A question concerning Evolution

While I was studying Evolution, I have had one pressing question that has always bothered me, and I was wondering if some of you could clear it up. The question is this: from where did the first substance come? I have read many theories on how the first life form came into being, yet how did whatever formed that life form come to be? From where did the first atoms come? They could not have been always there, because they are bound by time, and time presumes a beginning to things (such as the first life form). If anyone has an answer to this question it would be most helpful. Thanks, Soracilla.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

It's hard to tell whether you're asking about the origin of matter or the origin of life.--PercyAdded by edit: after a 2nd reading I think you're asking about cosmic origins. I'll move this topic.[This message has been edited by Percy, 01-16-2004]

Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

If you go back far enough to the beginnings, it appears that the universe and all that is in it came into being at a particular point in time called the Big Bang.How that came about nobody knows. Our current physcial laws only work to within a fraction of a second after Big Bang, and so we cannot as yet say anything meaningful about the universe before that, including the origin. It may be that any physical law that we ever come up with will always be limited to some fraction of a second after Big Bang, so we may never know how the universe, and all that is in it, came to be. Or, we may derive physical laws that allows us to say what happened right up to Big Bang, but because all of our experiments must be done at finite temperatures and densities, we will never be able to truly test the theories validity to the Big Bang. Plus, although the physical laws may tell us what happened immediately after Big Bang, they may give no clue as to the actual origin "event".So, we don't know. We may never know. Or, we may know someday.

While your question is a intersting one you should realize that Evolution does not in anyway attempt to explain where life/matter came from. Evolution is about how life evolved AFTER it was created.

Chiroptera has given you a part of the answer to your question. From about 10 to the minus 40th of second after the big bang the physics is reasonably well understood.If you want an explanation of what unfolded from there a pretty old (couple of decades) book is still not a bad coverage of "The First Three Minutes". It covers, of course, the first 3 minutes of the universe.Basically everything starts with an enormous amount of energy in a ver concentrated state. (A "quark soup" ?). Since energy can be transformed into matter as the whole thing spread out with the expanstion of space it cooled and single atomic particles were able to "freeze" out.As it cooled further and further atoms were able to form but only hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%) with a very slight pinch of some other elements.This still isn't enough "substance" to make the earth and us is it?Nope, over a small number of billions of years the first stars formed, went through their life cycle and some died as supernova. In a supernova heavier elements are formed.From the debris of these titanic explosions came the oxygen, iron, thorium etc. etc. that make up the earth and us. That is where the "substance" came from.Where did the original energey come from? A quantum fluctuation? A collision of "branes"? I don't know.

---

Common sense isn't

When you really stop and think about it, is there all that much difference between the degree of bizarreness, or maybe it's the degree to which you would have to stretch your imagination, required for a simple human to envision and then totally accept one the following [or something else equally as bizarre]:1) There is a single creator-entity who is able to single-handedly manufacture each and every minute detail of every single object in the entire universe; and then actually has the time and the inclination to reveal himself and even carry on conversations with a select few individuals from one selected species on a sinle planet from among the billions of galaxies.2) There is a vast pantheon of creator gods and subordinate worker/influence gods who together have manufactured each and every single object in the entire universe, and then have continuously occupied, influenced, abandoned, defiled, and otherwise fiddled with both the animate and inanimate entities occupying the universe.3) Every single thing in this vast, infinite universe was contained within an infinitely small point which exploded into being, rapidly expanded, cooled, and evolved into the entirety of all things; and which even after cooling to a point that life could evolve, now is even more rapidly expanding rather than contracting.4) Everything we see is an illusionary veil which will be lifted when we transcend into the reality of Ohm.The last of the four seems simplest to accept. Peace.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-16-2004][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-16-2004][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-16-2004]

You bet!All bizarre as hell and new speculations seem to go even further.The only ones which will survive are those which lead to something that can be tested.

---

Common sense isn't

I supposed my question is a bit more on the philosophical side of the spectrum. That is to say, if we are bound by time and bound to a beginning, there must have been a point when there was nothing. For if you think about it, it could not have been there always, as I said before, for that rejects the laws of time (things must have a beginning and end). It is simply incomprehensible for things to have always existed and then one day, life was born. Quite a paradox to be sure, and difficult to describe, but if you think about it, I believe you'd agree with me. So I suppose my question that is bothering me is this: can something come ex nihilo (out of nothing) unless someone or something made it, from any standpoint (scientific or philosophical)? And help on this dilemma of mine would be quite welcome. Thanks again, Soracilla.

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Have you ever made something out of nothing? Have you ever seen anyone do it, or heard of anyone doing it? I sure haven't. Why then do you think it takes somebody doing something to get something out of nothing, given that we've never seen anyone be able to do it?If you can get something out of nothing, the last process I'd suspect of being capable of it would be intelligent action.

Generally, philosophical thoughts have to have some, occasional reference to reality before we should treat them too seriously, if we are using them to pretend to describe that reality. Maybe. The current ideas in cosmology is that time and space originated with the big bang. It is the expansion of space-time that is what is "banging". An expansion from a zero sized point at zero time. But in this context what is nothing? What "law" is this? Who said things can't exist without a beginning and end? Some new speculations about p-branes assume that a space of something like 11 dimensions has always exists and always will and "branes" (membranes" move through it. Hang on! You made an odd jumpt there. First it is no more incomprehensible that "things" have always existed than that they came into being from nothing. They are both tought to grasp and tougher to do lab experiments on but they can both be comprehended by some about equally I'd say.
Second, where did the "life was born" phrase pop in there. This is not particularly incomprehensible at all. While we can't do the steps yet there is lots of work that suggests pretty strongly what kind of things could have happened. It is not all that hard to comprehend at all. Certainly not as difficult as universes bashing into each other in an 11 dimensional space. This has already been discussed. If the ex nihilo is hard to comprehend why does it get easier to comprehend someone there making it happen? And, in any case, all you've done is move the problem. Now you have to ask where did this someone or something come from? It has to have a beginning according to you. Your other choice is to use the assumtion of the "p-braners" ( ), that whatever always existed.

---

Common sense isn't

Actually this is not a reply, rebuttal, or argument.Just a question.Does "time" require motion?If there is no motion, is there no time?Prior to the Bang, was there motion in the proto-universe?

That was most helpful. I'm still a bit perplexed as to how the Big Bang created time and space and other dimensions, still its a good thought to ponder. Cheers, Soracilla

---

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

Careful! You ask questions as if I'm some sort of expert on this. Be warned, I've read some but not an expert. However, I do know that this question, in the conventional big bang model isn't a valid question. There was no "prior". The big bang IS time zero. In the regular view there was no proto-universe and no time.In the new, speculative brane idea there was, as I understand it, motion through a higher dimensional space. And, I think, time, an infinite amount of time.I don't think there is anything productive to be gained by speculating from our position of ignorance about an idea which is itself pretty speculative.However, you should note that the brane idea does suggest some unlikely possibility of being testible sometime. The same test as the multiple universe idea. That is, gravity might cross the boundaries. I sure don't know how likely it is to be testable and until it is it is just fun mental exercise (I was going to use another word).

---

Common sense isn't

Perplexed! Yea me too.However, the big bang didn't "create" time and space it is the intial creation of them. It is just time and space initiating that is the bang. It is perplexing but remember there is no explosion in any kind of sense we usually use the word.The other dimensions (in one view) are taken as having always been there. If they are tested in anyway and appear to be there or the model produces useful ways to think about things then someone may start to ask about the possibility of it having a beginning. Darned if I know how that question would be answered.But think back, say a couple of centuries or so. Would anyone then have guessed we could discuss the nature of the universe at 10 ** -40 of a second and look at it 13.7 billion years ago? If they speculated about such a thing having happened they would have thrown up their hands of ever having experimental verification.

---

Common sense isn't