pre-evolution.

I would like to ask the opinions of those posting on this board about evolution in general.As life evolved; there was a point that life did not exist. But evolved from what was.As the earth evolved, there was a point in time the earth did not exist.As our universe evolved, there was a point in time our universe..?Point: As we turn all evolutions in reverse, we eventually come to a point of a greater simplicity of structure, to one structure, which evolved.Looking at the universe as a whole, i wish you to answer:As long as two things are, is "before that" a relevant question concerning evolving things?Is it possible our "always was" universe existed in a singular state, before any evolutions, as relativity suggests in the mathematical singularity?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I think we need a total rewrite. What the **** are you talking about?Also, you seemed to be doing pretty good before, but we seem to have a malfunctioning shift key again.Please submit a new message in this topic. If and when promoted, that message can become message 1 of the new topic.Adminnemooseus

Its pretty straight forward language. I fail to see why this would be rejected for debate.What part of the post is outside of understanding? I can attempt a rewording if i understand what it is that is not understood.I will edit the post for capitalizing sentences.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Adminnemooseus will have to respond as to the specifics he sees, but the big thing I noticed was that you're confusing two different definitions of evolution.There's a more fundamental issue in that the question posed by your thread proposal relates to the recent cosmology discussions. Whether the universe could have always existed is a meaningful question, but it may actually stem from a misunderstanding of discussions related to the beginning of time in our universe. It's still a good question, though, and it should generate good discussion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Its more of a question of evolution as a whole. The mathmatical singularity is the breakdown of "space time" and shows a singularity.The math equates that in early space-time the universe was very hot and dense.Very hot and dense mathematically equates math into a physical understanding of what was there. When it shows a singularity, there is no other data accept that all the energy of the universe existed in one form without time. Its just math, but like the math that shows a pea sized universe, It does equate into a physical observation of what could be said at that time. It is just illogical to science. but logical if you look at what evolution as a whole shows.Things evolve into multiplicity from simpler and simpler things until we have one thing that interacted to become what it evolved into. We can trace life to single cells, and follow earths movements and history to a naked planet. if all things that evolve become simpler and simpler, and as our big bang theory suggest, it becomes simpler and simpler; it is logical to assume all things that evolve can be explored by the question : Before that? Until we have the simplest form.In the case of the universe, this would mean 1 thing. And the math showing a singularity supports that.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Where you talk about math your post is nonsense. If your proposal intends to claim that your position has mathematical support then you should produce the equations.Where you talk about evolution, you're still using two different definitions. Biological evolution is a different beast altogether from planetary evolution, stellar evolution and cosmological evolution. In the latter context evolution refers to changes over the course of the life cyle of a planet, star or universe. In the former it refers to the change in an interbreeding population over time through a process of descent with modification and natural selection. Planets, stars and universes do not interbreed, do not produce offspring, do not have generational modification, and do not experience selection.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

We're Sorry - Scientific AmericanWhat do you want from me?The science i am discussing has no current accepted answer from science except string theory.This is a debate site. There are a lot of different theories discussing what the "singularity is"Now if it is nothing but mathematical anomaly with no value, Why are so many scientists attempting to discover what it actually means?This debate I'm proposing is just to answer two simple questions so we might discuss whether or not there is anything to discuss at all about "before" the big bang.And as all evolution, and math of singularity suggest, there was "something" that the big bang spawned from, that was timeless.If the entire of science is willing to explore this as a "frontier" of science, then why can we not discuss the potentials here? I have noted that no "good" theory concerning this point in time has found any full acceptance. But astrophysicists are continually searching this frontier. Can we not as well?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I can't read this because I'm not a digital subscriber to SciAm and my hardcopy's at home, but the abstract that is visible doesn't say anything like what you said in your opening post, and what I recall of the article didn't mention evolution or argue that just the fact that the universe has changed over time is evidence supporting a pre-Big Bang era. If you'd like to discuss something from the article then summarize it briefly. I'm pretty certain the SciAm article said nothing like this. Of course we can discuss this here. Summarize the article in a recognizable way that doesn't read like nonsense and it will get promoted.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Very well. You may close this topic.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides