StringJunky

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/02/14/of-lice-and-men-an-itchy-history/

The kind of search terms you want to use is 'microfilarial periodicity'. You could also add 'mechanism' to the search string. I found this:

We need rotating molten core components to generate the magnetosphere as well don't we? One would have to think how this might be generated in a hollow-sphere model to make it feasible.

But you need mutation first to make adaptation an available option. if the variety isn't there than adapting is not possible.

Stardust by John Gribbin on how the elements were formed is very good and cheap as a paperback. He's a very accessible writer,

I got this from that - uh-hum - "authoritative" resource Yahoo Answers ...because I like it! Deism is the idea that some kind of intelligence ("God") created the universe, yet chooses not to interfere with it or its inhabitants. That means that there are no answered prayers, no miracles, no revelations, etc. Additionally, the deist generally believes that while God created the universe, things like the Big Bang, evolution, etc actually occurred, and God just got the ball rolling. The theist on the other hand believes that God is an active participant in the world, answers prayers, talks to people, sends divinations, etc., and literally created the world in some way instead of just getting it started. On the bright side, It's better you are a deist because you aren't arguing with post-Big Bang science.

Religious - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: How do your thoughts or beliefs differ from this definition?

But your proposed cause is some sort of purpose-driven consciousness. Evolution, in inorganic or living systems, emerged through a combination of chance and the chemical/physical properties inherent in the interacting materials so why should it be different before the big bang? Just because scientists are currently ignorant of the mechanisms prior to it doesn't mean that you or anyone should invoke some supernatural phenomena or entity.

Evolution is not teleological so "why?'" becomes moot.

The simplest explanation, I think, is that the universe always existed and I don't think it was necessary for time as we know it - because it probably had certain pre-requisites - to have always existed, so the idea of 'a beginning' can become moot. This is one way to avoid the infinite-regression problem which the OP's solution arouses.. Prior to the BB, I think it unlikely it just popped into existence at the behest of some supernatural consciousness. I'll give you that you aren't being religious but it is supernatural which is in the same realm of potential scientific validity i.e. none. I don't pretend to know the answer and I'm sure a lot on these boards has been down the same sort of thought-paths as you are expressing here at some point in their lives but in the realm of these scientific boards we must think soberly in the light of available evidence. What you are doing, in essence, is filling-in where science can't yet touch with a supernatural explanation or entity ...the God-of-the-gaps.

However you cut it you are invoking a creator which is no different from a god ...you are just not attributing that entity to a prescribed religion. You have your personal 'religion'.

Pressure is a function of the frequency of collisions on a surface so containment is not a requirement

It didn't accumulate at a point, it was always everywhere but just closer together. Understand first that which you are trying to criticise.

This one's striking and quite a species jump:

What characteristics should a pathogen have to maximise global infection and ultimately the most fatalities? I ask so I can compare those parameters with that of the Ebola virus. I think the incubation period is 2 to 21 days ...this is too short isn't it?

They are simulations based on available data.

The scale of your example far too small to show the homogenous nature of the large-scale universe or lack of it in the way it is being explained to you ...you need an expanse of a few hundred million light years to start to see the uniform filamentous - cobwebby - nature of the universe. When I look at that picture I linked to it tells me that the physics is very likely the same everywhere. Here's the universe across 1 billion light years and we are in the centre in Virgo: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/superc.html At 14 billion: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

It's the only horse in the race methinks.

The point of the picture was to illustrate visually for you what 'homogenous' means. It's structure - at a sufficient sample size - is basically uniform. Nature is indeed unexpected - scientists continually find anomalies that put spanners in their theories - but in the end they get do closer to modelling reality and this is what is happening ...they are happy with that.

There won't be fossils available for every stage of evolution in all organisms for the simple fact that their structures weren't amenable to the fossilization process, or some other method of natural preservation, for reasons such as having no hard structures to concentrate minerals on/in to create an impression of their -past form. The prevailing and future geological make up of the terrain where they lived and ultimately perished also determined if they were preserved or not. Lots of factors were against preserving specimens.

To add to what's been said: If you could zoom out and look at the universe on a big enough scale it would look like this: http://www.universetoday.com/81813/astronomy-without-a-telescope-the-edge-of-greatness/

If you interpret it correctly, he was telling people how not to become a moderator.

It could only, possibly, be done for your offspring and not you personally by manipulating the genetic information in your sperm/eggs.

I got them from here: http://www.cna.org/ewc http://www.cna.org/research/2014/water-conservation-carbon-dioxide http://www.cna.org/research/2014/clash-competing-necessities

Might it not be possible though that scientists, in the search for unification, are trying to 'trisect' gravity with the the other three forces and GR is not wrong? I very much liked that article Strange linked to, any of the cases mentioned could be an allegory for ultimately fruitless research in any field. I think it is incorrect to treat 'wrong' and 'incomplete' as synonyms. I think GR epitomises this distinction because it seems so beautifully accurate within its domain.