It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The missing link, when it comes to evolution of life (Expanding earth)

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I agree with you on everything, but your use of the word static. To me static it means motionless, like a still picture or absolutes such as space, time, nothingness, eternity. I am not sure if I belive in absolutes, but that is a different topic. I'll pretend I do. I belive these concepts to be static. I think time in itself is static, but I think for the observer it is very subjective, so that might no be the best of examples. But anyway..
I do not see how you can consider the sun or the earth or anything else static. They are constantly changing. I mean, erosion dude, evtually everything will cease to excist. How can anything be static. :/

I would just like to add that english is not my first language, so if I am just missunderstanding the word, I apoligize.
edit on 26/06/87 by Mads1987 because: felt I needed to elaberate on my nationality.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I agree with you on everything, but your use of the word static. To me static it means motionless, like a still picture or absolutes such as space, time, nothingness, eternity. I am not sure if I belive in absolutes, but that is a different topic. I'll pretend I do. I belive these concepts to be static. I think time in itself is static, but I think for the observer it is very subjective, so that might no be the best of examples. But anyway..
I do not see how you can consider the sun or the earth or anything else static. They are constantly changing. I mean, erosion dude, evtually everything will cease to excist. How can anything be static. :/

I would just like to add that english is not my first language, so if I am just missunderstanding the word, I apoligize.
edit on 26/06/87 by Mads1987 because: felt I needed to elaberate on my nationality.


Mine neither, but lets try our very best..


Okay, static as in "no movement, no change FOREVER" isn't the correct word to describe something like the sun or earth or anything as several fundamental physic laws are grinding on every atom.

Static is a possible word to describe the historical phase of the development of our solar system (and any other solar system too, of course) - the sun burns peacefully through its hydrogen fuel reserves. Of course, something as big as a star will always have hicups which could wipe out whole planets, but look at it from a larger distance, maybe from Pluto (poor little notplanet). The sun is a little yellow-white point, only a bit larger than the other stars.

Would you say that the other stars are static?

If not, you are correct, of course. But I and you wouldn't be able to point at one and exclaim "HEY! That is something new!" - unless it exploded in that very second, of course. Stars don't do that very often, and seldom more than once in their lifetime


But as far as I understood the OP, he talked about an evolution, an advancement in stars, planets and down to the tiniest little things on these planets.

And I don't see an advancement, only the natural way of all things - exist and then cease to exist.

Evolution doesn't work with a single entity, it works by favoring "fitter" entities before "unfitter" entities as the fitter ones would reproduce even fitterer (I know thats not a word but it should be!) children.

Our sun doesn't produce offspring.


Therefore: I use "static sun" as in "sun which is in a normal phase of its existance, without trying to be a fitter star". Not as in "star which doesn't move, set light free, fuse hydrogen molecules or such things".



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Ah, yes. Now I get it - I think. Stars are static in the sense that their nature do not change. They do not evolve, and as you pointed out they do not (atleast not intentionally) produce offspring.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
The earth was already fully formed at that time so it was not expanding and your assumption that there was no food on land is flawed. Plants had already moved to land and so did arthropods. So there was already ample food for fish to eat. It has been proposed that fish first started to move to land from a freshwater environment.

During climate cycles which have existed on earth almost since the beginning, The freshwater systems would have risen and fallen with the seasons. Much like they do today. There are freshwater fish that even today are able to move over land to get to other water sources. Witness the asian snakehead which plagues the Chesapeake bay area. This fish can travel very far over land moving to a location where there is more food.

They are voracious feeders and will deplete their food source and then move on. The chances are that there were fish like the snakehead at that time and their behavior was similar. There have been fossil finds that would support this. There is also the lung fish and a few varities of catfish which can move over land.

Also just for your information reptiles don't lay their eggs where it is wet. Even crocodiles and alligators seek to make their nests in a dry area. They will build them up to a level above any moisture to keep them dry. Otherwise the eggs will rot. The shells of reptile eggs are leathery and not like bird eggs. The leathery shell will absorb water and then will cause the embryo to die due to too much water being present.

There is ample evidence that would refute your theory.

edit on 1/2/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/2/2012 by lonegurkha because: Lord please help me to learn to spell



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 



Actually, in the beginning there was just energy, no plasma.

The universe had to cool down enough first for electrons to bind to protons and neutrons. So up until this point, there was no atomic structures, and no hydrogen or helium.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

But as far as I understood the OP, he talked about an evolution, an advancement in stars, planets and down to the tiniest little things on these planets.



Yes, you are correct in that I am stating that everything in the Universe is an evolution ... that we see is merely a point in time.

Take a look at this picture ...

www.co-intelligence.org...

How beautiful to see that you have small rocks, to planets, to gas planets to suns .... to larger suns, to immensely larger suns ...

... and finally, collapse into small points of supergravitational objects ...

... which we, if we look at the atom ... can see, that an atom is a small football in the center of a football field, and that the electroni is a set flies, flying around the football field.

An atom, is a set of empty space ... with a dense core, and the electron is the only thing that keeps these elements from collapsing onto each other.

What is plasma? a fourth state of matter, that describes the state of the electron, while the matter itself can be liquid, solid, but usually gas. The natural state of plasma, is gaseous like the universe ... but inside the earth, and the sun ... it isn't. What is magma? magnetised plasma ... what happens when this magnetised plasma, reaches the surface of the earth? Look at lava ... it is filled with microscopic holes, from gases ...

So the earth, is filled with intensely dense plasma, although not as dense as the sun ... but still dense, the sometimes cools, causing the earth to expand ... just like our Sun, will expand when it cools ...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   


there is no evolutionary demand that they do so
reply to post by bjarneorn
 



Sure there was.

Just watched a video with the reason the other day.

its called "escape".

When a predator is chasing you, leaping out of the surf onto the beach is a great way to survive (that is if you can get back in the water.)

Also there were insects on the land and that was food.

Also laying your eggs in the sand at high tide is another reason to be crawling around in the dirt.

In the end there are lots of great motivations to get of the water and walk along the beach.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen

Actually, in the beginning there was just energy, no plasma.

The universe had to cool down enough first for electrons to bind to protons and neutrons. So up until this point, there was no atomic structures, and no hydrogen or helium.



True, but that leads us to a rather controversial point. In our everyday life, we see energy as motion, and matter as the absence of motion.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat

When a predator is chasing you, leaping out of the surf onto the beach is a great way to survive (that is if you can get back in the water.)



That is controversial to our knowledge, as you are suggesting that behaviour triggers selection. I am not going to give birth to a child that can play piano well, because playing piano has helped me get a good life.




Also there were insects on the land and that was food.



There were no insects on land ... life began in the waters, and insects crawled onto land, just as mammals did. Every lifeform that exists on land, began in the oceans.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
sorry.
edit on 2-1-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I watched a video of it happening the other day. Orca was chasing shark, shark ran up on the beach. Unlike playing the piano, escaping a predator will allow your genes to carry on.

And if everyone hit the beach at the same time, there would still be plenty of motive to chase food. Fish chasing crabs etc. etc.

Lastly, fish and insects do eat plants you know...
edit on 2-1-2012 by Helmkat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
is where it all goes wrong, because why should these fish start to walk on land, as there is no food on land an there is no evolutionary demand that they do so. Before mammals have to start to walk on land, the plantlife need to start growing on land, before they crawl there and the plantlife on land need to have a similar constraints that is attainable and acquireable for these lifes.


Well plant life appeared on the surface millions of years before animal life.

But in any case, the answer is tides. Think about it.

syzygyastro.hubpages.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I see what you're saying - and think it makes sense. Life certainly responds to changes by mutating, adapting, evolving. Could an expanding earth hypothesis help explain life's expansion from ocean to land? Quite possibly. Did the earth expand in its early history? Seems quite likely. Does the earth continue to expand? Maybe - more hard info please.

Question: Given that the earth did and can expand, can it also contract? What forces are/might be involved?

S&F for an interesting idea.


edit on 2/1/12 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha


During climate cycles which have existed on earth almost since the beginning, The freshwater systems would have risen and fallen with the seasons. Much like they do today. There are freshwater fish that even today are able to move over land to get to other water sources. Witness the asian snakehead which plagues the Chesapeake bay area. This fish can travel very far over land moving to a location where there is more food.


There is ample evidence that would refute your theory.

edit on 1/2/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/2/2012 by lonegurkha because: Lord please help me to learn to spell


Did you watch that episode of River Monsters with the Snakehead? I believe, its been a while, in that episode there is an infestation of em in Florida. Good watch.

Back on topic, That was a great explanation. I have seen this theory of expanding earth or what not, passed around ATS and it almost had me till you mentioned this.

But my question is, we find fossils in the ground, so in some way the earth grows. right? How else do they get down there? I am not educated on this what so ever, so forgive me for being dumb.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
You ever seen a jar of peanut butter start randomly creating life...?

Something out of nothing? I just cant see that for fact.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MoosKept240
 


Well you are not dumb. You simply lack some knowledge.

Fossils basically get into the ground when an animal dies and the body is fortunate enough to be in a situation to be preserved. Usually this involves being buried in a low oxygen environment that will slow decomposition. Being in a buried state allows the tissue, in, usually the bones to be replaced with harder minerals which won't break down as long as the fossil remains buried.

Over time the sediments that form above the fossilized remains bury them deeper. Now while this is taking place the continents continue to move around. They collide and break apart. this is known as plate tectonics. It doesn't involve the planet growing or shrinking. If you google this you will find a great many sources. Of course while the continents are moving around they carry the fossils with them. One thing that does not get enough consideration I think is that when found, the fossil, is in the same sediment it was originally in. However that same area may have moved to a different part of the globe due to the shifting of the continents.


Recently they have actually found fossilized soft tissue. This I find fascinating. I think that the conditions for this kind of preservation are very specialized. I will be reading more on this kind of preservation when I have some time.
edit on 1/2/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mthgs602
You ever seen a jar of peanut butter start randomly creating life...?

Something out of nothing? I just cant see that for fact.


How about a quadzillion jars of peanut butter in a trillion different places experiencing every possible combination of environmental change, temperature pressure, chemical interaction and atmospheric phenomena, over a billion of years - and multiply that by tens of billions of planets?

Can you be absolutely sure that just one of those quadzillion jars on one of those tens of billions of planets, say one in an unregarded backwater of a small spiral arm of the galaxy, wouldn't eventually undergo a change that led to single celluar life?

Anyway, as for the notion of an expanding Earth - it ignores 99% of Earth's history and assumes all the expantion took place in just the last 250 million years. No possible explanation for this has been proffered. But then, the initial idea (as currently popularised) was just an concept for a comic book anyway ..... and I guess in a universe with the X Men, Hulk and Howard the Duck, there is room a-plenty for an expanding Earth as well.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Well, I can't find what I am looking for, but here is what it is - a NASA scientist noticed that certain satellite data that looked back at the Earth saw "holes" in the pictures of the atmosphere of Earth. Those holes corresponded with a wave length for the absorption of water. Given the number of holes he saw over a given amount of time, he determined that the holes were caused by meteors or asteroids of water ice blowing up high in the atmosphere. The water absorbed the wave length of light the satellite was seeing. He calculated that each meteor was about 30 feet across and that about ten million of these hit the Earth each year.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
...Earth is expanding! want proof? so, everybody know that animals, plants, insect atc. was in prehistoric time much larger... why? cos gravity was smaller! why? cos Earth was smaller planet that time and small object have small gravity ...

want more proof? ok. distance between (s,n)america and europe(africa) is every year a bit bigger... it is the same also between asia and (s,n) america... forget Pangaea theory, cos it not include gravity changes *
here is old but nice video...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


... i am doubtful about big bang theory. watch this...

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join