Is there any definate proof that the big bang happened?

[Ross PK81]

Is there any definate proof that the universe started off smaller than an atom?

Somehow there's something which doesn't seem quite true about it.

[antoniseb]

Is there any definate proof that the universe started off smaller than an atom?
No, there is no definite proof.
Current observations strongly suggest it, but we really don't know much about the pre-inflation period.

[Cougar]

Somehow there's something which doesn't seem quite true about it.
Somehow, that statement doesn't seem to be founded on very scientific principles. :eh:

[Ross PK81]

Somehow, that statement doesn't seem to be founded on very scientific principles. :eh:

I never said it was. What's your point?

[Noclevername]

Is there any definate proof that the universe started off smaller than an atom?

Somehow there's something which doesn't seem quite true about it.

Big Bang Theory is not equivalent to "smaller than an atom". That's just one possible corollary hypothesis.

[Ken G]

I never said it was. What's your point?
Don't get us wrong, we're all just as incredulous as you are that the observable universe could have been so much smaller early on, some of us have just been with the idea long enough to make the journey from incredulity through amazement to acceptance. But what I believe Cougar is doing is he is bouncing the question back to you: what makes good science? In other words, is science good when it has what Steven Colbert would call "truthiness", or is it good when it follows its own rules and axioms to achieve a useful result? The Big Bang model does the latter, and that's all it was ever asked to do. If it does not achieve truthiness in the process, maybe that's no great loss. I'm not being facetious here, this is very much the core issue of science: do we try to make our science in the image of what seems "truthy" to us, or do we use science as a means of telling us what the truth is? Until one understands the way scientists answer that, none of their findings can be properly appreciated.

[Ross PK81]

I was just expressing my feelings saying that something didn't quite seem right about it. I never stated it as a fact or that how I felt was more worthy than any scientific facts.

[Ken G]

I guess the question we are asking, though, is: what significance do you attach to the fact that it doesn't seem quite right to you? You have to realize the context is that there are large groups of people who attach great significance to that fact. Now, we all find it terribly surprising, perhaps even a bit unnerving-- though the alternatives may also be viewed as unnerving in their own way as well. But the tenor of your remark was easily interpreted as saying "I'm skeptical because it doesn't seem truthy". We should all be skeptical as a matter of course, but we've learned to let go of the standard of truthiness when addressing science, as that inverts the more useful direction of the flow of the information. The evidence is extremely good that the universe has expanded a mind-bending amount in the last 14 or so billion years, amazing though that is.

[Noclevername]

Is there any definate proof that the universe started off smaller than an atom?

Somehow there's something which doesn't seem quite true about it.

Well, maybe it'll help to think of it this way; all mass has gravity, and the more mass in one place, the more gravity, and the more it's squeezed together by its own weight. Hence things like black holes and neutron stars are much smaller than a star of equivalent mass. The weight of all the mass in the entire Universe, billions of galaxies, in one place must have been immense; certainly enough to compact it down very, very small.

[Hornblower]

Let me add that although it is amazing that the contents of the observable universe might have been in a volume smaller than a present day atom, I see no reason a priori to assume that such a state of compression is impossible. For all we know, any "stuff" might be compressible into volumes that approach zero, with the density increasing without limit, if enough pressure can be applied.

[Noclevername]

And the smaller it gets, the more of the mass's overall gravity each part is exposed to.

[MentalAvenger]

The proof is that there is an echo from the Big Bang. It is in Bb, 128 octaves down.

[NickW]

The proof is that there is an echo from the Big Bang. It is in Bb, 128 octaves down.

Is that the strange hum I get in my ears sometimes? :dance:

[Neverfly]

I understand where Ross PK81 is coming from here.

The prospect sounds absurd.

And a skeptical person's first reaction is to look quizzically at the absurd and say, "What?"

Until a person is educated in the evidence, their mind will want to reject what sounds like Fluff.

[Tensor]

Is there any definate proof that the universe started off smaller than an atom?

I think Ken nailed part of this when he asked you about what makes good science. You have to remember, that nothing in current science has a definite proof. That includes Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, Germ theory, etc. What you have in each of the sciences is our current best theory that matches our observations, whether or not it seems true. Something could come along tomorrow and falsify any of our theories.


Somehow there's something which doesn't seem quite true about it.

If you go through the evidence for the big bang, see how it contrains what the observations should look like and see how those observations match what is actually observed, you may have a different take. Now, are there some observations that don't match, sure. Are there other observations it can't currently explain, yep. But, if you go through observation by observation and compare them with other possible cosmologies, you will find that the big bang does the best job of explaining all the observations. That doesn't in any way guarantee that the big bang is right, just that is the best current explanation.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Is there any definate proof that the universe...
Proofs only exist in mathematics. There is no definite proof of anything in science. You can never be sure that the laws of the universe won't be different tomorrow, that your measurements weren't flawed, etc. What counts as established science is an explanation that is more successful than any alternative known. Such an should make predictions that are different from those of alternative explanations.

Scientific theories of history are somewhat problematic, because you can't go and do it again. But the theory of the big bang makes strong predictions about what the universe will contain, which is capable of being contradicted by what we actually observe. The finite speed of light means that we can look at the early universe with a powerful telescope, which helps. But the very early universe is opaque, so if we look far enough we'll eventually come to a "fog-bank" beyond which we won't be able to see.


Somehow there's something which doesn't seem quite true about it.
Would you care to explain what that "something" is, and how it seems not to be true, ie, conflicts with knowledge? "I'm vaguely uncomfortable with it" doesn't cut much ice, I'm afraid.

There are of course serious problems with physics on a cosmological scale. "Dark energy" = "our theories of the fundamental forces of the universe fail to account for what appears to be about 70% of the mass/energy in the universe". That's rather a big shortfall. A solution to this will surely lead to a reappraisal of our theories of the early universe.

[astromark]

Good science is slow and difficult. The answer might sound odd. The truth we all except is that we do not know with absolute certainty that the Big Bang started with just a singularity. But given the point of view that we have and the information so far received it seems to best explain the Universe we now see. 14 billion years is a very long time and a very big Universe is continuing to accelerate as it expands into infinity. If you have a different idea we have a page for that... Alt Therie's...
I understand your doubt and I too felt some agitation regarding red shift and accelerating expansion... I got over it.:)

[Ross PK81]

Thanks Hornblower and Neverfly.

[ArgoNavis]

I understand where Ross PK81 is coming from here.

The prospect sounds absurd.

And a skeptical person's first reaction is to look quizzically at the absurd and say, "What?"

Until a person is educated in the evidence, their mind will want to reject what sounds like Fluff.

I recently read the bio of Fred Hoyle. He just could never accept, probably at an emotional level, the Big Bang and the fact that the Universe has a beginning and probably and end. However the Big Bang Theory rests on several almost irrefutable pillars of evidence:

1. cosmological redshift - the fainter the galaxy, the higer the redshift, implying greater speeds of recession for galaxies further away; this is confirmed by other distance markers on the cosmic distance ladder. There is no other intrepretation for the redshift/distance/expansion relationship. It is not tenuous and it has not been falsified. You are invited to provide evidence of this "falsification" from the peer reviewed literature.

2. The observed ratio of hydrogen to helium (75:25) in the Universe is consistent with a big bang nucleosynthesis. This was worked out by Gamow et al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis).

3. the cosmic background radiation at 2.7 degrees K, exactly matching predictions of a black body cooling from the primeaval fireball. This evidence killed the Steady State Theory back in the 1960's. This powerful evidence is everywhere you look, and has been throughly investigated by COBE and WMAP.

4. In the deep Universe, galaxies appear younger, or at least how you would expect young galaxies to look. The fainter the galaxy, the more young stars constitute its population, the more warped and distorted it appears due to tidal interactions with other galaxies in a smaller universe. (see Hubble ultra deep field http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/1996/01/

5. Finally, the big one, the irrefutable darkness of the night sky. No other cosmology explains why the sky is dark at night. Either the universe is finite, and had a definite beginning not too long ago, or there is lots of gas and dust out there that have yet to turn into stars and light up the night sky - this too implies a finite age. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers_paradox)

6. Also Einstein predicted the expansion of the Universe in his field equations, but stuffed it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_big_blunder)

Whilst nothing is 100% certain in science, this one comes close.

[Neverfly]

For me, it isn't an emotional thing. Beginnings and ends I am used to.

It's just that, until you have gone over all the observations and evidence, it simply sounds absurd.

If I tell you I saw an alien taking a whiz behind a bush, and he jumped in his Spaceman Spiff style flying saucer and took off, it would sound absurd. You might even feel compelled to look at me rather quizzically. Assuming that you did not believe me that is.

Now if I managed to jump up and grab the landing gear and pull his craft back down and drag him home and lock him in the basement and the craft in the garage and bring you (gasp, wheeze... run on...sentence..must go...on..) over where you can observe him and maybe do some tests, you might find it less of an effort to look at me funny. And let me out of the straight jacket.

The Big Bang is like that. It sounds absurd.
When I read the OP, I didn't take it to mean he finds it impossible or doubts the theory- he just is skeptical of something that sounds very ridiculous.
Frankly, I feel the same way about it and I'm sure so do a great many people, including the physicists that came up with it.

We can discuss the observations and their significance which I think would be the best course of action.

Of course, plenty of goofy things have happened in nature.

[NEOWatcher]

...When I read the OP, I didn't take it to mean he finds it impossible or doubts the theory- he just is skeptical of something that sounds very ridiculous...
I took it that way too, but I also think that the wording is not the best either.
It left a big opening that sounds like being skeptical that thousands of scientists all over the world are coming up with something so absurd.

I don't know how to quantify it myself, but every time I attempt to think about it, I just think Einstein. Maybe you can't compress all that matter into such a small space, but we are talking about sub-atomic, and conversion of mass and energy. Big Bang conditions started with tremendous energy, therefore there wasn't as much (if any) mass.

[Neverfly]

I took it that way too, but I also think that the wording is not the best either.
It left a big opening that sounds like being skeptical that thousands of scientists all over the world are coming up with something so absurd.

I don't know how to quantify it myself, but every time I attempt to think about it, I just think Einstein. Maybe you can't compress all that matter into such a small space, but we are talking about sub-atomic, and conversion of mass and energy. Big Bang conditions started with tremendous energy, therefore there wasn't as much (if any) mass.

Or maybe our Universe is just a Zit that Swoll up and popped.

[CodeSlinger]

Of course, plenty of goofy things have happened in nature.

Exactly. The problem is that our common sense is derived from our experience of things at the human scale. It just doesn't work as a good measure of how likely something is if one goes up or down in scale.

[Disinfo Agent]

I think what we have here, when people say that the Big Bang theory (or parts of it) don't seem true to them, is that they're using their intuition to make a judgement. But scientists have learned, through sometimes traumatic experience, that while unpolished intuition is a good starting point in the quest to understand the world, it is not the only, the best, or the definitive criterion. You have to let the data speak for themselves as much as possible.

I would also rephrase slightly something that Tensor wrote, even though I agree with everything he's said here.


You have to remember, that nothing in current science has a definite proof. That includes Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, Germ theory, etc. What you have in each of the sciences is our current best theory that matches our observations, whether or not it seems true. Adopting a scientific frame of mind means surrendering ourselves to the principle that our current best theory that matches the observations is precisely what seems true -- regardless of what our intuitions might otherwise tell us.

[Ross PK81]

I'd like to add that I do think the scientists could easily be right about this. There's no way that I think they're all wrong or anything. However, that doesn't change how the idea comes across to me.

It also doesn't mean they're definatley right and the way it comes across to me is definatley wrong either.

Anyway, what the hell are we all debating about? This is just silly.

[NEOWatcher]

Anyway, what the hell are we all debating about?
Different methods of mind reading. ;)

[Ross PK81]

Lol. Took me a few seconds to get that one.

[Neverfly]

Lol. Took me a few seconds to get that one.

Well, you two are rather far from eachother- gotta allow time for the signal to travel.

[Ross PK81]

Lol.

[idav]

There is no proof that the Big Bang happened. There is nothing that we can reference as irrefutable truth. A lot of creationists are confused by this concept and thus cannot make the distinction between science and religion. They contend, "well if there is no proof then aren't your scientific explanations based on faith just like our religious presuppositions?" The answer is no, because the science isn't about the ultimate answer. It's about trying to find ultimate answers and being humble enough to recognize that we will never actually get there. I can't even prove that I'm sitting on this chair but the fact that I'm located above it and in between it and the earth is strong evidence to support such a claim.

This is somewhat of a digression depending on how well you understand me: I read a book called Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales. The book is an examination of why we make the choices we do and how they impact survival. A reoccurring point in his books is that our brains have evolved a very specific risk versus reward system that we use to judge situations we find ourselves in. This is a system of multiple different parts of our brain. We source other forms of deterministic judgment from these same systems. More to the point, all humans only operate on the best information they are receiving. The catch and the difference between a creationist any myself is which information we choose to ignore.

[Ken G]

But it seems to me the flaw in using survival-based thinking to analyze any individual's decisionmaking is that if this really were the heart of it, then why would you and someone else apply different criterion to decide what information to ignore? In other words, I find fault in an argument that the way decisions are made is based purely on survival, but the choice of information to use is individual. Simply put, choosing which information to use is a decision, so one cannot argue that you and the other person are applying the same process to different information-- if the process were the same, so would be the chosen information. Are your situations vis a vis survival really so different? No, I think the vagaries of individual human thought are very far from being understood from a purely survival standpoint for that individual-- at some point, brain function transcends the process that made it a survival advantage. Indeed, the human brain's evolved makeup has not changed appreciably in thousands of years, yet the environment we encounter is vastly different, including the very invention of the scientific approach. I think a more forceful argument may be made that a population survives better when its individual brains are capable of coming up with very different conclusions from the same information, which is kind of the opposite of saying that decisions are made on an individual basis based on survival issues. Put succinctly, it seems far more reasonable that what we would call moden decision-making about issues like creationism and evolution (rather than on what to eat for dinner) is something that Stephen J. Gould would have termed an evolutionary "spandrel".

[Disinfo Agent]

I think it's reasonable to accept that a lot in our thought processes has been shaped by evolution and is there because it's been useful as a survival skill, but I believe there is also a lot of "noise" around that basic template -- you know, Darwin's random variation between individuals.

Also, the fact that our thinking patterns have been geared to survival in the savanna, or wherever it is we came from, does not guarantee that they will be equally suited for understanding the wider universe -- or even for living in a modern industrialised society!

[idav]

Well that's the point I was making. We are uncovering knowledge at a rate that is hard to keep up with. More so for some than others.

[Noclevername]

With so many people I know who act in blatantly self-destructive ways, I have some trouble with the survival-based assumptions myself. I know when I smoked a pack-a-day in college, calling them "cancer sticks" and "coffin nails", I was not thinking of survival; and, sure enough, I almost died as a result.

[idav]

But it seems to me the flaw in using survival-based thinking to analyze any individual's decisionmaking is that if this really were the heart of it, then why would you and someone else apply different criterion to decide what information to ignore? In other words, I find fault in an argument that the way decisions are made is based purely on survival, but the choice of information to use is individual. Simply put, choosing which information to use is a decision, so one cannot argue that you and the other person are applying the same process to different information-- if the process were the same, so would be the chosen information. Are your situations vis a vis survival really so different? No, I think the vagaries of individual human thought are very far from being understood from a purely survival standpoint for that individual-- at some point, brain function transcends the process that made it a survival advantage. Indeed, the human brain's evolved makeup has not changed appreciably in thousands of years, yet the environment we encounter is vastly different, including the very invention of the scientific approach. I think a more forceful argument may be made that a population survives better when its individual brains are capable of coming up with very different conclusions from the same information, which is kind of the opposite of saying that decisions are made on an individual basis based on survival issues. Put succinctly, it seems far more reasonable that what we would call moden decision-making about issues like creationism and evolution (rather than on what to eat for dinner) is something that Stephen J. Gould would have termed an evolutionary "spandrel".

I suppose I've been trained to use my brain better than others. If we are still talking about the difference between creationists and freethinkers then they are trained to believe, usually from birth, that there is an ultimate truth to reality. All of it is God's plan. I see this as intended to trump the basic systems our brain can grow to use and apply to current real world situations such as contemplating the beginnings of the universe. The irony of this is that it could be viewed as a conscious choice to improve as a species (base morality and life on religion) rather than a rationalized observation of causality which leads to the conclusion that morality behooves us all. It's kind of a paradox when looked at in certain ways.

I'm not sure I follow the rest of your post. But if I do then the answer to your contention is that while it is still a decision, religion is a decision that is not based on the manifestation of survivalistc infrastructure but one of indoctrination. I've never met someone that's rationally come to the conclusion of Christianity.

[idav]

With so many people I know who act in blatantly self-destructive ways, I have some trouble with the survival-based assumptions myself. I know when I smoked a pack-a-day in college, calling them "cancer sticks" and "coffin nails", I was not thinking of survival; and, sure enough, I almost died as a result.

Well you're kind of weighing my speculations (which by the way they are just that) on the idea that smoking cigarettes is something we've evolved to deal with. Keep in mind that we don't actually use our brains in the same way as what caused them to become what they are. (<- damn that sounds confusing!) An excellent example of that is a story in Deep Survival about a Rail Road businessman that was demonstrating the utility that Steam Powered engines could provide. He was standing and in front of it and got ran over. It wasn't a matter of absentmindedness or stupidity. Humans, on the whole just weren't used to dealing with those calculations of speed. Today we look both ways and cross the street with ease. It wasn't always so.

[Disinfo Agent]

I think a more forceful argument may be made that a population survives better when its individual brains are capable of coming up with very different conclusions from the same information, which is kind of the opposite of saying that decisions are made on an individual basis based on survival issues.This is an excellent point. "Two heads think better than one" -- but not if they're all exact copies of each other. Besides, we are social beings, and life in a society requires some amount of specialisation.

[Noclevername]

Keep in mind that we don't actually use our brains in the same way as what caused them to become what they are. (<- damn that sounds confusing!) I think I understand it. I think. But doing things that way voids our warranty. ;)


Today we look both ways and cross the street with ease. It wasn't always so.

And it isn't always so today, either. I've known a lot of people with frequent non-survival behaviors. Including some who didn't. I've done things myself that I now cringe thinking about. Fortunately I stopped before one of those wagers with the Reaper payed off.

[Ross PK81]

With so many people I know who act in blatantly self-destructive ways, I have some trouble with the survival-based assumptions myself. I know when I smoked a pack-a-day in college, calling them "cancer sticks" and "coffin nails", I was not thinking of survival; and, sure enough, I almost died as a result.

Sorry to hear that. I used to smoke too but gave up because it's just not worth the things that can happen to you later in life, plus for some weird reason I was starting to not enjoy them as much anymore.

[Ken G]

I suppose I've been trained to use my brain better than others.Yes, right away we see the importance of training. So that's not something that fits into a simple equation of "my mind works in the way that best helps me survive", just look at the training suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots receive. The decision-making process is vastly complex and involves way more than can be analyzed with a direct survival argument. If we are still talking about the difference between creationists
I see this as intended to trump the basic systems our brain can grow to use and apply to current real world situations such as contemplating the beginnings of the universe.Perhaps it is, but even so, such "trumping" is again outside a simple decision=survival paradigm. Others might just say it is an alternative approach to such contemplations, I won't take a side.

The irony of this is that it could be viewed as a conscious choice to improve as a species (base morality and life on religion) rather than a rationalized observation of causality which leads to the conclusion that morality behooves us all. It's kind of a paradox when looked at in certain ways.I agree, cognition is positively rife with self-generating paradoxes. It all seems to stem from the way thought can build on itself. Some eastern religions believe that the best thinking can be done in front of a "blank wall"-- fully self-referential thought.

I'm not sure I follow the rest of your post. But if I do then the answer to your contention is that while it is still a decision, religion is a decision that is not based on the manifestation of survivalistc infrastructure but one of indoctrination. I say nothing about the decision of religion, as that is outside the scope of this forum, I just say that modern decision-making related to what information to use or ignore has become something so different from the evolutionary pressures that created our brains, I see little value in using survival-based models to analyze the complex decisions made by modern humans (expect the basic animal-like decisions we still make all the time). It might even be correct (I'm not a biologist) to suggest that our brains and our decision-making capabilities were handed to us by an evolutionary process that never even included advanced language. In short, that we are easy to indoctrinate may be an evolutionary result, but what we are indoctrinated into is not, and the two are pretty unrelated.

[John Mendenhall]

The catch and the difference between a creationist and myself is which information we choose to ignore.



And who has the better approach for day to day living on Earth? Very thought provoking. Maybe there's a clue here for why strict creationists have such a head in the sand attitude.

[Ken G]

I know when I smoked a pack-a-day in college, calling them "cancer sticks" and "coffin nails", I was not thinking of survival; and, sure enough, I almost died as a result.
Glad you didn't! And yes, I think this is another good example of what Gould might call a "spandrel"-- a kind of unforeseen side effect of some level of mental evolution that had survival advantages when it evolved, but left some unusual residuals when confronted with modern choices.

[Ken G]

"Two heads think better than one" -- but not if they're all exact copies of each other. Besides, we are social beings, and life in a society requires some amount of specialisation.Yes, I think there has been a spectacular explosion of intellectual advancement on a timescale that is nothing but an instant when looked evolutionarily, and that is the limitation of using evolution to consider modern decisionmaking. The fact that so few animals evolved to be as intelligent as we did suggests that it's not all about survival advantage-- much of our capabilities could just be an evolutionary accident that we have taken to an entirely new level quite recently in the evolutionary scheme. But the reason we got here might be a vestige of the survival advantages of being able to learn from each other, which led eventually to the spandrel of "indoctrination", and the advantages of being able to build on and transform past successes, which led eventually to the spandrel of "science".

[Bearded One]

The Big Bang is like that. It sounds absurd.
When I read the OP, I didn't take it to mean he finds it impossible or doubts the theory- he just is skeptical of something that sounds very ridiculous.
I still remember when I first came upon the big bang theory. I was about 12 or so and was reading a book that I think was written by George Gamow. The name escapes me at the moment though. Hmmm "One, Two, Three... Infinity"? This was early 70s and my access to scientific books and literature was limited. Many of the books I was able to find were written in the 40s-60s so my knowledge was a bit dated.

There was a section on the origins of the Universe and it presented the then two leading theories, big bang and steady state. It presented both theories up front with a little graphic. I took one look at the big bang side and immediately thought: "That's the stupidest idea ever" :D

My first reaction was complete and total rejection. I'm not really sure why I had that reaction, but I did. Eventually, facts and reason moved me to the big bang side. Now the steady state theory seems impossible.

The steady state concept was pleasing to the mind, soul if you wish. Even Einstein was hampered by a predilection for a steady state Universe. However; even if we limit ourselves to rather simple observations, we are forced to conclude that the Universe is not stable in it's present form.

- Gravity is a purely attractive force and until rather recently was considered the most significant force over large distances. Given enough time everything was going to crunch together someday unless something was working to oppose it. The new fangled dark energy does oppose it, but it does not balance it. We are still most likely doomed to either infinite expansion or ultimate collapse.

- Stars fuse hydrogen into progressively larger elements. Few things reduce those elements back down again in large amounts. So we end up with more and more heavier elements in the Universe. Eventually we run out of free hydrogen to make new stars. Fred Hoyle proposed the creation of free hydrogen in the empty spaces, but that doesn't really solve the problem.

- Our Earth is aging, it's not the same as it was millions or billions of years ago as shown by the geologic record. It will continue to change. The changes in the Sun will be far more significant though. It's gonna cook us someday!

The above points do not support the big bang theory, but they did help break my fondness for an eternal and (on a macroscopic level) unchanging Universe.

Note:

Normally one woulldn't argue a scientific theory by atacking the other side, that's a creationist tactic. In this case though, I do suspect there is a bias in many people against the big bang theory, I felt it myself. Truth is that the Universe does change over time, we observe that in many ways. Once you accept that it it easier to consider theories like the big bang model.

[alainprice]

I never had a problem with Big Bang theory, knowing it goes hand in hand with inflation and nucleosynthesis(or nucleogenesis). Who's to say you have to cram all matter seen today into a tiny ball? Just replace the matter with energy and you're done.

[FriedPhoton]

Yes, I think there has been a spectacular explosion of intellectual advancement on a timescale that is nothing but an instant when looked evolutionarily, and that is the limitation of using evolution to consider modern decisionmaking. The fact that so few animals evolved to be as intelligent as we did suggests that it's not all about survival advantage-- much of our capabilities could just be an evolutionary accident that we have taken to an entirely new level quite recently in the evolutionary scheme. But the reason we got here might be a vestige of the survival advantages of being able to learn from each other, which led eventually to the spandrel of "indoctrination", and the advantages of being able to build on and transform past successes, which led eventually to the spandrel of "science".

There has been a spectacular explosion of intellectual development and people often mistake the evolution of our knowledge and ability to retain that knowledge as human evolution. Richard Dawkin's has built up an entire philosophy on the matter where he discusses culturally relevant bits of information he calls "memes".

Memes are passed on from generation to generation but they are not encoded in our genes. Our ability to store and transmit larger amounts of information faster will lead to more spectacular leaps in the combined knowledge of the human race even though since the beginning of history we haven't had time to evolve noticeably. Through the refinement/filtering and improvement of the memes we are advancing rapidly, but we certainly are not evolving in step with that knowledge.

We will probably begin to evolve at a more rapid pace once we have total control over bioengineering and robotics, and can then deliberately modify ourselves, but I'm fairly convinced that evolution no longer matters where the human race is concerned. We will self-modify, not evolve. Once we are self-modifying, we will then be the products of intelligent design and evolutionists will be derided as being old-fashioned, slow, and quite stupid compared to modified humans.

So, if you are an evolutionist, get with the program and jump on the intelligent design bandwagon along with me.

[Noclevername]

We will probably begin to evolve at a more rapid pace once we have total control over bioengineering and robotics, and can then deliberately modify ourselves, but I'm fairly convinced that evolution no longer matters where the human race is concerned. We will self-modify, not evolve. Once we are self-modifying, we will then be the products of intelligent design and evolutionists will be derided as being old-fashioned, slow, and quite stupid compared to modified humans.


There's a few misconceptions there; We are evolving. We never stopped. We evolve as long as we reproduce; every species does.

While I'm sure humans will modify themselves in all kinds of strange and wonderful-- and sometimes horrible --ways, I sure wouldn't want someone calling me "stupid" or "slow" just because I share the same geneotype as Da Vinci or Einstein. Equally distasteful is the idea of two or more branches of mods each thinking they're the only right path for humans to self-evolve.

Predjudice is not an advanced trait.

[FriedPhoton]

Predjudice is not an advanced trait.

Well, that is unless you are an evolutionist discussing creationists right?

I'm not picking sides here, I have my own opinions and I doubt either side would like them, but I hear the absolute dumbest things called "evolution" by people who are very intelligent but subscribe to a blind faith. I'm not lumping all evolutionists in one bucket, or all creationists, but there are those who don't even care if they are right, so long as their viewpoint opposes the other side. In science circles, prejudice is quite ok if the viewpoint is anti-creationist. You can get away with saying almost anything about a creationist, and you can say almost anything is "evolution". Creationists have their god and evolutionists have their god. The only difference is evolutionists are blind to their faith, and creationists are blindly faithful.


There's a few misconceptions there; We are evolving. We never stopped. We evolve as long as we reproduce; every species does.

I would say the misconception is that reproduction is the equivalent of evolution. It isn't. At best it is natural selection and there is a huge difference. Ninety percent of the time that people use the word evolution they mean natural selection. Merely breeding does not ensure the random changes in genetic code required for evolution, however, breeding is ALWAYS natural selection.

[Noclevername]

Well, that is unless you are an evolutionist discussing creationists right?


No, it isn't . Saying their facts are wrong is not predjudice. Saying that they ignore evidence is not predjudice.


I'm not lumping all evolutionists in one bucket, or all creationists,
but there are those who don't even care if they are right, so long as their viewpoint opposes the other side.Yes, there are idiots all over. Not really relevant.


In science circles, prejudice is quite ok if the viewpoint is anti-creationist. Really? Can you suppert that statement with some evidence? It's "quite okay?" And how many individuals in a "science circle"?


You can get away with saying almost anything about a creationist, and you can say almost anything is "evolution" Actually, evolution is the passing on of genes that permit survival of a species. What other definitions have you heard from "science circles"?


Creationists have their god and evolutionists have their god. So making observations and analyzing evidence is a "god"?


The only difference is evolutionists are blind to their faith, and creationists are blindly faithful.
No, the difference is that some people question and test to determine what the facts are, and others take things on faith. And that's true whether the beliefs are in evolution, gods, or Zeta Reticulans.

And so much for you not lumping together "evolutionists" or "creationists". You just did.


I would say the misconception is that reproduction is the equivalent of evolution. It isn't. At best it is natural selection and there is a huge difference. Ninety percent of the time that people use the word evolution they mean natural selection. Merely breeding does not ensure the random changes in genetic code required for evolution, however, breeding is ALWAYS natural selection. We pass on our genes. That determines what the next generation's DNA will be. Define it however you want. Random mutations happen whether a species uses them or discards them, we don't need to "ensure" them.

[Bearded One]

I hear the absolute dumbest things called "evolution" by people who are very intelligent but subscribe to a blind faith.That I will agree with. Many people have an incomplete understanding of evolution and that can lead to some weird claims. People may be intelligent in some fields but that does not make them knowledgeable in others. There are also people who are just looking for a cause, they tap into whatever is convenient at the time.

[FriedPhoton]

Really? Can you suppert that statement with some evidence? It's "quite okay?" And how many individuals in a "science circle"?

I hear and read nasty comments all the time. I believe I've even seen several in this forum. I'm not going to go digging around for them just to prove a point because it wouldn't matter one bit if I did. There are a certain percentage of people on both sides of the fence who get nasty. I just find it disturbing that the ones who are supposed to be "enlightened" and advanced in their thinking will bother stooping to that level as often as they do.


Actually, evolution is the passing on of genes that permit survival of a species. What other definitions have you heard from "science circles"?

What you have just described includes de-evolution. Or is there no such thing?


So making observations and analyzing evidence is a "god"?

Illogical argument. I never mentioned scientific method, never equated it with a god, you are twisting my words. (Which I entirely expected would happen.)


No, the difference is that some people question and test to determine what the facts are, and others take things on faith. And that's true whether the beliefs are in evolution, gods, or Zeta Reticulans.

So you are saying all creationists are kool-aid drinking lunatics? (Just wanted to let you know how it feels. See above if confused.)



And so much for you not lumping together "evolutionists" or "creationists". You just did.

You're right, I did... and you freakin' cracked me up with that observation.


Going back to this quote:

Actually, evolution is the passing on of genes that permit survival of a species. What other definitions have you heard from "science circles"?

I looked up evolution on Wikipedia and it seems your definition matches the definition there, which is different than what I learned back in the stone ages. The term has been expanded a bit. Either that or I never understood it in the first place (although I believe the former is the more true statement). I stand corrected and will listen with a newly educated ear.

However, my observations of the behaviors and comments I've mentioned remains unaltered. It bothers me to hear those things because it seems they are spoken by people with elitist mentalities and that way of thinking leads to people getting hurt. I'm opposed to it, and vocal about it, for that reason.

[Noclevername]

I hear and read nasty comments all the time. I believe I've even seen several in this forum. I'm not going to go digging around for them just to prove a point because it wouldn't matter one bit if I did. There are a certain percentage of people on both sides of the fence who get nasty. I just find it disturbing that the ones who are supposed to be "enlightened" and advanced in their thinking will bother stooping to that level as often as they do.
Well, I'm an "evolutionist" as you described it, that is, an indiviual who believes the evidence gathered supports biological evolution. But I don't think of myself as "advanced" or particularly "enlightened". Sure, there are jerks who think they know it all. They don't represent everyone in science circles. Any more than those who would have Bible stories taught in science class represent all Christians.




What you have just described includes de-evolution. Or is there no such thing?

Nope. Evolution is adaptation. If that means bringing back Classic Genes to survive, then that's what you get.



Illogical argument. I never mentioned scientific method, never equated it with a god, you are twisting my words. (Which I entirely expected would happen.)

You said "evolutionists have their god." Since the theory of evolution is derived from scientific evidence, then yes, you implied it rather strongly.


So you are saying all creationists are kool-aid drinking lunatics? (Just wanted to let you know how it feels. See above if confused.)


It makes me feel nothing, as your "interpretation" has nothing to do with what I wrote. And frankly, it's not a mature response, either.


You're right, I did... and you freakin' cracked me up with that observation.
See? We can agree on some things ;)


I looked up evolution on Wikipedia and it seems your definition matches the definition there, which is different than what I learned back in the stone ages. The term has been expanded a bit. Either that or I never understood it in the first place (although I believe the former is the more true statement). I stand corrected and will listen with a newly educated ear.

However, my observations of the behaviors and comments I've mentioned remains unaltered. It bothers me to hear those things because it seems they are spoken by people with elitist mentalities and that way of thinking leads to people getting hurt. I'm opposed to it, and vocal about it, for that reason.


Unfortunately, you're right, it's an easy trap to fall into when dealing with those who don't know, don't want to know, and worse, want no one else to know. I'm guilty of looking down on them myself sometimes. But the real scientists, the real "enlightened" evolutionists, are the ones who admit that everyone's ignorant, and there's always more to learn.

[Ken G]

So, if you are an evolutionist, get with the program and jump on the intelligent design bandwagon along with me.
I see what you are saying here, and I agree that if one is to use evolutionary theory to address decision-making, it is more a theory of the survival of memes (which is currently lacking) rather than of human survival. Note that most people use "evolution" and "intelligent design" as backward-looking concepts to be applied to our history, so may miss that here you are using them in a forward-looking sense applied to our future. You may be right that we find ourselves at the cusp of these two models, as applied to changes in humanity, that's an interesting point. Nevertheless, the usefulness of intelligent design approaches going forward in no way supports their use looking backward-- for we now have a mechanism that was not in place previously, and it is unscientific to invoke miracles.

Creationists have their god and evolutionists have their god. The only difference is evolutionists are blind to their faith, and creationists are blindly faithful.It is quite false to characterize that as the "only difference"-- there are several other very significant differences. The main difference is that, when applied looking backward at our origins, one comes from science and the other does not (that's pretty obvious, frankly). You seem unaware that "intelligent design" as it is normally used does not refer to human intelligence. Furthermore, many scientists are quite careful to notice the things they have chosen to have faith in, based on evidence and track record, and they can also be 'evolutionists' looking backward at human development. You seem to imply that "evolutionism" stems only from a single flawed train of thought involving losing track of one's assumptions, an argument I find lacking support. That many who adopt evolutionism may have lost track of some of their assumptions is a secondary matter to that issue.
There are a certain percentage of people on both sides of the fence who get nasty. I just find it disturbing that the ones who are supposed to be "enlightened" and advanced in their thinking will bother stooping to that level as often as they do.
I agree, and find that disturbing as well. Note this observation is not support for your claims about the "only difference" between those vastly different evolutionary models.

[FriedPhoton]

Note that most people use "evolution" and "intelligent design" as backward-looking concepts to be applied to our history, so may miss that here you are using them in a forward-looking sense applied to our future.

Yes, I think that the terminology and the emotional responses it has is interesting. I find it ironic that our future development will be more through intelligent design rather than evolution.


You seem unaware that "intelligent design" as it is normally used does not refer to human intelligence.

I am perfectly aware of the origin of the term. However, it applies equally well to humans designing humans.


It is quite false to characterize that as the "only difference"-- there are several other very significant differences.

You are right, I should have worded that differently. One has to be very careful about semantics around here because people grasp at the smallest flaws rather than the actual point you have made. It makes carrying on a discussion difficult sometimes because you have to either word things exactly or qualify the things you do not. And it isn't because people don't understand what you mean, they just, for some reason, prefer to point out semantic flaws that are less relevant to the discussion.


That many who adopt evolutionism may have lost track of some of their assumptions is a secondary matter to that issue.I agree, and find that disturbing as well.

That, really is the point. Most people take it on faith, argue it based upon that faith, and some are unreasonable about it (perhaps because they know they can't come up with a good argument because they don't know enough about it).

Throughout some of my messages above I should have been more careful in my wording. I am not opposed to science or scientific method. I believe I was perceived as being so. It may be my wording, which would be my own fault. I love science and I'd be hard-pressed to think of any major branch of science that I do not find deeply interesting. One of the reasons I absolutely love AstronomyCast is because it takes a very complex topic which would take me years that I don't have to learn and distills it down and helps me understand concepts that I find wonderful. I can only hope that other sciences develop programs that make their subjects equally accessible.

[antoniseb]

...I find it ironic that our future development will be more through intelligent design rather than evolution. ...
An interesting thought, but way off topic.

[idav]

There's a few misconceptions there; We are evolving. We never stopped. We evolve as long as we reproduce; every species does.

While I'm sure humans will modify themselves in all kinds of strange and wonderful-- and sometimes horrible --ways, I sure wouldn't want someone calling me "stupid" or "slow" just because I share the same geneotype as Da Vinci or Einstein. Equally distasteful is the idea of two or more branches of mods each thinking they're the only right path for humans to self-evolve.

Predjudice is not an advanced trait.
Hrm, I'm not sure. I debate this with myself frequently actually. How would you define our evolutionary status? We reproduce so obviously there will be genetic variations born. But I think it's extremely apparent that the processes of natural selection are very different than conventional evolutionary models. You might go as far as to say that it just plain and simply doesn't exist anymore. A fat man that would otherwise be unable to survive our evolutionary upbringing thrives. A blind person that would be at the mercy of predators and unable to hunt exists unthreated. And yet both still have the opportunity and in fact do reproduce. The model of evolution becomes extremely hard to understand when applied to the current day human race.

I see where friedphoton is going with his suggestions. I believe soon we will be self-modifying ourselves to an extent that surpasses the grip of evolution. It's honestly a scary thought to consider. I harbor an unflinching disrespect for the term intelligent design though, so as accurate as that term might be, my immaturity gets the best of me and I will refuse to use it. Otherwise the meme of our knowledge generation is in danger of confusing the two meanings. I'd hate to read a history book 3,000 years from now and read, "Well it turns out the ID people were right." simply because of a loss of language and context!

[closetgeek]

It's not so much the theory that seems absurd. It's just not knowing which parts are observationally or mathematically supported. As I have said before, it seems like common sense; if obsevation says that the universe is expanding than in the past it was smaller. When you get into the more detailed aspects of the theory, those of us who who are not formally educated in Cosmology wonder what is assumption. For instance, one form of the theory is that all the energy of our universe today was present at the point of singularity. Is that based on the first law of thermodynamics? Everything I have read explains that once you get to the point of singularity all known laws seem to break down which leaves me wondering if that singularity is an assumption.


For me, it isn't an emotional thing. Beginnings and ends I am used to.

It's just that, until you have gone over all the observations and evidence, it simply sounds absurd.

If I tell you I saw an alien taking a whiz behind a bush, and he jumped in his Spaceman Spiff style flying saucer and took off, it would sound absurd. You might even feel compelled to look at me rather quizzically. Assuming that you did not believe me that is.

Now if I managed to jump up and grab the landing gear and pull his craft back down and drag him home and lock him in the basement and the craft in the garage and bring you (gasp, wheeze... run on...sentence..must go...on..) over where you can observe him and maybe do some tests, you might find it less of an effort to look at me funny. And let me out of the straight jacket.

The Big Bang is like that. It sounds absurd.
When I read the OP, I didn't take it to mean he finds it impossible or doubts the theory- he just is skeptical of something that sounds very ridiculous.
Frankly, I feel the same way about it and I'm sure so do a great many people, including the physicists that came up with it.

We can discuss the observations and their significance which I think would be the best course of action.

Of course, plenty of goofy things have happened in nature.

[Neverfly]

Hrm, I'm not sure. I debate this with myself frequently actually. How would you define our evolutionary status? We reproduce so obviously there will be genetic variations born. But I think it's extremely apparent that the processes of natural selection are very different than conventional evolutionary models. You might go as far as to say that it just plain and simply doesn't exist anymore. A fat man that would otherwise be unable to survive our evolutionary upbringing thrives. A blind person that would be at the mercy of predators and unable to hunt exists unthreated. And yet both still have the opportunity and in fact do reproduce. The model of evolution becomes extremely hard to understand when applied to the current day human race.

A stark reality that humanity is going to have to contend with some day. We are seriously doing our gene pool a disservice with our touchy feely love everybody beliefs.

I know I sound like Doodler at the moment but it's just simply true.


I see where friedphoton is going with his suggestions. I believe soon we will be self-modifying ourselves to an extent that surpasses the grip of evolution. It's honestly a scary thought to consider. I harbor an unflinching disrespect for the term intelligent design though, so as accurate as that term might be, my immaturity gets the best of me and I will refuse to use it. Otherwise the meme of our knowledge generation is in danger of confusing the two meanings. I'd hate to read a history book 3,000 years from now and read, "Well it turns out the ID people were right." simply because of a loss of language and context!
I reacted and refrained from posting a reply to it as well.
But then, I also find genetic screwing with of our genes as appalling as the aforementioned problem. Sadly, it may be the only fix to the mess of ourselves we are currently making. I'll be long dead by then anyway having helped the worms evolve. Or at least survive a little while.

[Neverfly]

It's not so much the theory that seems absurd. It's just not knowing which parts are observationally or mathematically supported. As I have said before, it seems like common sense; if obsevation says that the universe is expanding than in the past it was smaller. When you get into the more detailed aspects of the theory, those of us who who are not formally educated in Cosmology wonder what is assumption. For instance, one form of the theory is that all the energy of our universe today was present at the point of singularity. Is that based on the first law of thermodynamics? Everything I have read explains that once you get to the point of singularity all known laws seem to break down which leaves me wondering if that singularity is an assumption.

Singularity is purely a mathematical expression. So beware of that for starters.

The laws stand pretty firm til that point so you can consider the assumptions to be at a minimum. That is part of why we do not have a good working theory about the time of the big bang itself- or before. Too many assumptions.
(Although Bogie seems to be playing with that currently in ATM:p)

[CodeSlinger]

How would you define our evolutionary status? We reproduce so obviously there will be genetic variations born. But I think it's extremely apparent that the processes of natural selection are very different than conventional evolutionary models. You might go as far as to say that it just plain and simply doesn't exist anymore. A fat man that would otherwise be unable to survive our evolutionary upbringing thrives. A blind person that would be at the mercy of predators and unable to hunt exists unthreated. And yet both still have the opportunity and in fact do reproduce. The model of evolution becomes extremely hard to understand when applied to the current day human race.


A stark reality that humanity is going to have to contend with some day. We are seriously doing our gene pool a disservice with our touchy feely love everybody beliefs.

I respectfully disagree. Natural selection just says that favorable traits tend to get passed down, and unfavorable traits tend to get weaned out. While it's true that certain traits that in past times were unfavorable are now preserved, it doesn't mean natural selection is dead. Natural selection is still alive and well, it's just that we have altered what constitutes favorable and unfavorable traits. And this change is not necessarily doing our gene pool a disservice. Think of it this way. Favorable traits that would otherwise have perished with the fat or blind (to use idav's examples) are now given a chance to flourish and develop. More people reproducing means greater genetic variety in our species, which is a Good Thing, as any farmer or biologist can tell you.

[Neverfly]

I respectfully disagree. Natural selection just says that favorable traits tend to get passed down, and unfavorable traits tend to get weaned out. While it's true that certain traits that in past times were unfavorable are now preserved, it doesn't mean natural selection is dead. Natural selection is still alive and well, it's just that we have altered what constitutes favorable and unfavorable traits. And this change is not necessarily doing our gene pool a disservice. Think of it this way. Favorable traits that would otherwise have perished with the fat or blind (to use idav's examples) are now given a chance to flourish and develop. More people reproducing means greater genetic variety in our species, which is a Good Thing, as any farmer or biologist can tell you.

I understand where you are coming from, however I think we will only end up straddling the fence.

It isn't just unfavorable traits or even tolerable traits- but also genetic defects and diseases.

Natural Selection IS currently alive with humanity- but not necessarily well.
Over enough time - at our current trend and left unchecked - it would prove rather disastrous.
Logically, it will not be left unchecked though.

[neilzero]

I'm not sure why we are typing about evolution as proof of the big bang, but it appears evolution is reversed for humans. Typically the less fit are born live, instead of stillbirth as a century or two ago. Even when our genes are a mess we have a shot at surviving long enough to help make a few babies. The most fit are typically deciding to have one or no children.
Disasters are about the only time when the more fit are more likely to survive to child bearing age, and we all hope disasters will be rare and affect few people. Neil

[CodeSlinger]

Genetic defects and diseases are only "bad" if we cannot deal with them. But the very fact that people who have them are now surviving long enough to reproduce means that medical science is starting to get a grip on how to deal with those things, and it's only getting better. So genetic defects and diseases aren't really as "bad" or detrimental to the gene pool as you think, and I don't think our trend is leading us to a disastrous place.

I think the idea that our modern way of life is hurting our fitness as a species stems from using the out-dated standards to judge said fitness. Can a modern human survive the life our ancient ancestors led? Probably not. Would many modern diseases prove fatal in the absence of modern medical science? Sure. But I would argue that it doesn't make sense to judge our fitness as a species by trying to measure us against the old "hunter-gatherer" way of life, because few of us live that way any more.

P.S. While typing out the above, I mis-typed "hunter-gatherer" as "hunger-gatherer". I've fixed it, but thought it sufficiently amusing to warrant a footnote :)

[Ken G]

Genetic defects and diseases are only "bad" if we cannot deal with them.Exactly, and it seems that some on here are using narrow understandings of what it means to be "fit". What counts as "fit" is environment-sensitive, and treating it like a value judgement is not only bad usage, it's monstrous when applied to people who are valuable and active members of society. For example, there are situations where being brutal and murderous, willing to rape and kill, are genetically "fit" results. I'll take the environmental modifications that allow blind people to flourish and sociopaths to waste in jail, any day, over prejudicial views of what being genetically "fit" means.

Indeed, I'd say that in the more general use of the term "fitness", such as "physical fitness", the issue that plagues our society has nothing to do with the absence of genetic selection pressures, it has to do with the rapid rate at which our environment has changed relative to the environment we evolved in. Smoking and obesity are obviously two great threats to modern physical fitness, and neither of those were any kind of factors in the processes that led to our gene pool. So addressing modern fitness does not mean "let the weak genomes die off like they used to", but rather, "influence our cultural environment in physically healthy ways rather than leave it to the vagaries of consumerism". But I verge on politics.


But I would argue that it doesn't make sense to judge our fitness as a species by trying to measure us against the old "hunter-gatherer" way of life, because few of us live that way any more.True, and our population is vastly greater as a result. Some might argue that economic collapse might force us to live as hunger-hunter-gatherers once again, but I suspect that if that ever was required, the necessary dramatic reduction in the Earth's population would serve to "weed out" the "unfit" without difficulty. And if it's true that we might evolve a gene pool that would leave us vulnerable to extinction if that ever happened, I hardly see us as worth preserving from extinction if our solution is to pre-emptively "weed out" those that are perfectly survivable in our modern society.

[Tim Thompson]

Amazing. Comments that actually address the original question, more or less.

As I have said before, it seems like common sense; if obsevation says that the universe is expanding then in the past it was smaller.
And that's how it all got started. Hubble observationally demonstrated the redshift-distance relationship in 1929 (Hubble, 1929 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1929PNAS...15..168H)), but Georges Le Maitre had already derived the expanding universe solution to Einstein's equations in 1927. The two fit together nicely, and nobody has come up with a better explanation since (despite that fact that Hubble himself never accepted it). It must always be remembered that Big Bang cosmology is derived from common sense, even though it leads to conclusions that seem to defy common sense.


It's not so much the theory that seems absurd. It's just not knowing which parts are observationally or mathematically supported. ... When you get into the more detailed aspects of the theory, those of us who who are not formally educated in Cosmology wonder what is assumption.
It is a fact of modern science that those without formal training will never be able to truly understand what the science is all about, with the possible exception of the rare genius. Big Bang cosmology may be rooted in common sense, but I assert that the single greatest lesson of 20th century physics is that the universe does not conform with common sense, when it is examined on scales of space & time which are far removed from the scales of our common sense experience.

We are used to dealing with the universe in an intuitive way, our intuition based on physical experience. But modern physics has replaced physical experience with mathematical experience, and our intuition is changed accordingly. Modern physicists gain depth of insight based on an intuition for the mathematical system, and not for the visibly physical system. Certainly that's the way it is in fundamental physics, and at the "cutting edge" of cosmological physics. Quantum mechanics & general relativity have no doorway to natural common sense. They are incomprehensible in the absence of an intuition for their mathematical structure.


Everything I have read explains that once you get to the point of singularity all known laws seem to break down which leaves me wondering if that singularity is an assumption.
So what is an "assumption"? If we provide a formal, mathematical proof, is that conclusion an "assumption"? The singularity at the beginning of the universe is a formal aspect of the mathematics of general relativity, the product of a formal proof which earned a PhD for Stephen Hawking. If we assume that general relativity is the final word, the One True Theory of spacetime, then we have in our hands a formal proof that the initial state of the universe is a singularity, which means a formal proof that the initial state of the universe cannot ever be known.

So the assumption is not the singularity, it is what the singularity means. We take it as a sign the the assumption that general relativity is the One True Theory is false, and needs to be replaced by a better assumption. So we assume that a better theory than general relativity can be derived, and we assume that quantum physics is the way to do it, based on the great successes of quantum physics in the 20th century. Hence, the quantum physical theories such as loop quantum gravity, string theory, and other attempts to create a quantum physical theory of gravity, or a quantum physical theory of everything. The assumption that this is the right way to do it may very well be wrong. The assumption that it can be done at all may very well be wrong. But can we ever know that the assumptions are wrong, or will we be lead to assume, after centuries of failure perhaps, that the assumptions are wrong?


For instance, one form of the theory is that all the energy of our universe today was present at the point of singularity. Is that based on the first law of thermodynamics?
Now we are talking serious assumption. Usually, it is based on the first law, but that's a flimsy excuse. After all, we assume that the laws of physics which animate the universe do not come into existence until the universe does, so how can they control the creation of the universe? Besides, we already know that general relativity does not globally conserve energy. Indeed, we don't really even know what "energy" is in any global sense applicable to general relativity, so we don't even know what is getting conserved.

So it is not the singularity that is an assumption, it is how we interpret the existence of a singularity. In the popular literature the complications are usually avoided altogether with some bland & confusing story of how the universe began as some sub-atomic sized pea, or whatever, and delivered in language that implies this is the origin of the universe in Big Bang cosmology. In reality, the origin of the universe is completely hidden from us in standard Big Bang cosmology, which is why lots of people are trying to find a non-standard theory of Big Bang cosmology to do the explaining with.

[Neverfly]

Tim Thompson,

It is a fact of modern science that those without formal training will never be able to truly understand what the science is all about, with the possible exception of the rare genius

You really hit the nail on the head with this one.
It should be the Banner for the ATM forum.

Codeslinger and Ken G,
Only time will really tell, but the technological manipulation of the genetic code is a two way street. The efficiency and speed of results is a plus, but the pitfalls are harrowing.
Learning about nature is one thing.
Trying to control it is another.

It may be a great benefit to humanity far down the line. Hopefully, if we have evolved a bit more rationality and intellect to be able to use it properly. At the going rate, I would figure it would be millenia yet.

[Ken G]

Only time will really tell, but the technological manipulation of the genetic code is a two way street. The efficiency and speed of results is a plus, but the pitfalls are harrowing.I completely argee with you here, and then I'll just let the thread get back on topic.

[CodeSlinger]

Only time will really tell, but the technological manipulation of the genetic code is a two way street. The efficiency and speed of results is a plus, but the pitfalls are harrowing.

I completely argee with you here, and then I'll just let the thread get back on topic.


Likewise :)

[Neverfly]

Yes, I know I was bad.

I had one paragraph on OP, one paragraph way off topic. Ugh.

I'm a rebel. It's in my genes.;)

[Ken G]

We're all partners in that crime.

[George]

I did like the "hunger gatherers" hiccup. :)

For me, it's all about degree. Whether it's evolutionary theory or BB theory, the degree of confidence that has arisen from careful scrutiny of the evidence says far too much than can be dismissed. The weight of these two theories now influence science significantly, as well as, have strong impact on philosophy and religion, but only in certain limited areas of conflict or support.

[folkhemmet]

Yes, we can be sure it occured beyond a reasonable doubt if by the term 'Big Bang' one means that the Universe has progressed in the following way:

From hot and dense to cold and more diffuse. Things were hot and close together at first. Structure in the beginning was less complex. Gravitational collapse took away some of the primordial simplicity over time. None of the above seems overly exotic even though many people are hostile to the idea.

How sure? Well, what do you think of someone who is skeptical of the notion that the earth is round and orbits the Sun? Most serious people would laugh such radical skeptics off. Skepticism has its place in life, but not to the extreme that it gets people so frustrated with the pursuit of knowledge that they throw in the towel and say "oh well, we will never know anything anyway; What's the point of investigating nature." What if people working on antibiotics and germ theory just fell back on radical skepticism and threw in the towel? Many of the people writing in this forum might never have existed and had the opportunity to poo-poo science and the Big Bang. It is hard to see how knowledge of the Universe's beginning and large scale structure will lead to human betterment, but what if, for example, in the far future some of our knowledge derived from cosmology allows us to escape some impending cosmic disaster. Then we would know if we were right along the lines of the guy in movies who has to choose between the different wires leading to a bomb.

Having said that, although enormous progress in terms of understanding our cosmic habitat has been made, many questions remain about the nature of events during the very earliest moments in the Universe's history. People who say cosmology is solved are delusionally optimistic; people who say that we know next to nothing about the Universe are rediculously pessimistic.

[Disinfo Agent]

Going back to the original question myself, perhaps it can be understood if you remember that, according to modern physics, atoms are made up mostly of empty space. The nucleus and the electrons are only a tiny fraction of an atom. And there's also considerable empty space between atoms and between molecules.

So the physical universe that we are used to, although it looks compact enough to us, is kind of "spongy". Matter can be much more compressed than the one we find around us. We know this from the formidable pressures we detect in the gas giants, or in the stars, or in neutron stars. The original conditions of the Big Bang require no more of us than taking this idea a little further.


Hrm, I'm not sure. I debate this with myself frequently actually. How would you define our evolutionary status? We reproduce so obviously there will be genetic variations born. But I think it's extremely apparent that the processes of natural selection are very different than conventional evolutionary models. You might go as far as to say that it just plain and simply doesn't exist anymore. A fat man that would otherwise be unable to survive our evolutionary upbringing thrives. A blind person that would be at the mercy of predators and unable to hunt exists unthreated. And yet both still have the opportunity and in fact do reproduce. The model of evolution becomes extremely hard to understand when applied to the current day human race.There were other threads about this subject in the forums:

The End of Evolution? (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/9651-end-evolution.html)
Evolution, Happening Now? (http://www.bautforum.com/life-space/27732-evolution-happening-now.html)
Recent Human Evolution (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/50588-recent-human-evolution.html) :)