Joined: May 2006
|What ponders me is if evolution, primarily macroevolution is correct then tracing time back we get to the Big Bang. Now the Big Bang inherently seems to point to creation--what caused it? Where did space, time, and energy arise from?|
Macroevolution or microevolution are semantical terms set to confuse, the keyword is EVOLUTION. Macro is merely size. Also Big Bang has nothing to do directly with Evolution. Big Bang belongs to Cosmology so you are confusing two disciplines of science. Also if you are seeking a "starting point" then that is neither Evolution or Cosmology, it is ABIOGENESIS.
|However, new theories have been formulated attempting to solve this question. I recall one stating that our universe is in a cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found. |
I have no idea what your question is really:
Evolution - the change of allele frequencies in a population over time.
Cosmology - studies of the origins of the Universe.
Abiogenesis - organisms originating from non living matter.
You started with an assertion about Evolution, flew into Cosmology then into Abiogenesis, so I'll try and jigsaw it together as I go.
|cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found. |
Cosmology: A oscilating or cyclic universe is not a reversal of expansion at all (I'd like to know where you heard that from) but its actually an entropic universe. So depending on the density and gravity it is much like a black hole and it compresses (not reverses) and we see this in systems like boiling water into condensation back into water.
|Lately the String Theory is the front-runner--it proposes that everything is made up of strings of energy within a 10 dimensional or even more world. The Big Bang would have been a result of a 3 dimensional world forming on top or within the other dimensions. This has far reaching implications however the big question is still never answered....|
Superstring has caused a furor on its hypothetical concepts alone. But first, a superstring is an elementary particle and in its original form from the 60's was the hadron (so you're dealing with fermions and bosons or quarks and gluons) and within the fermionic version arose supersymmetry (for high energy physics) - what does this all mean? The Theory of Everything - with the added addition of quantum gravity. Because we are dealing now on a quantum level, you're dealing with fields. Fields such as Caliba-Yau or Kaluza-Klein in relation to dimensional spaces (above our current 4D Universe) based upon mirror symmetry (R, 1/R, T-duality) or simplstically, the compactification of a radius. Now with that explained, does it pose to deter from Big Bang? Probably not.
|With any of these theories the where, what, why is never answered. Where did the strings of energy come from? Why do they exist? What caused the existence?|
Big Bang Model also uses the boson particle assertion (or the x boson) so in that regard, there is generally no conflict with the models. As for the theories - if one were to actually study them indepth and in particular, the mathematics, they are not pitched against each other in a contradictory fight but they stem from each other in more a mathematical simplicity (often seen as much complexity - but they're not).
|As I ponder these questions science seems to fall short, frankly the only answers seem to come with faith....|
This is how I personally view religious claims to be - they fall short, rest on Wish/Desire for something to be true utilising faith. Science is not afforded such liberties and that is why you have all these theories - trying to answer, not make a "faithful guess".