No Big Bang? New physics model shows universe might have existed forever

[thejazz97]

Why would there be more than two gender species? Two gender has been extremely effective in passing on progeny. Again, that's the way the cookie crumbled. Every cookie thrown on the ground crumbles in a distinct way. You're asking me why it didn't crumble the way you think it may crumble. Futile questions.

No, but there has to have been a mutation somewhere in over how many billions of years.

[TheRussianRocket.]

Disagree. But if you truly think this is the case, I'm sure you and CALGARY know the way out...

I never said I did. Seems like you and other folks in this thread do with all these pages of posts lol.

[RUPERTKBD]

I never said I did. Seems like you and other folks in this thread do with all these pages of posts lol.

WTF are you talking about?

You said:

I think it's fair to say that fineline was passed a number of times already and when that happens, there's no more discussing and understanding to be gained.

To which I said "I disagree" and (paraphrasing) "If that's what you think, then don't let the figurative door hit you in the posterior on your way out".

There are already plenty of mods around to tell us when a thread is lacking in substance and needs to be closed. We don't need, nor appreciate condescension from either you, or CALGARY.

[Duodenum]

No, but there has to have been a mutation somewhere in over how many billions of years.

I'm worried in that you think that a mutation is all you need to go from a two gender to a three gender species. Also, "there has to have been..." isn't accurate in the first place. It is false logic. Please educate yourself on the topic before continuing.

[thejazz97]

I'm worried in that you think that a mutation is all you need to go from a two gender to a three gender species. Also, "there has to have been..." isn't accurate in the first place. It is false logic. Please educate yourself on the topic before continuing.

Sorry, I'm just saying, it's supposedly been billions of years. I mean, if we just sort of happened by a mass series of accidents... shouldn't something have happened?

And false logic? So I get told to use logic. Then, when I question something (which is logical), but with the "wrong wording", I get told that it's false logic and I should go educate myself. Funny.

[Cyanophyta]

Yeah, I think there does have to be a why. There's a why for everything.

But why aren't there species with more than male or female? If we've truly had how many years to evolve, shouldn't we at least a few species with three to... unlimited amount of genders?

Adult earthworms have both male and female reproductive organs. Clownfish can change sexes with the male becoming a female. They may turn into a male or female, but that is because it's beneficial to do so. Sharing genes increases the probability of survival.

Some species can also reproduce asexually, for example, bacteria only reproduce asexually. They do exchange genetic material with each other, but they don't produce new cells from it.

There is quite a bit of variation in how different species reproduce.

[thejazz97]

Adult earthworms have both male and female reproductive organs. Clownfish can change sexes with the male becoming a female. They may turn into a male or female, but that is because it's beneficial to do so. Sharing genes increases the probability of survival.

Some species can also reproduce asexually, for example, bacteria only reproduce asexually. They do exchange genetic material with each other, but they don't produce new cells from it.

So why isn't all life sexual or asexual?

[Cyanophyta]

So why isn't all life sexual or asexual?

Because exchanging genetic material increases the probability of survival. If every organism in a species had the same DNA, then a change in the environment or a virus could easily kill off the entire species. Having genetic diversity increases the odds that even if some event occurs it won't necessarily wipe out the entire species because some of the species will be able to adapt to the changes. Sexual reproduction is necessary for survival, which is why organisms reproduce sexually if they can.

Some organisms reproduce asexually like bacteria, but they do exchange genetic information in different ways. Then there are trees and other species that can reproduce asexually if they have to, but they will reproduce sexually if they can because it's advantageous to do so.

Reproducing sexually is necessary for the survival of a species, but being able to reproduce asexually can also be advantageous in some cases. It's better for a tree to reproduce asexually and have its offspring survive to reproduce sexually and exchange genetic material than it is for that tree's lineage to die out with it.

[thejazz97]

Because exchanging genetic material increases the probability of survival. If every organism in a species had the same DNA, then a change in the environment or a virus could easily kill off the entire species. Having genetic diversity increases the odds that even if some event occurs it won't necessarily wipe out the entire species because some of the species will be able to adapt to the changes. Sexual reproduction is necessary for survival, which is why organisms reproduce sexually if they can.

Some organisms reproduce asexually like bacteria, but they do exchange genetic information in different ways. Then there are trees and other species that can reproduce asexually if they have to, but they will reproduce sexually if they can because it's advantageous to do so.

Reproducing sexually is necessary for the survival of a species, but being able to reproduce asexually can also be advantageous in some cases. It's better for a tree to reproduce asexually and have its offspring survive to reproduce sexually and exchange genetic material than it is for that tree's lineage to die out with it.

All I got from that was that trees can reproduce sexually.

But yeah, I get it. Also, this is going from where we are back to the beginning... looking from the beginning forward, why would there even be the need to evolve something that didn't need to reproduce sexually?

Also, I'm looking at the wikipedia article for evolution of plants. Is there any more... explicit (?) way of saying how plants evolved, instead of just saying that they "appeared"?

[Cyanophyta]

All I got from that was that trees can reproduce sexually.

But yeah, I get it. Also, this is going from where we are back to the beginning... looking from the beginning forward, why would there even be the need to evolve something that didn't need to reproduce sexually?

Also, I'm looking at the wikipedia article for evolution of plants. Is there any more... explicit (?) way of saying how plants evolved, instead of just saying that they "appeared"?

I don't know enough about it to say why some can reproduce asexually, so I can only guess, but maybe they started off asexual and either mutated, or engulfed a cell that allowed them to reproduce sexually. I really don't know why though.

I think that plants on land evolved from green algae. The algae probably had some traits that allowed it to survive in environments that were semi aquatic. From there the algae could have slowly evolved to become better suited for survival outside of water for longer and longer periods of time. I'm just speculating on that part though. I'm sure there has been quite a bit of research on how plants evolved on land.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0604_wirealgae.html

That's an article about algae coming onto land. It doesn't have a lot of info, but it is kind of interesting.

[TheRussianRocket.]

WTF are you talking about?

You said:

To which I said "I disagree" and (paraphrasing) "If that's what you think, then don't let the figurative door hit you in the posterior on your way out".

There are already plenty of mods around to tell us when a thread is lacking in substance and needs to be closed. We don't need, nor appreciate condescension from either you, or CALGARY.

What? Okay then...

[Tortorella's Rant]

Non-science people discussing science with other non-science people asking questions that have been covered a billion times on Youtube by actual scientists. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?????????????????

[thejazz97]

I don't know enough about it to say why some can reproduce asexually, so I can only guess, but maybe they started off asexual and either mutated, or engulfed a cell that allowed them to reproduce sexually. I really don't know why though.

I think that plants on land evolved from green algae. The algae probably had some traits that allowed it to survive in environments that were semi aquatic. From there the algae could have slowly evolved to become better suited for survival outside of water for longer and longer periods of time. I'm just speculating on that part though. I'm sure there has been quite a bit of research on how plants evolved on land.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0604_wirealgae.html

That's an article about algae coming onto land. It doesn't have a lot of info, but it is kind of interesting.

Okay, this is one part about evolution that confuses me. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? If trees evolved from algae, why is there still algae? Do trees ever think (yes, I know, it's highly unlikely that trees think), "Oh, you poor suckers, got the short end of the evolutionary stick." Does this mean that in however many billions of years, all the remaining monkeys and algae will be Neanderthals/humans and trees?

I think my view on origin of planets and species will remain the same as of now; considering there is no recorded, observed history of a species morphing into a new one, I'll take whatever evolution has to say with a grain chunk handful bag truckload of salt.

[AbbyNucksFan]

we did not evolve from monkeys. we had a common ancestor. HUGE difference.

[thejazz97]

we did not evolve from monkeys. we had a common ancestor. HUGE difference.

According to evolution, all life has a common ancestor.

[Cyanophyta]

Okay, this is one part about evolution that confuses me. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? If trees evolved from algae, why is there still algae? Do trees ever think (yes, I know, it's highly unlikely that trees think), "Oh, you poor suckers, got the short end of the evolutionary stick." Does this mean that in however many billions of years, all the remaining monkeys and algae will be Neanderthals/humans and trees?

I think my view on origin of planets and species will remain the same as of now; considering there is no recorded, observed history of a species morphing into a new one, I'll take whatever evolution has to say with a grain chunk handful bag truckload of salt.

Monkey's evolved with us. We have a common ancestor with them. Just because it evolved from a species doesn't mean the whole species evolved. If grey wolves in North America evolved into something else, grey wolves in Europe wouldn't also evolve. Or, say wolves in BC evolved into something else over a period of time. Wolves in Alberta wouldn't necessarily evolve into the same thing because they are separate groups that don't interact with each other and they have separate environments.

You can see evolution all the time. That bacteria that becomes resistant to the antibiotics that you're on has evolved. All of the bacteria that weren't resistant died, but a few survived, and multiplied, and their offspring will have the same resistance to that antibiotic. Then imagine that happening in thousands of different situations over millions of years and you eventually get something that's different.

[thejazz97]

Monkey's evolved with us. We have a common ancestor with them. Just because it evolved from a species doesn't mean the whole species evolved. If grey wolves in North America evolved into something else, grey wolves in Europe wouldn't also evolve. Or, say wolves in BC evolved into something else over a period of time. Wolves in Alberta wouldn't necessarily evolve into the same thing because they are separate groups that don't interact with each other and they have separate environments.

You can see evolution all the time. That bacteria that becomes resistant to the antibiotics that you're on has evolved. All of the bacteria that weren't resistant died, but a few survived, and multiplied, and their offspring will have the same resistance to that antibiotic. Then imagine that happening in thousands of different situations over millions of years and you eventually get something that's different.

... nope. Sorry. Can't do it. Too many beautiful people and animals and birds and plants and rock formations. I just can't stop thinking that this isn't an accident, and that everything is intelligently designed with a purpose. It's too beautiful to be anything else.

[Duodenum]

Sorry, I'm just saying, it's supposedly been billions of years. I mean, if we just sort of happened by a mass series of accidents... shouldn't something have happened?

And false logic? So I get told to use logic. Then, when I question something (which is logical), but with the "wrong wording", I get told that it's false logic and I should go educate myself. Funny.

Lots of things happened...

It's not the wording that's wrong, it's the question all together lol. It's illogical. Until you figure out why (and I've told you why), I can't help you.

Educating yourself about these things should be a goal of yours, not a joke to pass off.

[Dral]

How can you guys NOT think Jazz is trolling everyone now..... seriously

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Yeah, I think there does have to be a why. There's a why for everything.

But why aren't there species with more than male or female? If we've truly had how many years to evolve, shouldn't we at least a few species with three to... unlimited amount of genders?

Unlimited amount of genders ? this verbal diarrhea has to stop !