It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Universal Darwinism: Warning may require an original thought.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:54 AM
Before anyone takes off because of the dreaded reading involved I feel compelled to tell you I find this theory very interesting and it is surely something everyone will have an opinion on, but if reading is a deal breaker you probably won’t have much of an opinion anyway. In the past I have stayed to posting news stories of interest to me, I have yet to venture into the realm of personal theories. I have some theories I have formulated from my interest in Physics and the Universe. I personally feel that opinions and theories are best when some pertinent knowledge is behind them. If anyone has tackled Quantum Physics, the universe, well any physics and anything pertaining to the universe, one knows the vast endlessness of the information. For this reason my knowledge has reached a point whereas I am comfortable explaining them but am fully aware other persons knowledge on the subject will be vast superior to mine, I am very comfortable with any rebuttal or adding to the discussions from curious like minded people. Even if you wish to waste 5 minutes of your life to insult me, please feel free it is after all your life. All that being said I lay before you my theory of Universal Darwinism.

Firstly Darwinism is a generally accepted theory (yes still a theory) so for this instance lets assume it to be true. Darwinism is pretty universally understood, especially to the minds on ATS, so as small as a nutshell that I can Darwinism is survival of the fittest, evolution. Another theory that is a basis for my personal theory is the Universal Theory first proposed by Aristotle, that what is true in this world must be true in all worlds. If gravity is true on earth, gravity exists throughout our universe; it does not become some sort of different creature on the other end of the universe.

So to begin my train of thought on the subject, my apologies in advance if it is confusing and jumpy, first time on paper. As is accepted the Earth rotates around the Sun due to the Sun’s gravitational pull, the sure mass of the Sun ensures that the earth is bound to it, unable to escape its gravitational pull. This force will, over millions of years, draw the Earth ever closer to the Sun ending at the point of the Earths destruction from the sun. What distance away this will occur I am not sure, obviously life would cease to exist the moment we are pulled close enough to the earth so as the Sun heats it to the point of inhabitable. As far as earth complete destruction, I am not sure.

It is that point that brings Darwinism into the picture, on the very largest of scales eventually earth will become uninhabitable, this is a fact, so in order for the Human race to survive at some point in our thousands of years of future we will have to derive a way to get off of our planet. We will need to find a new planet/ new way to live in order to continue to exist.

Now we all understand that every star we see in the night sky is a Sun, and there a billions of stars we cannot see that are also exist. Now stars inheritably have a large mass which trap celestial bodies in their gravitational pull, this is why planets rotate around them, and with the infinite number of stars one can only assume the number of planets bound to their respective Suns has to be astronomical. Each of these planets orbiting their respective stars would inevitably face the same conundrum we do. Get off their planet or cease to exist as a species. Now it is naïve to think given infinite amount of time even evolutionary advanced creatures such as Giraffes will ever have the understanding or means to evacuate a planet. Therefore, there are probably millions of species that have been unable to get off their planet before their planet became uninhabitable for them. On the same token it would be naïve to think that some had not.

Humans have been on earth for an assumed amount of time ask 50 people you get 50 different answers but for arguments sake let us take archaeological assumptions and say 200,000 years. So we as a species have been on Earth for 200,000 years, in the last 50 we have made advancements in space travel that surpassed all those previous years combined. With the amount we are able to do currently it is not outlandish to believe before we reach the collapse of our species due to our proximity to the sun, we will have derived a way to get off/ survive in space.

The oldest known star observed is 13.5 Billion years old, the universe assumable longer. If in our 200,000 years we have been able to advance as a species to the point where we mathematically and physiologically understand the need to eventually vacate our planet other species I am sure (although perhaps on different time lines) have figured out they need to do the same.

Therefore if Darwinism is a true theory, the Universal Theory states it should be true for the rest of the Universe, and if you contemplate the above scenarios you will find that there is in Fact a Universal Darwinism. If a planet is needed to support life, and a sun is needed for life to grow, the planet will eventually be pulled into the suns gravitational pull, therefore only the smartest species of that planet get the evolutionary prize of continuing to exist. It is only the species that have developed enough cognisance to realize and fix the problem that will survive throughout the endlessness of time. With the billions of possible planets and life forms it is IMO silly to think we are the only ones to have figured this out, given the general infancy of humans on the grand scale of the universe it is safe to assume others have figured this out before us. It is for these reasons I believe species have existed on other planets and have developed the means to get off of their “home” planets, Universal Darwinism would argue they have to have.

If I am missing massive gaps in logic I don’t mind being informed, this is only a theory I have, and as everyone should I treat them as such and more information leads to more correct theories. I am pleased to hear of anyone’s opinions on this matter.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Hack28]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Hack28]

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:45 AM
well one person read it, i guess on the fundamental basis mission complete someone read what i wrote, jumping away from the fundamental aspect of writing it is dissappointing that alternative theories are not discussed and debated.
Guess ill have to remeber to insult a certain group to get a discussion going.
Screwww The Mohrlocks!!

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:16 PM
lets see if posting a veiled insult will get a few readers, i just wanna know other peoples opinions on this, hard to find people to openly discuss these things with. You cant read about them in US weekly

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by Hack28

What exactly would you like to discuss though...? You gave us all the answers and left nothing to argue about!

If I'm getting this correctly, you are saying that we are inevitably going to have to move planet somewhere in the distant future, (or not so distant, depending on how we treat our planet) or burn in the scorching fire that gives us life.

Good thought though, maybe (I'm not sure about your stance on ET's) that is why we are being visited by Extraterrestrials... The problem is, to find a planet that could sustain life,'our life' would mean it is more than likely that the said planet would already have life on it. Similar to the life on earth, & we would kind of be 'invading'...or asking a really huge favor of the inhabitants. Who knows, they might just let us live underground

Hey, beggars can't be choosers right?

new topics

top topics

log in