What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

In Science, we can'tjust throw up our hands and say "god did it!" and stop there. Because that's just an excuse to give up. We need to keep digging deeper.

Waht we do know is, all the galaxies in the universer seem to be expanding away from one single point. Now we need to ask ourselves "Why?"

Why is it expanding? What are all these galaxies running away from? What are they running toward?

What is so special about that one point?

Now, you may poo-poo the BB model because it needs Dark energy to stay afloat. But an SS model doesn't stand by itself either. Because of gravity. a Steady State universe needs dark energy as well, just to keep from collapsing due to gravity. And then we would need to explain why all our findings have been wrarped, to make the universe appear to be BB.

So SS needs to propped up even worse than BB. Plus theres no evidence (yet) to support SS.

In Science, we can'tjust throw up our hands and say "god did it!" and stop there.

Because that's just an excuse to give up. We need to keep digging deeper.

Waht we do know is, all the galaxies in the universer seem to be expanding away from one single point. Now we need to ask ourselves "Why?"

Why is it expanding? What are all these galaxies running away from? What are they running toward?

What is so special about that one point?

Now, you may poo-poo the BB model

I haven't poopoo'ed it at all - I'm just skepticklish & have my reservations.

because it needs Dark energy to stay afloat.

Does light decay over some distance ? Does light has mass ? Does that hold the answer ?

But an SS model doesn't stand by itself either. Because of gravity. a Steady State universe needs dark energy as well, just to keep from collapsing due to gravity.

That's not necessarily true. That happens to be today's 'pop' belief.

And then we would need to explain why all our findings have been wrarped, to make the universeappear to be BB.

So SS needs to propped up even worse than BB. Plus theres no evidence (yet) to support SS.

....and maybe it's neither. Thank you for your input my lovable little creature !

Transparency kinda fits me....wouldn't you say ?........

Does light decay over some distance ? Does light has mass ? Does that hold the answer ?

100% certain light has no mass. and 99.9% certain the speed of light doesn't decay.

My crystal ball says a photon has mass of roughly 1.787 x 10 to the -42th power grams.

....your secret of the day My Bubule is hidden in transparency........ 

 Actually empirical evidence indicates it is less than about 5.35 x 10 to the -60th power grams. (Seriously)

[As for the transparency. Well, it's a bit spooky ...]

You're serious? Light actually has mass?

0 is a value less than that mass.

All evidence is consistent with the photon having zero mass, but it could have a tiny mass and we would see no difference in experimental results. But I don't believe there is a good reason to believe it does: the usual theoretical models give it exactly zero mass.

Here's what John Baez has to say.

Okay.

Because I was discussing this, on a different thread. Was told light has no mass.

Yes, without any evidence to indicate it has any mass, it is assumed it has none.

What does universal expansion have to do with evolution? You guys (and gals) are becoming incohernt. The universe is not expanding from a single point. All points are expanding from each other. Some galaxies are moving toward each other because their momentum toward each other is greater than the rate of expansion. Most cosmologists are operating with a falacious model of the universe. A gravitational field does not curve space, it slows c (the speed of light). g (the gravitional constant) appears to be linear and constant at his time because we are at a point in time where this seems to be true. Actually g varies as a function of time. The rate of change will be found to be hyperbolic curve. We are in the more or less straight portion of the curve. And, yes, there will be a time when the positive values of the solution will become negative. Meaning that mass will repel mass instead of atracking mass.

Go on.

You are easily the most contentious person I have ever come across, either on the net or in person. 

I was at work all day. I wasted too much time on this as it is. 

I leave my iPad at home. Dawkins book is on the iPad. 

I'll read it as I have the time. 

I think you've already misunderstood one of his elementary points, and if my review holds up I will be sure to bring it to your attention, along with some adult continuing education classes for reading comprehension. 

You are not interested in any semblence of a constructive conversation.

You pick enemies on the basis of ideology. 

As was plain to see, you argued pointlessly as I asked a simple question about Dawkins. You saw evil around every corner and devils under every bed. 

When you are pressured you quote stochastics, whether they are relevent or not. 

I am likely to continue reading Dawkins. I'm debating ignoring you because you are a waste of time. 

And I'm leaving town for a few days. You'll probably proclaim it as a victory, that I'm a coward and fled from the power of your intellect. 

That pretty well sums Elroch up Hap. especially the stochastic part. 😉

   I think both of you gadflies are ganging up on Elroch, out of emotion rather than technical competence on the subject of evolution.

   As I recall, even on "that other thread", hapless decided that Elroch won the debate. I second the motion on that.

No one gangs up on Elroch PawnWhacker, he's a one man gang all by himself!😋

Sorry, I am new. I need a mock up of Kim Kardashian's azz to understand the expansion of the universe thing.

The new bird'explosion' study, (95% of all extant neoaves), is screwing up the tree again or should I say trees. Even the evolutionists are saying they need more than one gene or even multiple genes to make their trees work. Since there's not enough time to make the neoaves( 10 million years) evolve, once again they use their typical ad hoc rationalizations to make common descent work.

Massive protein coding sequence convergence, lots of incomplete lineage sorting, multiple lineages evolving simultaneously, etc. etc.

Similiar morphological structures are not lining up with phylogenetic results. Doh, common descent is a big pile of horse CRAP!

The evidence is showing God designing and engineering his Creation once again!😉

This makes no sense, 99.

I presume you are regurgitating some garbled version of genuine science that actually looks entirely different.

A more honest presentation:

The evolution of birds

The mass of a photon seems ultralight (but measurable) here on this Rock. Yet may be very-very significant out in Deep Space Nine, no ?

Wouldn't you think light would decay 'cuz it has some mass ? I mean, Einstein said all of light's properties were constant thruout the Universe. You hafta remember, Old Albert was a theoretical mathematician (and he knew it)....not a physicist - like some wanna believe. Well, what if it was in some places but not others ?