Evolution (split from The concept of Time)

[julius2]

Following on from my concept on Time, certain things "fall out" from the theory.

For example early humans would have existed in time, evolving from the apes which I agree with. But I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists. This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd.

My theory also tries to understand the present and takes a guess at humankind's future. For example, will we ever be able to conquer outer space??? The distances are just too far. Are people hoping for travel at light speed or teleportation???

[swansont]

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd.

Is this a prediction of evolution?  What, precisely, is absurd?

Quote

I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists

What evidence do you have for this substance?

[julius2]

Time (the ages of time), is acting in the background in this world.

We trust scientists so much and to be so correct. Weren't these the same species (homo sapiens) that once thought that the sun revolved around the earth?

[iNow]

The trust scientists receive is precisely because they're willing to abandon past beliefs in the face of new evidence, and to ensure hypotheses map to our experiences in the world regardless of what we'd prefer to be true / regardless of what we want to be true. 

Your own example confirms this. We once believed in geocentric universe, but updated that to heliocentrism when new data arrived. Is that not a good thing, to update our thinking as we learn more? 

What point are you attempting to make, exactly?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

Time (the ages of time), is acting in the background in this world.

I'm having trouble making sense of this. What are "the ages of time"? What is "the background in this world"?

Are you familiar with the concept of spacetime, where the temporal dimension of time is inextricably linked to the three spatial dimensions we experience?

On 10/29/2023 at 6:17 AM, julius2 said:

But I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists. This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd.

Yet we see evolutionary changes happening and our explanations don't seem to need this substance you've made up. And we see plenty of fossils showing gradual changes in various species, so I think you've picked up some very bad information along  the way somehow. 

[julius2]

Yes, updating is good.

[julius2]

Unfortunately I am not the best physicist in the world. If there was "matter" before the Big Bang and it did not get completely destroyed by the Big Bang, it would still be out there right? I am guessing it would be "between the molecules" (undetected). I don't know what 13 billion years does to space / matter that existed before the BB. It would be strange I am guessing.

Our current science uses people on a planet in the current universe, and we are trying to explain a lot (e.g. all of time itself). So it is entirely possible it is not completely right......

[iNow]

Time began at the Big Bang. There was no “before” the Big Bang any more than anything can be farther north than the North Pole. 

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, julius2 said:

If there was "matter" before the Big Bang and it did not get completely destroyed by the Big Bang, it would still be out there right? I am guessing it would be "between the molecules" (undetected).

It's not meaningful to talk about anything prior to a split second after the BB started. As I understand it, when we calculate backwards to that point using observable phenomena, it shows us that all matter, all the galaxies, coalesce into an extremely dense and extremely hot point. The whole universe then expanded suddenly until there was enough space that the matter could separate from itself and cool, leaving the universe fairly homogenous and isotropic. There's no way to tell how the matter was configured before that.

Imagine if you built some fantastic, complicated structure out of steel, but then compressed it down until it was just a white-hot ball of metal, and you can see how you'll never know what it used to look like just by examining the ball. There is no "between the molecules" except for space. Enough heat and pressure can squeeze the space out, and even cause electrons and neutrons to degenerate.

One temporal dimension (time), and three spatial dimensions (length, width, height) combined to make a stable configuration for our universe. As far as we know, spacetime started at the BB. You can guess what happened before, but it's just a guess and can't be falsified, so it's not science.

[swansont]

19 hours ago, julius2 said:

Unfortunately I am not the best physicist in the world. If there was "matter" before the Big Bang and it did not get completely destroyed by the Big Bang, it would still be out there right? I am guessing it would be "between the molecules" (undetected). I don't know what 13 billion years does to space / matter that existed before the BB. It would be strange I am guessing.

Our current science uses people on a planet in the current universe, and we are trying to explain a lot (e.g. all of time itself). So it is entirely possible it is not completely right......

What does this have to do with your assertion about evolution?

[CharonY]

On 10/29/2023 at 6:17 AM, julius2 said:

For example early humans would have existed in time, evolving from the apes which I agree with.

 

Human are apes and together with other extant apes, they share a common ancestor.

On 10/29/2023 at 6:17 AM, julius2 said:

But I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists. This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd.

There are many fossils showing several levels of gradual changes from our ancestor to now. The limitation is not the presence or absence of a miraculous substance but the mere fact that fossilization is a rare event and discovery of fossils even rarer. 

 

On 10/29/2023 at 6:17 AM, julius2 said:

My theory also tries to understand the present and takes a guess at humankind's future.

That is not a theory.

[julius2]

atoms as to objects. (Current universe / time)

X as to Y.   (T previous)

T as to Z.  (T previous)

See how in previous "time" things might have been very different even "strange"

Ie can you always assume things will always be like atoms?

[swansont]

What does this have to do with your assertion about evolution?

[julius2]

Evolution happened earlier in Earth's time.

But there may be a bigger timescale.

[Bufofrog]

6 hours ago, julius2 said:

Evolution happened earlier in Earth's time.

You mean evolution used to happen but it doesn't anymore? Really?

6 hours ago, julius2 said:

But there may be a bigger timescale.

Bigger than what?

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, julius2 said:

Evolution happened earlier in Earth's time.

But there may be a bigger timescale.

Evolution is a process that continues from the first microorganisms through to present day species populations. Saying it "happened earlier in Earth's time" implies that it isn't tied to changes in allele frequency within populations, or that it can stop and start again when it wants to. I don't think you understand evolution, and I think it's pointless to speculate about substances nobody's heard of that affect it. You should study evolution first before declaring it's wrong and that it needs your substance to fix it.

[joigus]

On 10/29/2023 at 1:17 PM, julius2 said:

Following on from my concept on Time, certain things "fall out" from the theory.

For example early humans would have existed in time, evolving from the apes which I agree with. But I propose the evolution was quick helped along by a "substance" not yet discovered by scientists. This would explain why we have not been able to find fossils showing the GRADUAL changes which is absurd.

Sorry, not new, but much much better formulated. To account for some kind of stratification in taxa, which is what your rough idea seems to be about:

Quote

“Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that evolution occurs in spurts instead of following the slow, but steady path that Darwin suggested. Long periods of stasis with little activity in terms of extinctions or emergence of new species are interrupted by intermittent bursts of activity.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/punctuated-equilibrium#:~:text=“Punctuated equilibrium is the idea,by intermittent bursts of activity.”

Gradual, of course, is not absurd. We see it all the time. We see it in the bones, in the teeth, and so on.

The "substance" you're looking for is, perhaps, alternative splicing. Or at least that's what some of those clueless scientists seem to have guessed at:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg2776

Introns develop long, long before they are used against the environment. Most of these introns are lost, because they are no use.

Every so-and-so many tens of millions of years, one of these intron rarities, happens to be useful for a specific environmentally-related purpose.

When this extremely rare event happens, it manifests in the fossil record looking so similar to a miracle that only an expert could tell the difference.

That's why having super-redundant eukaryote DNA is such a blessing in evolutionary terms.

[julius2]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:05 AM, Bufofrog said:

You mean evolution used to happen but it doesn't anymore? Really?

Bigger than what?

I am saying, broadly agree that evolution (obviously) did happen but to see so much diversity in Earth from processes like "natural selection" is a bit rich.

The timescale everyone has in mind (in general) is from the Big Bang to now (over 13 billion years). I propose a longer timescale, going back. But also going forwards as well. How does this work in practice?

Any items on a long timescale may or are likely to act in a continuing manner on the long timescale. To put things in perspective, Earth's evolution (life and the earth itself) would be just a portion of this long timescale.

The trick is to provide some sort of empirical evidence of such a concept.

On 11/28/2023 at 3:06 AM, Phi for All said:

Evolution is a process that continues from the first microorganisms through to present day species populations. Saying it "happened earlier in Earth's time" implies that it isn't tied to changes in allele frequency within populations, or that it can stop and start again when it wants to. I don't think you understand evolution, and I think it's pointless to speculate about substances nobody's heard of that affect it. You should study evolution first before declaring it's wrong and that it needs your substance to fix it.

How do we go from the first micro-organisms to the variety and diversity of the earth today. All plant species, trees, flowers, grasses etc.   Then life species, fish, whales, reptiles, humans etc. ? Sorry I don't have time to read detailed science textbooks - but a quick enlightenment might help.....

In a more "speculative" manner I propose "evolution" not just for this current world (Earth), but in Time. So beings evolved, other fundamental components of a human beings makeup. But this is just speculation and would be in the past. But a fascinating concept IF it is true.

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

I am saying, broadly agree that evolution (obviously) did happen but to see so much diversity in Earth from processes like "natural selection" is a bit rich.

Not in my opinion.

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

The timescale everyone has in mind (in general) is from the Big Bang to now (over 13 billion years).

Not really.  Evolution is about life on earth so the time scale is about 3.7 billion years.

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

How do we go from the first micro-organisms to the variety and diversity of the earth today. All plant species, trees, flowers, grasses etc.   Then life species, fish, whales, reptiles, humans etc. ? Sorry I don't have time to read detailed science textbooks

Then it should come as no surprise that you do not seem to understand what evolution is about.

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

In a more "speculative" manner I propose "evolution" not just for this current world (Earth), but in Time. So beings evolved, other fundamental components of a human beings makeup.

You think humans have DNA from from beings not of this planet?

Edited December 1, 2023 by Bufofrog

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

How do we go from the first micro-organisms to the variety and diversity of the earth today. All plant species, trees, flowers, grasses etc.   Then life species, fish, whales, reptiles, humans etc. ? Sorry I don't have time to read detailed science textbooks - but a quick enlightenment might help.....

The microorganisms adapted to the environments they found themselves in, and each succeeding generation that survives passes it's genetic traits along to the next. Slight changes create different species after enough time has passed. Organic life tries different designs, and the ones that can survive their environments get to procreate. This is evolution. I'm also very sorry you don't have the time to read about it formally, it's one of the most fascinating areas of science. My "quick enlightenment" doesn't do it justice.

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

In a more "speculative" manner I propose "evolution" not just for this current world (Earth), but in Time. So beings evolved, other fundamental components of a human beings makeup. But this is just speculation and would be in the past. But a fascinating concept IF it is true.

I don't know, I have a hard time with speculation built on ignorance. No offense, but you're trying to guess about something you claim you don't have the time to study. You don't have very many pieces of the puzzle, but you're trying to guess what the big picture is. You seem very smart.

 

[iNow]

His entire point is "I can't understand this so this can't be true," which would be funny if it weren't so sad. 

[julius2]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The microorganisms adapted to the environments they found themselves in, and each succeeding generation that survives passes it's genetic traits along to the next. Slight changes create different species after enough time has passed. Organic life tries different designs, and the ones that can survive their environments get to procreate. This is evolution. I'm also very sorry you don't have the time to read about it formally, it's one of the most fascinating areas of science. My "quick enlightenment" doesn't do it justice.

I don't know, I have a hard time with speculation built on ignorance. No offense, but you're trying to guess about something you claim you don't have the time to study. You don't have very many pieces of the puzzle, but you're trying to guess what the big picture is. You seem very smart.

 

It is not really a guess. The basic concept is that evolution has occurred on earth. That I agree. But I believe there has also been an evolution in Time. This forms a "backdrop" to life we see today. Unfortunately I don't have proof, and it is unlikely that will ever be possible.

You are right, the whole thing is a puzzle. There are some pieces. But takes some patience to see the "big picture".

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Unfortunately I don't have proof, and it is unlikely that will ever be possible.

Meaning this belief of yours is just that - a belief, of the religious sort. If there’s no evidence, you can present, then this is patently unscientific 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

It is not really a guess.

It's totally a guess.

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

The basic concept is that evolution has occurred on earth. That I agree. But I believe there has also been an evolution in Time. This forms a "backdrop" to life we see today.

Does this change affect space as well? In our current best supported explanations, space and time are an inextricable continuum.

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

Unfortunately I don't have proof, and it is unlikely that will ever be possible.

Nobody in science is looking for "proof". It's all about explaining a phenomenon, modeling it, and then looking for evidence to support the explanation. Any one thing can show an explanation to be false, but supporting an explanation is an ongoing, never ending process. We always want the best supported explanations, and when we can't find anything wrong with one, we start calling it a theory. Proof is for formal logic and maths. 

So, do you have any evidence to support your idea that time has evolved?

 

[julius2]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:02 AM, Phi for All said:

 

Does this change affect space as well? In our current best supported explanations, space and time are an inextricable continuum.

 

Does not affect space. If there is indeed another time vector, different to that of the inextricable continuum, the question is how would one access such a time vector?

It is a difficult question to answer, but I hope to answer it one day.

I agree, the universe as we know it evolved into the inextricable continuum. But the problem with this is that scientists are only able to design experiments using elements from the "inextricable continuum". ie. It would be hard to imagine, I agree a case where someone could access anything else.

Does this make sense?