities are high enough. You can get that with particle accelerators, which is how we test these theories. Assuming that the laws of physics have NOT evolved, then the high energy densities achieved in particle accelerators would also be present in the early universe, and so would have produced such "unification" of forces. But nothing in any of this gives ANY suggestion that the laws of nature actually changed at all.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Right - the forces themselves don't change, it's just that at our modest level of energy density they appear as distinct fields. This idea (asymptotic freedom) is widely believed but not fully experimentally established - the exception being the electromagnetic & weak unification (electroweak).

Originally posted by kiless
As to the source of this post, I say write to Discover magazine and you might get an interesting debate started up.

I totally disagree. This 'idea' doesn't make any sense in the context of current theory. If you want to argue that current theory should defer to this 'evolution idea', you'll have to provide compelling reasons as to why. I would also be interested in suggestions as to how we might measure the effect that you propose experimentally.

Feel free to run such ideas past us.

Originally posted by athon
The early universe is a good ground to argue that this universe resulted from an evolutionary pressure. The bias of matter to antimatter, for instance.

I'm not sure what you're saying here...why it is that the baryonic component of the universe consists of matter and not antimatter is not completely clear, though there are several promising theoretical ideas.

 

[insertnamehere6]

Long time lurker, here. Decided to finally post.

The Evolution of Atoms argument has been used as a "bait and switch" tactic in pro-Creationist circles for years. Been subjected to it numerous times. So when I see the original post, I get a little on guard. After reading lamme's other inane posts that exhibit a seemingly profound misunderstanding of some basic evolutionary ideas, I have to agree with cbish's post. Not that I think lamme's a complete troll, although other's on this board have seemingly broached the possibility. I think there's a bit of mockery involved in these topics. I'll gladly retract this statement with evidence to the contrary.


To get to Lamme's (or your) stating that the carbon atom has never changed seems to indicate that you are unfamiliar with early cosmoligical models. At some very early stages of the Universe atoms themselves did not exist -- so the claim made is without meaning. [/B][/QUOTE]

Just Thinking,

Your response is without meaning. You've definitely missed the humor of the post. Read cbish's post again. A little reading comprehension/retention goes a long way.

 

[athon]

I'm not sure what you're saying here...why it is that the baryonic component of the universe consists of matter and not antimatter is not completely clear, though there are several promising theoretical ideas.

Present biodiverdity is the result of systems in competition for identical resources either continuing or disappearing due to an inability to sustain that need that the resource provides for one reason or another.

For whatever reasons that we presently have matter and not antimatter, we know enough to know that one of those is dominant today. While they might not directly compete for resources to exist (at least now), there must have been some sort of selective pressures to bias one against the other.

I might be simply missing something obvious, but my main point is that reducing the rules we attribute to the evolution of life to just biology could mean we're missing a bigger picture.

Athon

 

[drkitten]

For whatever reasons that we presently have matter and not antimatter, we know enough to know that one of those is dominant today. While they might not directly compete for resources to exist (at least now), there must have been some sort of selective pressures to bias one against the other.

I might be simply missing something obvious.

You mean like the meaning of the phrase "selective pressure"?

When I light a match, there is a process that converts an object of mostly paper-like hydrocarbons to a combination of carbon dioxide, water, and almost pure carbon ash. But the process doesn't come from "selection pressure" in any meaningful sense.

Neither matter nor antimater "competes" for resources, nor does it "reproduce," and so to refer to "selection pressure" is at best an abuse of terminology and at worst a blatant lie.

 

[cbish]

Just Thinking,
I think you missed the point of my post. I was just trying to simplify Lamme's position. I didn't mean to imply that it was mine also.

 

[Just thinking]

I think you're misunderstanding this. This unification of forces isn't particular to the early universe, it happens whenever energy densities are high enough. Assuming that the laws of physics have NOT evolved, then the high energy densities achieved in particle accelerators would also be present in the early universe, and so would have produced such "unification" of forces. But nothing in any of this gives ANY suggestion that the laws of nature actually changed at all.

But to take that stand on defining whether something evolves or not would allow one to say that living organisms never evolved either -- even if one species over time became another. I'm sure that on the atomic/bio-chemical level all organisms today still follow the same basic laws they did 500 million years ago. So where do we draw the line? If at some point in the early universe there were only 3 basic forces and today there are 4, I would agrue that there has been an evolving process on some level. If at one time there were no atoms (because the conditions prohibited their existance) and today they are in abundance, I would again argue that the Universe has evolved. An early universe could not support life -- but the present day one can -- and perhaps a future one cannot (if it collapses in on itself). If this is not some form of evolving, then just what is?

 

[Just thinking]

Just Thinking,
I think you missed the point of my post. I was just trying to simplify Lamme's position. I didn't mean to imply that it was mine also.

I had a hunch that was the case, but I wasn't quite sure, so thank you for clearing that up. I just wanted to argue the point that some form of evolution has occured for the Universe.

 

[epepke]

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

There's a fact called evolution.

There is also a theory of evolution. Actually, there are several, but only one (broadly speaking) has survived the evidence.

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'?

This is an intriguing idea, but you are far from the first person to have suggested it. The problem is that, while there is abundant evidence that evolution in life is an ongoing process, the best evidence we have is that the fundamental properties of the universe are not changing. The clincher is a theorem by Emmy Noether, a 20th century mathematician, which relates symmetries to the basic conservation laws. Time symmetry, for example, is related to the conservation of energy. These are also related to the very existence and properties of some fundamental particles.

This hasn't stopped people from speculating, though it's usually done in fiction. David Brin wrote a short story in which black holes spawned off new universes with constants related to but varying slightly from the parent universe. This would lead to a universe as a unit of selection and would result in a preponderance of universes that were good at making black holes.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Cant agree more. I think "fact" is sometimes used in this forum in a defensive way, just to avoid be confused with a creationist!

 

[drkitten]

But to take that stand on defining whether something evolves or not would allow one to say that living organisms never evolved either -- even if one species over time became another. I'm sure that on the atomic/bio-chemical level all organisms today still follow the same basic laws they did 500 million years ago. So where do we draw the line?

All evolution is change, but not all change is evolution.

If an ice cube melts, is it "evolving"? Not according to any commonplace or traditional meaning of the word.

If at some point in the early universe there were only 3 basic forces and today there are 4, I would agrue that there has been an evolving process on some level.

So if I had a glass of ice earlier this morning, and now I have a glass of water, does this argue for "an evolving process on some level"? I would say not. I would say instead that it is the nature of water sometimes to be solid and sometimes to be liquid, depending upon external circumstances... and that nothing about the nature of water has changed. I can prove my point by putting the glass of water back in the freezer and reversing the "change," yielding ice. I can similarly generate enough energy in particle accelerators to observe electroweak unification. I can't, however, "undo" evolution in a similar easy way -- somehow start with a frog and produce a coelocanth. I'm as likely -- in fact, more likely -- to see a frog turn into a lizard as to see it reverse course and turn into a coelocanth.

 

[Just thinking]

So if I had a glass of ice earlier this morning, and now I have a glass of water, does this argue for "an evolving process on some level"? I would say not. I would say instead that it is the nature of water sometimes to be solid and sometimes to be liquid, depending upon external circumstances... and that nothing about the nature of water has changed.

I think we are losing sight of the original question put forth by this thread ... "Did the Universe Evolve?" To that question I would say yes ... If you asked "Did the Fundamental Properties of the Universe Evolve?" ... then I might have a different answer. Can the Universe go back to the state that it once was like water back to ice? That depends ... if to a singularity (if it will start to contract), yes. If to an ever expanding, colder whisp of nothingness (given that protons will decay), then no. And even if it contracts, the time during contraction will not necessarily be a reverse of the time during expansion -- thermodynamics may be totally different. What then about evolution? If the Universe is headed to either of these scenarios then it must be evolving, just as one generation evolves to the next if it becomes (in time) a different species. Not all steps in evolution are striking.

 

[drkitten]

I think we are losing sight of the original question put forth by this thread ... "Did the Universe Evolve?" To that question I would say yes ...

Then, sir, you would "say" incorrectly.

What meaning does the word "evolution" have to you that the question posted in the opening post could be answered "yes"? As I said before, not all change is "evolution."

 

[Ziggurat]

So where do we draw the line? If at some point in the early universe there were only 3 basic forces and today there are 4, I would agrue that there has been an evolving process on some level.

No, you don't get what I'm saying. It was NEVER the case that there were 3 forces before and now there are 4. The forces have ALWAYS been the same. The only difference is the energy density: there are STILL 3 forces, one of which splits into two seemingly different forces when the energy density is low, and become intertwined when the energy density is high. The forces themselves aren't undergoing ANY CHANGE AT ALL - the only change that has occured is the universe is now less dense. But as pointed out above, equating any change with evolution renders the word "evolution" meaningless.

 

[Just thinking]

Then, sir, you would "say" incorrectly.

What meaning does the word "evolution" have to you that the question posted in the opening post could be answered "yes"?

Here is the full definition from the web page I linked to in an earlier post of mine ...

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

I feel that the changing Universe behaves in accordance to definitions (1) - (2a) - (2c1) - (6).

Also, if one accepts that a portion of the Universe has evolved, then it can be said that the Universe is evolving. That portion being the Earth. If we consider two planets, one that can support life and one that can not, and believe that one somehow became the other, then why can it not be said that it has evolved into the other -- surely you don't believe that Earth can somehow revert back to its primordial past, do you?

 

[Ziggurat]

What you're arguing, Just thinking, is that the world "evolution"can include the changes that have occured in the universe. Given a sufficient definition of the word, yes, you are correct, but it's also rather beside the point. Let me refer you back to what got this thread started, namely, Iamme's speculation:

"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."

This is the sense in which he means "evolution", which parallels biological evolution of species. And in THIS sense, it's more than just a bit of a stretch, everything we know indicates that it's absurd and wrong.

 

[drkitten]

If we consider two planets, one that can support life and one that can not, and believe that one somehow became the other, then why can it not be said that it has evolved into the other

Because, while all evolution is change, not all change is evolution.

If last month I was in Hamburg, while today I am in Munich, why can it not be said that I took the train from Hamburg to Munich? Because the process by which I got from one city to the other was not by taking the train. I may have driven, taken a commercial plane, flown by private plane, or taken a bus. I may have had a friend drive me, or I may have walked. I may even have bicycled, or gone by helicopter, or perhaps tunnelled through the earth like an escaping prisoner, or teleported myself using advanced technology that you are not allowed to know that I have.

Similarly, the process by which the earth became able to support life was not evolution. The process by which a glass of ice melted was not evolution. The process by which the electroweak force separated into the electromagnetic and weak forces was not evolution. The process by which the visible universe became dominated by matter as opposed to antimatter was not evolution.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it. Evolution is a kind of process. The kind of processes by which the universe as we know it got here, and most if not all of the non-biological aspects of this universe, were not evolutionary.