Evolution applies to everything

[too-open-minded]

How the most basics elements and atomic structures were created, i do not know; but from that point on they continued to advance and become more complex.

Eventually forming hot stars, then collapsing once elements like iron start to form within the star. Sending new elements whizzing across the vastness of space

These elements combine from hot clouds of dust to form balls of rock and metals. Eventually these balls start to cool down and an atmosphere starts to form of new elements from the gasses being excreted from this huge hot rock.

Soon the atmosphere is thick and the rock has cooled down and the environment is perfect for life, this is where things really get complex and single celled organisms appear, but I'm sure you have heard everything about evolution after this.

The point i am trying to make is that evolution doesn't start with organic life. Evolution starts at the atomic, maybe even subatomic, or maybe even some more insignificant level than that.

Evolution is not something that applies to us living things, evolution applies to everything and is a law of this physical world.

I personally believe we are just highly evolved matter and energy, and that is how we gained consciousness. Through evolution.

 

[Rav]

The theory of evolution is about how life evolved on this planet. Therefore the theory of evolution does indeed begin with organic life. Ideas about how life may have emerged from nonliving organic matter, and how organic matter emerged from inorganic matter, do not fall within it's purview. The production of chemical elements inside the nuclear furnace of a star does not fall within it's purview either.

We owe our existence to stars that went supernova and spat out the building blocks of life, yes. But the principles concerning the production of such are not the same principles that are in play in biological evolution.

 

[sigurdV]

How the most basics elements and atomic structures were created, i do not know; but from that point on they continued to advance and become more complex.

Is it really basic constituents that are evolving?

Eventually forming hot stars, then collapsing once elements like iron start to form within the star. Sending new elements whizzing across the vastness of space

The new elements consist of the same basic constituents as before.

These elements combine from hot clouds of dust to form balls of rock and metals. Eventually these balls start to cool down and an atmosphere starts to form of new elements from the gasses being excreted from this huge hot rock.

Hey! I think you go through the situation too fast!

Soon the atmosphere is thick and the rock has cooled down and the environment is perfect for life, this is where things really get complex and single celled organisms appear, but I'm sure you have heard everything about evolution after this.

Your story is probably wrong here!

The point i am trying to make is that evolution doesn't start with organic life. Evolution starts at the atomic, maybe even subatomic, or maybe even some more insignificant level than that.

Your question of what objects evolution works on is a good one!

Evolution is not something that applies to us living things, evolution applies to everything and is a law of this physical world.

I believe there is a missing "only" after the fifth word.

I personally believe we are just highly evolved matter and energy, and that is how we gained consciousness. Through evolution.

Sorry but this is not very informative! I like your basic question and I have no intention of bashing you further, so lets go on.

 

[sigurdV]

The theory of evolution is about how life evolved on this planet.

Darwin intended his theory to be general so any place where there is life in natural conditions his theory applies.

Therefore the theory of evolution does indeed begin with organic life. Ideas about how life may have emerged from nonliving organic matter, and how organic matter emerged from inorganic matter, do not fall within it's purview.

Correct: Evolution as Darwin concieved it is about living objects in natural conditions.

The production of chemical elements inside the nuclear furnace of a star does not fall within it's purview either.

The inside of a star IS a natural environment but theres nothing resembling a living object there.

We owe our existence to stars that went supernova and spat out the building blocks of life, yes.
But the principles concerning the production of such are not the same principles that are in play in biological evolution.

There has been attempts to EXTEND Darwins theory by interpreting the definitions of "living object" and "natural environment" differently.
Dawkins theory of the "Evolution of Memes" is a successful example.

A friendly interpretation of the question too-open-minded raises is (I think):
Is it possible to extend the theory of evolution to include everything?

 

[DaveC426913]

Things do evolve. The state of a hot cup of cocoa left alone on counter will evolve into a cooler state.

But this meaning of the word is a very general one. In this meaning, it simply means change - of any sort.

The Theory of evolution is different. It is a specific definition of evolve, where an original state is copied (duplicated) from a recipe inherent in the original. Stars do not make copies of themselves.

 

[sigurdV]

As soon as Earh was cool enough there was cellular life on it!
The time there was to produce life frome some natural conditions is short.
I havent the exact figure here at hand but...say...some few millions of years!

It seems more difficult to create singular life from the start
than to evolve complex life from cellular life...Right?

Then WHY did this second step take several BILLION years?

Any comments?

 

[Tero]

What rav said. Cosmic Debriz is another matter.
http://youtu.be/Mm9RqatOby0

 

[Buddha12]

DaveC426913

Stars do not make copies of themselves.

How do stars form? They start as gas and dust. Gradually over millions of years these clouds of gas and dust are pulled into a ball by the force of gravity. The pressure of the gas increases, and when the core gets extremely hot, nuclear reaction begins. The hydrogen becomes helium and the star begins to shine. A new star is born.

WIKI

 

[sigurdV]

How do stars form? They start as gas and dust. Gradually over millions of years these clouds of gas and dust are pulled into a ball by the force of gravity. The pressure of the gas increases, and when the core gets extremely hot, nuclear reaction begins. The hydrogen becomes helium and the star begins to shine. A new star is born.

WIKI

So stars are the dustclouds way to reproduce themselves?
They have evolved in a sense already: The first dustclouds did not contain heavy elements now they do...
One may wonder what the next step in their "evolution" will be?

But shouldnt there be some natural selection working on the offspring of dustclouds?

Survival of the fittest dustcloud

 

[Buddha12]

So stars are the dustclouds way to reproduce themselves?
They have evolved in a sense already: The first dustclouds did not contain heavy elements now they do...
One may wonder what the next step in their "evolution" will be?

But they all are made the same exact way, every star is made up of hydrogen and helium and they are sometimes larger or smaller but still have the same material that makes them what they are. They do not evolve into something different each time a star forms is what I'm pointing out to you.

 

[sigurdV]

That aint so!
Only the first stars were made out of hydrogen and helium only!
Next generation of stars contained heavier atoms like oxygen and coal!

But note that I really dont claim this extension of Darwinism will work, I am only checking it out for fun

Also: If we see that the extension doesnt work then that is because we find a vital ingredience in evolution missing in the extension, which means we must have a good understanding of the original theory of evolution to spot the difference. (this is educational I think)

 

[Buddha12]

That aint so!
Only the first stars were made out of hydrogen and helium!

You'd better do some research about that statement because you'll find out you're wrong.

 

[sigurdV]

You'd better do some research about that statement because you'll find out you're wrong.

Couldnt you tell me instead?
In big bang not many heavier atoms than hydrogen and helium were produced... Im told... and certainly not uranium!

Then the first stars did not contain uranium but later stars did...
How do you explain that? Is there no difference between a star containing uranium and a star that does not?

I would appreciate if you tried arguments (or proof) rather than well wishing predictions like:"you'll find out you're wrong"!

You DO know the difference dont you?

(But its true I forgot the word "only" at the end of my statement.)

 

[DaveC426913]

That aint so!
Only the first stars were made out of hydrogen and helium only!
Next generation of stars contained heavier atoms like oxygen and coal!

You'd better do some research about that statement because you'll find out you're wrong.

No, sigurdV is pretty much bang-on. Our best theories indicate that the first stars in our universe were Population III, and they were pretty much entirely H and He.

Read up on them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_III_stars

 

[DaveC426913]

How do stars form? They start as gas and dust. Gradually over millions of years these clouds of gas and dust are pulled into a ball by the force of gravity. The pressure of the gas increases, and when the core gets extremely hot, nuclear reaction begins. The hydrogen becomes helium and the star begins to shine. A new star is born.

WIKI

Yes. And there is no question that things change and processes even repeat due to the laws of physics. But as I said, there are two uses of the word evolution being used here.

Stars do not contain the recipes to make another star. That is the definition of evolution that is being used when we tlak about life evolving.

The formation of a star is an emergent property of the physics and chemistry inherent in how an atom behaves.

That is fundamentally not the same as an organized structure that contains within itself the instructions for making another one of itself.

In short: a star does not have any "baby stars" within it, or proto-stars or blueprints for making another star.

It is fun to say a new star is "born", but you must remember that the use of the word born is a metaphor.

 

[too-open-minded]

SigardV this is replying to your first post, notice i put my replies between { and }

Is it really basic constituents that are evolving?
{personally i think so, I believe that CMBR is immensely small primitive particles still cooling down.}
“
Originally Posted by too-open-minded
Eventually forming hot stars, then collapsing once elements like iron start to form within the star. Sending new elements whizzing across the vastness of space
”
The new elements consist of the same basic constituents as before.
{well i kind of think whether its matter, dark matter, quarks, its all going to be the same thing at one point.

“
Originally Posted by too-open-minded
These elements combine from hot clouds of dust to form balls of rock and metals. Eventually these balls start to cool down and an atmosphere starts to form of new elements from the gasses being excreted from this huge hot rock.
”
Hey! I think you go through the situation too fast!
{Lol okay im sorry for leaving out the part about organisms like bacteria and plants producing most of the atmosphere, Although volcanoes did start it}

“
Originally Posted by too-open-minded
Soon the atmosphere is thick and the rock has cooled down and the environment is perfect for life, this is where things really get complex and single celled organisms appear, but I'm sure you have heard everything about evolution after this.
”
Your story is probably wrong here!
{were going to get things wrong before we get them right}
“
Originally Posted by too-open-minded
The point i am trying to make is that evolution doesn't start with organic life. Evolution starts at the atomic, maybe even subatomic, or maybe even some more insignificant level than that.
”
Your question of what objects evolution works on is a good one!

“
Originally Posted by too-open-minded
Evolution is not something that applies to us living things, evolution applies to everything and is a law of this physical world.
”
I believe there is a missing "only" after the fifth word.
{ I dropped out of highschool in my senior year and never took any classes besides remedial ones. My writing isn't going to be that of an english majors}
“
Originally Posted by too-open-minded
I personally believe we are just highly evolved matter and energy, and that is how we gained consciousness. Through evolution.
”
Sorry but this is not very informative! I like your basic question and I have no intention of bashing you further, so lets go on.

{Well i have a hard time explaining something i don't understand. I would hope so, nobody likes to be belittled}

 

[sigurdV]

What we know is that life has shown up in and probably has its origin in the stellar cloud that became our solar system!

Theres no proof that Earth was the origin of cellular life!

When I say that to somebody I expect him to say: So you think it came from Mars?

My answer is that life is older than the planets!

I suspect it came from what came to be our sun!
Or perhaps somewhere closer to what became Mercury.

If life had become resistant against radiation damage
it would surely also be resistant to mutations in general
so when it came to Earth it felt no hurry to mutate into complex forms.
See #6

 

[too-open-minded]

Okay i can respect that view, Actually sounds plausible.
But if life can develop in the deep reaches of space whats to say it cant develop on earth from inorganic materials?

 

[sigurdV]

Okay i can respect that view, Actually sounds plausible.
But if life can develop in the deep reaches of space whats to say it cant develop on earth from inorganic materials?

It could have! BUT!

1 In the beginning of the stellar cloud there was lots of water in frozen blocks of varying sizes.
2 Stellar clouds are known to contan amino acids...the building blocks of life.
3 We find them coated on objects (comets) coming from the Oort Cloud (outer solar system)
4 In some places close to the sun and Mercury the conditions were just right:
Temperature above 0 celcius and a certain pressure (too low pressure and frozen ice turns directly into gas)
5 So drops of water containing amino acids formed in a volume able to contain a zillion earths!!!

So what was the probability for life to form? Compare it to ONE small earth!
And on earth water is in oceans, NOT in uncountably many small and stable drops
containing the building blocks of life and being hit by radiation to mix the acids!

PS the reason i didnt want to "bash" you further was that you tried to get at the truth,
raised a good question and fell in the same trap as everybody else but me fell in.

Thats to say: Not being able to see the difference between empty space and a stellar cloud becoming a solar system!

 

[DaveC426913]

If life had become resistant against radiation damage
it would surely also be resistant to mutations in general

That would be unfortunate, since it would spell the end of life.

The first fundamental element of evolution is the ability for a thing to make a copy of itself.
The second fundamental element of evolution is that the copying must be potentially imperfect.

Mutation is a critical element of evolution. No mutation, no evolution. No evolution, no ability to adapt when its environment changes. No adaptation means extinction.

For example, if it had evolved in the gas cloud that formed our solar system, it would not have been able to adapt to Earth.