a question conserning the big bang theory and evolution?
Let's assume that the big bang theory did happen. a big explosion accured to create the entire universe. but it didn't create life. in order for evolution to accure wouldn't there have had to be something to evolve from? take the evolution of man: where did the first homo sapian come from? wouldn't something have to have created them in order to evolve? this makes the theory of evolution not hold any water. So can someone explain to me what I'm missing if anything?
- skepsisLv 71 decade agoBest answer
Evolution describes the development of useful genetic traits in species of organisms through the natural pressure to survive in specific environments. Life forms that develop traits that don't help them survive die out. The ones that develop traits that sustain or improve their chances of survival until they can produce viable offspring continue on. Every organism comes from a long line of predecessors who were lucky enough to successfully cope with their environment as it changed over time.
The Big Bang could not have produced life itself. Conditions simply did not permit it. But the expansion of matter and energy from a condensed, indeterminate state out into time and space eventually made it possible for distinct forms of matter and energy to form. From those elementary particles and forces, atoms naturally formed and reacted with each other in predictable ways. These are the types of reactions that chemicals do even today.
It was only after a great deal of time that enough reactions had occurred that chemicals complex enough to support energy transfer and conversion developed. This was not what we would call life, but the processes were the ones that life forms control and use. At some point, a molecule made a copy of itself out of simpler materials, and this might be considered the beginning of life. For this to happen, information had to be chemically stored to make the copy possible. We call this storage system a gene. From that point, every step of evolution has been a matter of slight, natural changes in genes proving to be either beneficial or deleterious for continued survival and reproduction in an environment. Successful organisms often tended to be more complex and adaptable to change, so that environmental shifts had less of a catastrophic effect. Other organisms stayed simple and survived simply by being impervious to change or finding environmental niches where change seldom occured.
As life became more complex, it reacted with its environment on higher and higher levels, first groping its way around and finding nutrients by accident, then learning to recognize and follow light, sound or scent. At some point, some life forms became "aware" of their environments, learning to recognize repetitive situations that were beneficial (food, mates) or hazardous (predators, hazards) to their continuation. Thier ability to pursue/avoid significant parts of their environment were instinctive, but controlled by a nervous system genetically trained to manage it.
Further development enabled organisms to share information with each other, communicating, teaching and learning so that all the survival information didn't have to be packed into genes. Ultimately, developing organic brains managed the trick of combining awareness, memory and abstract thought, the ability to think about things as ideas, not just objects. This enabled the brain to plan for situations that had not yet occurred, develop tools to prepare for future situations, and even to think about itself. With self-awareness and abstract thought, the first primitive humans had developed, able not only to cope with their environment, but to control it to some extent.
Each step in evolution amounted to nothing more than a successful adaptation, a trait that made survival or reproduction easier. There was no conscious effort to direct change, only the natural selection of survival or extinction. If you lived, you likely had children to inherit your genes. And at the most basic level, every mechanism involved in living is simple, predictable chemistry, unrecognizable at the macro level, as we perceive "life".
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Evolution, which is self-evident, explains very well how one living thing can change into another, but it doesn't explain where the first ever living thing came from.
The Big Bang explains how non-living matter got here, and the cosmic microwave background provides evidence for it, but not how any living things appeared.
What is missing is abiogenesis: the creation of living things from non-living matter. It has been shown by experiment that the formation of proteins is endothermic (that just means it requires energy input) and can only happen in the right circumstances -- definitely not in an oxidising atmosphere. There is not, as yet, any great pressing need to synthesise proteins from chemicals on an industrial scale, so there is little research going on.
(We can presume, by the way, that any deity that may exist must have arisen by abiogenesis. So if a bunch of atoms are going to rearrange themselves without any guidance -- because, remember, there is no God yet to do the guiding -- it'd be much more likely that they would form a simple self-replicating molecule than an omnipotent deity.)
- marbledogLv 61 decade ago
You're correct in assuming that big bang theory and evolution have nothing to do with one another. They don't.
The first h. sapiens probably came directly from australopithecus, but there is some discussion over which species is our nearest ancestor. Homo ergaster and homo habilis are other possible candidates.
If you're asking where all life on Earth came from, quite frankly we don't know. Evolution is only concerned with how life developed, not how it began. The branch of science that studies the origins of life is called abiogenesis. There are some very compelling abiogenetic hypotheses (all involving the formation of very simple self-replicating molecules). Nonetheless, our extreme lack of evidence means we have no truly sound theories on the origins of life.
As stated above, this really has nothing to do with evolution, which explains the development of life on Earth, not its origin.
- Mr.SamsaLv 71 decade ago
The big bang didn't necessarily "create" the universe, it just spread it around.
You're correct in the sense that evolution only describes how beings change over time and successive generations, not where they come from. The answer to that is, in my opinion, abiogenesis, and the emergence of living organisms through natural chemical processes (certain chemical combinations produce basic amino acids and RNA, the basic structures of every living organism on the planet). But you can believe that God put those microorganisms onto the planet billions of years ago if you want to.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
First thing wrong... The big bang was not a bang. It was a rapid expansion of the universe that is continuing right now and on into the future. Second, the precursors of homo sapiens have been fairly well defined. How we got to be human is a matter of looking through the fossils and watching a hominid go from being prey to the top of the food chain.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
OK here is the flaw in your idea.
Evolution does **NOT** in any way claim to explain the origin of universe, planet or life...it ONLY explains how life diversified by descent with modification via natural selection.
The "theory" that people needed to breathe was a common fact and accepted long before we knew that it was oxygen that we needed in order to produce energy via aerobic respiration. So was the idea of breathing a stupid+flawed idea before that was figured out? Of course not.
The idea of gravity is well accepted and proven...but no one to this day understands what makes it work...we know it is an attraction based on mass but no one knows why or by what process it attracts....so is gravity flawed? Gravity doesn't hold any water I guess.
Right now we are still working on ideas of where life came from...but that does NOT make Evolution false or flawed.
That is like saying just because we don't know who exactly made the 1st wheel the idea of fuel injection is flawed
- Anonymous1 decade ago
There is a solid fossil record that indicates evolution did happen so how it started is immaterial to rather it happened or not. We have no idea why gravity happens, but you wouldn't deny it.
There are at least three current theories on how it started, the most commonly accepted is abiogenesis. They are still arguing over the details, but this happened 3.5 billion years ago on a microscopic scale. It's going to take a while to piece it together. But they are getting very close: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-clo...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Life (nondeterministic causal chains) is an innate characteristic of the universe. It (most likely) first formed when self-replicating molecules were formed through electrical discharges through organic gases and liquids in the primordial seas.
From there, mutation and natural selection created more and more complex molecules, in an unbroken chain, creating all the lifeforms on Earth today.
- 1 decade ago
* drink *
For the one millionth time...
Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. The (current) inability to explain how life began no more refutes evolution than it refutes the theory of gravity, or germ theory, or magnetism, etc., etc., etc.
Evolution is concerned with explaining the vast diversity of life on this planet. That's it. It doesn't care how the universe began.Source(s): We're getting there... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&e
- NurdballerLv 41 decade ago
If you actually want an answer, read a book on evolution and the big bang. No one here is probably a scientist, so you aren't going to get the answer you want.