goin through da chaptr, evolution. I think origin of first cellular form of life, is still a huge mystery 4 our scientists. . Panspermia has no scientific proof. .and we just knw a ltl abt abiogenesis. Wht do u say guys?

Its a mystery.... Bt not huge.... Substantial theories are there..... Bt exactly replicating d earth's atmosphere at d time of origin.is challenging.......

ya theories r thr, bt nly abt out how da organic molecules lyk RNA,proteins and polysaccharides came into being. .rest how a cell cme into existence z a predictn. .dat z nly da first part we knw nt da 2nd 1

Scientific fact is always limited by its falsifiability. There is no limit to how much more detail any observation can corroberate, so there is never actually a point where science says "there is nothing more to know about this".

eg. at 2pm I state my car is blue, later that day at 6pm I state my car is green. Both are statements of absolute fact.

q: is my car blue or green?
a: at sunset the sunlight is more yellow than white.

So when I state a physical observation that my car is green, and you're the painter who painted it blue and calls me a liar, actually you're the liar. It is green...if I shine a yellow light on it.
But if I call you a liar for saying it's blue when I see it is green, then I am the liar because it is blue...when I shine a white light on it.

Can you understand how both are statements of concise fact?
That is what a scientific fact actually is, as opposed to the concept of "proving a theory". Science doesn't do that, it never ever does that. Anything in science is always

always always always always no matter what

no matter what it is

even talking about god or mighty dragons or magical magic people

always

everything

is falsifiable.

experimentation z a gud way 2 prove thngs, just as u cited da example of da colour of your car. .which changes relatively depending upon da typ of light,it is subjected to. But if we successfully detect any form of life existing outside earth, then perhaps da mystery behind origin of lyf can be unravelled

and 2ndly, in science, we cn categorize everything under two heads, 1. Fact 2. Statements & prpositions. The earth revolves round da sun z a fact, Oil floats on water z a fact, life originates frm pre-existing lyf was a statement bt it was proved to b a fct by Rudolf Virchow and Louis Pasteur. Bt all these stuffs lyk bing bang theory, cosmozoic theory ,chemical evolution are mere statements.

But you prove my point.

The Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun at all, both revolve around their Lagrange Point. All astronomical bodies revolve around relative Lagrange Points, complex evolutionary diversity is causal to the array of varied astronomical observation but to be very clear if you suddenly deleted half the bodies out there then all the motion and positions of all the rest would change. Disintegrate Alpha Centauri and the orbit of Earth would change.

It's actually why Chaos Theory came about, when you try to mathematically model the motions and evolution of our solar system, you can't. Even entering the same values each time renders different results every calculus.

The Earth isn't the centre of the universe except in subjectivity, certainly, but it is in subjectivity, certainly. And it doesn't revolve around the Sun nor does the Sun revolve around the Earth, each does the other, but a proportionate amount within a wild array of imperceptable, direct influences.

So you go from simpler statements like "the Sun revolves around the Earth, no wait, it's falsified, now the Earth revolves around the Sun..."
To get, "no wait, it's falsified, they both revolve around each other."

Yet during each step of the way, to the perspective of the day, the facts known at the time, each statement was/is in fact, Fact.

And it's like that.


ie. the word "Fact" in the world of science is an entirely conditional statement. No such thing, actually, since there is never ever ever ever a time when a statement, postulate, assertion or any other type of rendition cannot be falsified.

sheesh, your texting lingo sucks... but read this, in real words, not that half *** crap... i'm guessing this is what your talking about

http://www.panspermia-theory.com/

Well, the first cell isn't really about evolution. It is about origins and not the development of the physical. So I wouldn't call the start of life as we define it, as moving and reproducing matter, but the panspermia idea seems neat. Wiki it. Or pull a combo move with the life-surviving-impact idea and the other which is that there were stellar winds- do you know that there is a thing called a cosmic wind of energy and particles that is blowing out there on big scales- well anyway, that this wind aligns certain chemical components into the pre-curses for organ matter. So here one could have the cosmic wind pollinating hydrogen rocks, by shifting some material building blocks for life around, and then have the seed impact some dirt and get to work. I mean, maybe there are some jumps and tricks along the way, but that is the best basic idea my mind offers.

I was just thinking that there needs to be a way to speed up body evolution for humans. I mean, being honest, chin down, and definitely how people act from the waist down, not much has changed in the last leg of time. It is like our mind and intelligence took leaps and bounds, the kind that still puzzle people who look at our evolution, but that the body was slower. So what we have in society is a bunch of people who have great potential (the brain is what makes life tick and fun) but who feel scared and limited, and then withdraw into the ways of the body, which is sorta like having to stay with the old folks for a while and having to use a computer that needs updates. Either you wait and do nothing for hours or a day, or you work as is and get so aggravated by the limitations of the technology because you know you could do so much more if you had your macbook pro or gamer. Well, the mind is like a taste of that super speed, but so much suffering, as my thoughts see it, comes from being limited by a retarded body. Not in the sense that it is not miraculous and sophisticated, but in the way of being up to speed with out brains and intelligence. So it is like, how to humans evolve further, what can be done?

I often wonder if evolution is grinding to a complete stop because everyone survives now. There are no longer 5-6 deaths common for one mother, no more 'it was a weak baby.' That was just part of life, but now everybody freaks out about it. Do any of yo ever think about how there are so many people around today that just wouldn't of made it back 1,000 years ago, or even 100? I know I have thought this, as I am one of them... I am not saying that people should be killed, but there must be some way to help evolution take place, for those born and not yet born. I think Einstein said imagination is what leads evolution, and having more around couldn't hurt, unless imagination becomes overactive and fairies and dragons evolve from butterfly and snakes again!

Panspermia might not have proof, but if you want my guess, and a guess only, life started in deep space when information itself began to organize in such a way that anything which we call creation could be conceived of. I view everything as living, even rocks and what not. Rocks will always try to resolve their work, they are always at least trying to get to their destination. Without a mind or limbs, they just sit on the surface, but they def. put out effort. Humans too try to go to were their potential is fulfilled, it is just that since we are so much more capable, we think it separates us. We get a fast hair attitude towards the turtle and start wasting time. How was the last million, or 200,000 thousand years spent, the second being when we had fairly similar voice boxes? It was just wasted, running around trying to survive. But now days, when everyone can survive no problemo! the lot of us stresses like it is the only thing life is about. Survival, through relationships or bringing home the bacon, is still what our bodies tell us to do. But when we think, when anyone uses their mind for an instant, they can know there is unused potential in a human being, more than what is needed for finding shelter, food, and a continuance of line. Humans are trapped in a mix-match of evolutionary development, and it has been on my mind, here and there, for at least the last half-year. Any thoughts?

Amoscarine, do I have any thought of the splendid muse you provided? Where to start, where to start.

Firstly, kudos for your own thoughts there. Clearly you're a keen mind who'll go far, and more than worthy of serious discussion with anyone.
Now down to business. Guess I'll go with point form, I noticed a bunch of things that twitched my eye.

1. The astrophysics term "information" is nomenclature, it's incapable of organizing and like the term "singularity" doesn't really relate to anything which intrinsically exists by and of itself. It is something which needs to exist in order to serve the standard model we use for the math, since it's all we have to use any math with.
Take atomos at face value, keep dividing up the subatomic particles until you just plain run out of ways to describe the divisions and what do you have? A nothingness? No, that's impossible if you want to use thermodynamics like, ever. But what do you have when we run out of ways to describe the divisions of divisions of things? Well, there must be the latent potential for the smallest divisions we can name to come about within, and after all there is never nothing, it is always, always some type of field, yes? So this potential, this virtual particle field, is termed information, the latent potential for something to happen. The information of what isn't, in order for it to ever be.
It's not really very literal, it's a mathematical expression. Could be a giant space dragon just magicking it all into existence, but if it is, then that is what the term "information" describes, that magic dragon's thought or will to create things.
So information won't be organising itself into anything, it just is, because of what comes about. Theoretical physics is actually surprisingly simple logic, ultimately virtually based on greek or similar philosophy, but evolved to scientific method (testable results of reproducible experimentation somewhat prior to making a scientific statement, etc.). This logic itself, is super basic. I guess that's just what truth is supposed to be, it has a mechanic, not an argument, it's observable, not provable. Simple logic gets you complicated theorum. Counter-intuitively, complicated theorum only comes about by ultra super simple childlike logic, 1+1=2 and exactly that simple unless it's a falsehood or a wild claim. Hence the calling card of theoretical physics to any claim is "show the math."

2. By observation, nothing much has changed about homo sapiens sapiens cranial cavities and brain structures for 180,000 years. Take early man as a child in a time machine from 150K BCE and put him in a modern family, send him to university and it's an identical result to anyone you grabbed from down the street today, there's the direct inferrence talking palaeoanthropology. We never got any smarter, never. And we never "intellectually evolved", we're just the same as we've always been, until another species replaces us, that might be smarter, or dumber, but more successful.

There's just so much to say about this. Firstly, hominid evolution is not linear. Not linear. Neanderthal was renamed Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis specifically in recognition that it was a cohabitating hominid species from common early roots with independent evolution and utterly identical technological and cultural artefacts. It is now published that the only method palaeontologists had ever used to distinguish Mousterian (Neandertal) and Aurignacian (human) technologies from similar periods was by which hominid remains were found nearby, we had identical technologies from clothing to teepees to toolmaking, to musical instruments, to altars and shrines, to burial practises, in every way identical except the hominid remains. We cohabited, appeared around the same time, they died out and we didn't. By palaeoanthropological study, the current postulate tabled is that in fact we are a blind evolutionary branch of hominid, and Neandertal was a more linear hominid evolution from ancestors, but significant climate change ca.35-25K BCE altered the game and made us more successful where Neandertal should've been more successful if the planet was a little more consistent with its climate over epochs. There have been several blind branches, especially among Australopithecans but also many Homo.

So hominid evolution isn't about getting smarter and isn't even a linear kind of evolution, it's a diversity type of evolution with lots of cohibitation and then overwhelming conditional influences to promote/handicap species success. Speciation is like tossing a handful of grains, not like arranging them in a string. Several Neandertal skulls have been found with cranial cavities capable of housing a brain some 30% bigger than any there has ever been in our species, the Uni of Wyoming palaeontology department describes Neandertal as a Silverback gorilla with the brain of Einstein. If hominid evolution was linear, we got dumber, not smarter. Also, all significant leaps of early civilisation, from clothing to the diatonic musical scale and examples of anoxic chemistry, religious worship, astronomy and surgical practises, appear in Neandertal finds long before us, longer than the time we've ever heard of farming and domestication. In fact the first farm identified in the archaeological record is Neandertals actively farming fish in greece, ca.35K BCE. The first human farming is around 8K BCE. Ancient mythologies are filled with tales of highly civilized, intelligent (but invariably "evil") giants which competed with mankind for rule of the land, sounds a lot like Neandertal and there is undisputable evidence of both active trade and interbreeding between species from the Middle East to Romania. All modern humans have a Neandertal DNA marker that is not present in very ancient human remains. Other evidence of intbreeding was found in Romania recently; we didn't come from them, we screwed them.

Secondly, the perception that "human intellect has evolved since ancient times" is a blind assumption based on the subjective example of technological evolution, which is linear. It is nowhere near or even anything like intellectual evolution, which is non-sequiteur without speciation. It is like a math equation that successive generations continue to develop based upon previous work. No generation being actually any more intelligent than the one before it. That statement follows the physical evidence, like brain cavity shown in remains of various ages, and the postulates of great minds of earlier ages, no less intelligent than Einstein or any other. Was Newton less intelligent than Einstein? No, he had different tools and bodies of work to utilize, but what he did with it was just the same. As will be the next great mind, starting from where those before have left off. Not by birth, by activity and records of other activity to build upon.

Neurological structures are conditional and adaptive, the ones formed when learned by rote are different to those learned by verse. Published MRI studies by anthropologists have shown communities in which primary learning is done by verbal tradition form different neurological structures for memorization than those in which primary learning is done by written linguistics. Different, not more evolved. In fact, recall accuracy is shown to be far greater by verse than rote, ie. there is far less tendency for the phenomenon of chinese whispers when taught lessons by singing than when taught lessons from books. And after all, isn't it intuitive that you'll remember exactly a nursery rhyme to a much older age than you will a page from a book you read as a child?

No, we didn't get any more intelligent, ever. We have Homo Sapiens Sapiens intelligence, it is a common intelligence and a finite one, perhaps the next species will be smarter, certainly the last one no longer around was, in some cases.

Here is a novel that very well may be tltr, but as I wrote it, what the heck:
Information is noted in Susskind’s hint as decreasing when velocity is increased, and as a body or entity approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. So around a mass in an ordinary ‘sitting’ fashion, there will be less information when gravitation potential increases. So I agree with your info-as-potential def. I can’t say if physics should or ever will deal with nothingness, in the sense of being outside a bound, and not still in an unoccupied space time. I think at some point it might have to drop notions of space-time, but that the space will go first. All this time is just an illusion offers itself well to a certain type of comfortable philosophy, but it hasn’t really taken physics anywhere. If time is nothing, why bother trying to figure out how it works. But weighing the psychology behind different approaches is not the point. It has been pursued by many scientists, and one of them, Lee Smolin, is now leaning the other way, that time is of a fundamental substance, and space needs to be dropped. So physics may swing life away on that for a few decades,, if his thinking catches on. So ultimately that might even be dropped. Now, sure, any field is a something, but I don’t about the future, and all the old saws seem worn out, at least in how they are put to use.

My thoughts trace information as being defined more concretely as what can be communicated with so much energy as a medium. So, like data is written onto a cd, it is stored on the behavior of energy itself. If there were trends developed for how much is communicated between two points that showed a shifting value, and then also the energy was accounted for, not only could there be a unit of data per available energy for transmission of sorts, but also one might be able to find instances when communication is enhanced or deterred. It may be folly to consider an analogy, but perhaps it could be said that resistance of metal purity in wire, or influences of temperature could be identified which affect transmission efficiency. So here, instead of those, it would be things like speed or mass in an area which limit how much information can be written of the medium of energy itself.

And dude man, about the organizing events, give a break about late night mind doodling! Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned such thoughts on here. But It is what I saw, what I felt, and I don’t really care about it being right compared to definitions or how information is currently used in physics. It was driven by just a want to understand life more. It very well may be that I have no idea what information is, and am just using the wrong world, but besides very dry entropy statements, I haven’t really understood satisfactory what info is. Shannon is tight, yeah? succinct and simple. He had straight forward ways of handling his business, and it definitely helped out many companies that decided to use his work in one way or another! And the Greeks are great, don’t get me wrong, but instead of relying on their might (hasn’t it already carried enough weight?) we need to be more like the Greeks ourselves, we need to be our own crafters of logic and reason appropriate for today’s pursuits. If my reasoning doesn’t make sense to you, or even to myself, what is the concern of either? I hope that if this is the case, it will be shed like all of those other parts of Greece that were taken to the tombs.

Onto number Two. What do you call intelligence? I asked myself this for almost two years now, well, after a friend put it to me. Not having a good answer, I took the question as my own. I have had many definitions that seemed workable, but they always were dropped as inadequate within a few weeks. The only thing I’ve started to think is that it is just the natural tendency to resolve oppositions by making some difference. This can be all creation. A rock is always trying to get to its lowest point, of minimizing the diff. in potential of where it is and the set point of where it would be at more ease. It is just that it has a very single minded approach to arguing its case. It says I know where I have to go to feel like I’ve reached my place in this vast cosmos (see, rocks have a lot of time to just take these thing in and incorporate it into their language), and it is down that will be most direct. So it will never compromise and kick it a little sideways. This is a lot like some married people! They only difference that I see using this type of smarts is that a human being has legs and a will which let him do this resolving work more quickly. Our mind and senses let one pick a better method than that straight to the destination business. Even the cosmos can be taken as a sort of solving of disparity between matter-energy and space-time, both functions to eliminate the outstanding potential of either. So when those 180,000 years were passed, at certain points human beings become more capable of do this resolution work.

Say for whatever reason, they had to move to a different location and pass through a prehistoric border patrol zone. Since they didn’t always carry around portable information representations, like our id cards serve for today, customs was always suspicious. What could be in that skin, where did this fellow come from, where is he going. And since leaving your id at home was a reasonable excuse back then, because if you had one, it was likely in some memorial or monument, or even rock that had your identity in it as some ancestral bonding, and also because all the running around they had to do just to survive, the appointments took forever. When people moved to a new land to find their place, it really was a long and tough adventure. Now days, if you have a little money, you can go anywhere, and what may have taken tens of thousands of years before can be done in a few months today, as far as relocation goes.

I talked about travel, but the point is that humans now can do the work that it took a thousand to do, because he now has some big machine he created. People back then were more like rocks, maybe not in the sense of being dumb brain size wise or structurally, but in the sense that they couldn’t do much in the way of moving things along. I would venture saying that humans have taken on a capacity to have an affect which is seen in the environment they create, that succeeds what the body can handle. That is what all this destroying the world business is about. We may damage it, but that is not the concern of most activists, I would guess about 70-80% of so involved people. The major worry is that earth will become inhospitable for us because of what we do to it. We are and will continue wiping out a lot of life forms besides humans if the disaster occurs, but life on earth will continue even if humans and some fauna do not. Evolution isn’t meant here as size of brains or something, which are getting smaller today anyhow.

This is a very good documentary which supports the we ****ed them to death statement: http://t.co/HdbITKXSRe
But really I was drawn into talking about Homo sapiens evolving when I meant that from a monkey to a human being, there has been mental evolution, but not body evolution. So if your point was to try to get me to wind myself on a different, more irrelevant, statement, you did very well. If it is me who ranted for some half-conscious reason, then that’s what you get for providing information about Homo sapiens to spring of off!
But, uh, to rephrase my question, is there and way to make us less like monkeys and more like whatever else the future will hold? Now put intelligence developing aside, just physical evolution yo. I’ve never ruled out the idea of a superior intelligence roaming the land before maths or anything was invented, and before there was a need for such, but still and intellect containing many of the now unsolved mysteries.