New evidence supports 'Snowball Earth' as trigger for early animal evolution

The formation of sexual reproduction and dimorphism during precambrian event (snowball Earth period) corresponds the condensation of gravitons into fermions and bosons during Big Bang during universe cooling (and formation of matter-antimatter particles later). The gravitons are as ambivalent particles, as procaryota in this extent. It's quite common during cooling the particle pairs are formed, one half of them gets smaller, the second one grows in size because of symmetry violation. I do believe, just the snowball period started the evolution of mitochondrians, because it was period, when food has become rarer then the oxygen because of its solubility in cold water.

BTW As a curiosity, the same post was downvoted with -18 points in this topic (no positive vote occurred there):

http://www.physor...ife.html

(by frajo, Mesafina, Skeptic_Heretic, yOnsa, Modernmystic, ShotmanMaslo, Coach, danman5000, Thrasymachus and many others)

BTW As a curiosity, the same post was downvoted with -18 points in this topic (no positive vote occurred there):

http://www.physor...ife.html

(by frajo, Mesafina, Skeptic_Heretic, yOnsa, Modernmystic, ShotmanMaslo, Coach, danman5000, Thrasymachus and many others)

I wouldn't say it is a curiosity. We know why you get downvoted, it's because you're a jackass.

Why not - but it's quite interesting, when the post, which got the absolutely lowest voting in some thread anticipates exactly the subject of another article...;-) It just illustrates, the voting feature doesn't work at all when concentration of trolls exceeds certain critical limit due the reinforcing character of trollism.

I'm sure, when Albert Einstein would wrote some insight at Physorg, he would get even lower credit from other readers here, because Physorg attracts trolls in some mysterious way and for troll every intelligent is just a jackass.

BTW As a curiosity, the same post was downvoted with -18 points in this topic (no positive vote occurred there):

http://www.physor...ife.html

(by frajo, Mesafina, Skeptic_Heretic, yOnsa, Modernmystic, ShotmanMaslo, Coach, danman5000, Thrasymachus and many others)

I wouldn't say it is a curiosity. We know why you get downvoted, it's because you're a jackass.

I downvote his posts when he writes something completely insane, self-contradictory, unsupported or contrary to evidence...and if I can still muster the mental energy to click the vote meter after stuff like "The formation of sexual reproduction and dimorphism during precambrian event (snowball Earth period) corresponds the condensation of gravitons into fermions and bosons during Big Bang during universe cooling." How can this be the product of anything other than psychosis?

What's so unnatural on the condensation of matter into particle pairs (antisymmetric Cooper pairs) when temperature goes down? This is what the spontaneous symmetry breaking is called. It just occurred at the genome level during Precambrian event.

but it's quite interesting, when the post, which got the absolutely lowest voting in some thread anticipates exactly the subject of another article...;-)

I don't see anything about aether creating organic molecules from inorganic molecules or sexual dimorphism being the result of cosmological matter condensation in the above abstract.

What sort of a fantasy world do you live in?

The term quantum foam was coined by J.A.Wheeler, who proposed, fermions and bosons resulted from condensation of gravitons (gravitational wave packets, i.e. geons). Fermions condensed further into matter and antimatter particles, the more lightweight portion again escaped into free space. Fermions condensed into fluid of praoceans, leaving water vapor above. The praoceans were formed by mixture of various fluids, which formed foamy phase at its surface after some cooling (it's so called a coacervate model of organic life formation). The protein droplets formed living cells of procaryota, the more lightweight molecules (sugars) formed their food. During another cooling period the procaryota condensed further into eucaryote cells forming the males and heavier females. Males are analogy of sugar molecules, vapor, antimatter and bosons in this line of evolution.

What this model is good for? It can explain for example the missing antimatter and/or the homochirality of life.

The foam model is actually the geometric one. At the beginning the symmetric state is formed with foam. When the foam condenses, it forms a bubbles with double walls in it. But these bubbles aren't exactly of the same size and the large bubbles tend to grow into account of these smaller ones. One of walls gets the higher curvature then the other and small bubbles tend to disappear from foam during subsequent condensation. In this way the foam becomes homogeneous again and the whole process can repeat at another level.

The surface of lipidic bilayer exhibits superhydrophobicity due its high curvature in small droplets. The molecules of sugars are attracted to outer surface preferentially, whereas the molecules of proteins tend to condense inside of them. The opposite surface curvature leads to absorption of chiral antipodes at both sides.

Females and males are chiral objects, too. They're behaving like particles of matter and antimatter in certain aspects. Can you find some?

(by frajo, Mesafina, Skeptic_Heretic, yOnsa, Modernmystic, ShotmanMaslo, Coach, danman5000, Thrasymachus and many others)

And I'll do it again here. Mainly because this statement:

The formation of sexual reproduction and dimorphism during precambrian event (snowball Earth period) corresponds the condensation of gravitons into fermions and bosons during Big Bang during universe cooling (and formation of matter-antimatter particles later).

makes absolutely no sense at all. Nor does your "clarification" (if you can call it that) in subsequent posts. The word "praoceans" that you used repeatedly above is meaningless, and (though it wasn't mentioned here) your notion of a "more dense vacuum" is equally nonsensical. That, and you're obsession with foam is a little concerning.

If you cool the gravitons (ambivalent particles, serving both like bosons, both like fermions), a mixture of bosons and fermions is formed. When the prokaryota cells (i.e. the ambivalent cells which are behaving like males and females at the same moment) were cooled, a mixture of male and female eukaryotic cells has evolved.

The prokaryota cells didn't disappear from biosphere during this in the same way, like the antimatter or boson particles didn't disappear from our universe after matter formation - they're surrounding eukaryotic organism in similar way, like antimatter particles are surrounding material objects in diaspora. Actually the total mass of bacteria exceeds the mass of eukaryota in the same way, like the total mass of dark matter exceeds the mass of visible matter.

If you cool the gravitons (ambivalent particle, serving both like boson, both like fermion), a mixture of bosons and fermions is formed.

Brrrrriiinnng! Fail. To begin with, gravitons are still just a hypothetical particle, so to treat them as a given off the bat and assign them properties that are off the wall is a total fail. 2nd, even if they do exist they are theorized to have such a minuscule interaction cross section with other particles that interaction virtually never happens (even far, far less than with neutrinos). So there's no way to "cool" them unless you're thinking of something like the crackpot "tired light" syndrome. 3rd as a fundamental particle there's nothing ambivilent about it: IT'S SPIN 2 SO IT WOULD BE A BOSON YOU [insert your ad homonym of choice here]. Nothing fermionic about it. As usual you fail on all counts. Not that it ever seems to bother you. Gads, acid, maybe it's acid.

@TDK-
To prevent future misunderstandings, I suggest you adjust your brain chip settings to translate from Moonbat to English BEFORE you post your comments

I think it would be better if this site didn't provide details of who voted for whom, and by association, revealing indicative scores. This can and does lead to childish tit-for-tat reprisals. Yet despite this, it's interesting that even as Zephir changes his handle on a regular basis, he still gets voted down. That's because he continues to spew forth absolute drivel, not because people are ganging up on him. Of course, this is as it should be on rational science based site.

@TDK

I really fail to see that stating any similarity that may appear between a living organism and its evolution and matter/Energy and various characteristics in any way helps clarify or explain or expand on evolutionary benefits that may have accrued due to snow ball earth.

I think it is your attempts to link the subatomic with life evolutionary effects that is one of your undoings. Life evolution is chemical in essence but that does not mean it bares some relationship with fermions and bosons that is any closer than iron, steel or aluminium which are all useful for making tools from hammers to aeroplanes.

@TDK

Wow, far out man, far out! What kind of weed are you smoking?

If you cool the gravitons (ambivalent particles, serving both like bosons, both like fermions), a mixture of bosons and fermions is formed. When the prokaryota cells (i.e. the ambivalent cells which are behaving like males and females at the same moment) were cooled, a mixture of male and female eukaryotic cells has evolved.

The prokaryota cells didn't disappear from biosphere during this in the same way, like the antimatter or boson particles didn't disappear from our universe after matter formation - they're surrounding eukaryotic organism in similar way, like antimatter particles are surrounding material objects in diaspora. Actually the total mass of bacteria exceeds the mass of eukaryota in the same way, like the total mass of dark matter exceeds the mass of visible matter.

TDK - THIS IS SO OBVIOUS. Was there any need to even write it

I think it would be better if this site didn't provide details of who voted for whom, and by association, revealing indicative scores. This can and does lead to childish tit-for-tat reprisals.

It does. And by learning who is engaging in such behavior we can adjust our prose towards those users who still need a bit of educational mildness.

the researchers argue that the increase in erosion and chemical weathering on land that accompanied Snowball Earth glacial events led to the high amounts phosphorus in the ocean.

It's an equally valid argument and probably a better one at that, that the extraordinary high amounts of phosphorus in the sea was caused by a world-wide flood in recession. This would have dumped millions of tons of sand and other debris into the sea as land masses were uplifted.

It's an equally valid argument and probably a better one at that, that the extraordinary high amounts of phosphorus in the sea was caused by a world-wide flood in recession. This would have dumped millions of tons of sand and other debris into the sea as land masses were uplifted.

Except there's no evidence whatsoever for a world wide flood.

Tell us Kev, if there was a world wide flood, where did the water come from, and where has it gone?

How can this be the product of anything other than psychosis?

It could be the product of an Eliza-like program. I'm seriously considering writing one to mock these retards. I'll bet real money the output will make every bit as much sense.

Tell us Kev, if there was a world wide flood, where did the water come from, and where has it gone?

I can answer that, as my mother answered me when I asked her the same question. Apparently there are large caves under the oceans and underground that are also filled with water (this is apparently the source of hot springs and hot smokers). They magically emptied themselves uphill for the flood. As with most biblical myths, you have to invoke a miracle to explain the miracle, then invoke another miracle to explain that. It is indeed turtles all the way down!

It's an equally valid argument and probably a better one at that, that the extraordinary high amounts of phosphorus in the sea was caused by a world-wide flood in recession. This would have dumped millions of tons of sand and other debris into the sea as land masses were uplifted.

Wow. It's amazing you view this as equally likely. Let's forget all the standard arguments against the flood that seem to disprove it immediately. Let's pretend we were hit in the head and actually want to interpret the babble literally. IF the flood was the reason, do you really think you could reconcile the factor of 80,000 difference in time scales. 10,000 years vs. 800 million years ago? Right? it was supposed to be about 10,000 years ago by literal interpretation. This was 800 million years ago.

Tell us Kev, if there was a world wide flood, where did the water come from, and where has it gone?

I can answer that, as my mother answered me when I asked her the same question. Apparently there are large caves under the oceans and underground that are also filled with water (this is apparently the source of hot springs and hot smokers). They magically emptied themselves uphill for the flood. As with most biblical myths, you have to invoke a miracle to explain the miracle, then invoke another miracle to explain that. It is indeed turtles all the way down!

I would have said space or up gods butt. Either.

I was under the impression, thermo, that the age of the Earth according to biblical literalists is on the order of 6000 years old. The Great Flood should have occurred somewhere around 5000-4500 years ago, if we take the age and generational information from Genesis as accurate. Clearly, a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be taken seriously.

I saw a similar conclusion on a documentary about "snow ball Earth" events on the science channel once. I hate to sound like a broken record, but did anyone else notice how oxygen and phosphorus (used in ATP-ADP cycle) is mentioned extensively in the article :P

It's all about energy...

I was under the impression, thermo, that the age of the Earth according to biblical literalists is on the order of 6000 years old. The Great Flood should have occurred somewhere around 5000-4500 years ago, if we take the age and generational information from Genesis as accurate. Clearly, a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be taken seriously.

Amen ;-)

Wow... I've seen more leaps of logic here than a 1 hour glen beck special. Someone should write a psychological/sociological paper on this site. (Hand out to all you college kids out there).

I was under the impression, thermo, that the age of the Earth according to biblical literalists is on the order of 6000 years old. The Great Flood should have occurred somewhere around 5000-4500 years ago, if we take the age and generational information from Genesis as accurate. Clearly, a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be taken seriously.

Amen ;-)

You joke, but if the base substance of the book is impeached, the entire book is impeachable.

It's an equally valid argument and probably a better one at that, that the extraordinary high amounts of phosphorus in the sea was caused by a world-wide flood in recession.

Wow. It's amazing you view this as equally likely.

This is the trouble with creationists and other looney tunes, is they don't understand the concepts of credibility, evidentiary support, or simple logic. They think that it's just a talking game, and if you say A and they say B then it's a 50/50 shot. that's why when you ask them for evidence to back up their position, you get nada -- all they hear is the buzzing like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon. Kind of like the old myth that the polynesians couldn't "see" the European ships -- there's just no conceptual connection.

I was under the impression, thermo, that the age of the Earth according to biblical literalists is on the order of 6000 years old. The Great Flood should have occurred somewhere around 5000-4500 years ago, if we take the age and generational information from Genesis as accurate. Clearly, a literal interpretation of Genesis cannot be taken seriously.

Amen ;-)

You joke, but if the base substance of the book is impeached, the entire book is impeachable.

No it isn't, that's just an opinion, and/or a matter of perspective and it always will be.

Sorry SH you'll just NEVER be in a position to define my faith and spirituality for me, it's just not your job. It's mine and mine alone.

However, in all sincerity, I do believe you're coming from a "good place" in your efforts and thank you in that respect.

The Biblical floods could have rational origin in impact, leading into tsunami before 6.000 of years.

http://archaeolog...king.htm

http://en.wikiped...e_Crater

http://www.scienc...0931.htm

No it isn't, that's just an opinion, and/or a matter of perspective and it always will be.

Well, actually, if you can impeach the base premise of any argument, that argument is impeached.

Sorry SH you'll just NEVER be in a position to define my faith and spirituality for me, it's just not your job. It's mine and mine alone.

Hold on there. Your faith is absolutely yours and yours alone and I have no intention of ever changing that. I can and do often speak about literalists, which you are not. Literalists who attempt to use the Bible as "the perfect word of God" are wrong, flatly so. And I think you agree with that synopsis.

However, in all sincerity, I do believe you're coming from a "good place" in your efforts and thank you in that respect.

The difference between you and a literalist, or at least one of the many differences, is the fact that where the book would command you to do something you perceive as evil, I think you would rely on your own morality.

How can this be the product of anything other than psychosis?

It could be the product of an Eliza-like program.

Maybe, but would you write one that comes off as crazy and can't master English (not that it's my mother tongue either, but still)? Whatever we're dealing with here, you're talking about something that just keeps getting brutally hammered in responses to comments, peer ratings, keeps getting *banned* by site admins and just comes back for more. That is *insane*. As in literally, from the French, "not healthy" or "sick" mind. If it's a program, that's one sick program, or one sick programmer.

(by frajo, Mesafina, Skeptic_Heretic, yOnsa, Modernmystic, ShotmanMaslo, Coach, danman5000, Thrasymachus and many others)

Interesting how many of the people you listed actually often disagree on different topics in many different threads yet they all seem to agree your posts warrant 1's.

I wonder why that is...

I'm sure, when Albert Einstein would wrote some insight at Physorg, he would get even lower credit from other readers here, because Physorg attracts trolls in some mysterious way and for troll every intelligent is just a jackass.

You just directly compared yourself to Albert Einstein.

You just directly compared yourself to Albert Einstein.

And wasn't Einstein the one who gave the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome? SWEET! The circle is complete

You just directly compared yourself to Albert Einstein.

And wasn't Einstein the one who gave the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome? SWEET! The circle is complete

It often attributed to Einstein or Mark Twain, but may go as far back as Ben Franklin.

It often attributed to Einstein or Mark Twain, but may go as far back as Ben Franklin.

The earliest attribution to that quote or a similacrum thereof is Socrates, and we're not really sure he existed as a flesh and blood individual. "To prepare your field in the desert and expect a bountiful harvest is foolish. To repeatedly do so is to show you've been touched by the Gods' foul machinations."

I don't think it's really that old. There's a dubious line of sources to bring you to that point.

I'd just say that anonymous guy said it. He's a fairly smart guy.

I was hoping Zephir would explain how sexual dimorphism can be understood in terms of the surface properties of water. I already knew it had to do with foam (duh).

You just directly compared yourself to Albert Einstein.

If zephyr/jigga is so smart how come he can't figure out how to get published? It's that idiot savant thing I guess.