if we find microbial life on another planet, how long will it take to evolve? 5 billion years?

You're looking at evolution the wrong way. Simply put, evolution is rather a constant process... meaning the microbial life would be constantly evolving. Its not as if, 4 billion years later you cant say its "evolved" but 5 billion years later you can...

so what your saying is that evolution is taking place all the time, that seem kinda wierd if you think about, i was reading national geographic the other day and saw the thing where we are all suppose to be made from the black woman in africa and all the different kind of people are just mutations of that woman.

That's called microevolution...Mutations, Genetic Drift, and other factors all affect microevolution...

Evolution is a complex idea, as there are different kinds...Like punctuated evolution.

You can understand more in a College level biology textbook...Even AP Guides.

but does microbial organisms evolve in to complex ones?

In time, yes. Like stellar said, evolution is ongoing...Even in punctuated evolution, its always going on...

So my greate, greate, greate etc, grandmother was a black chick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation

If what you are asking is how long will it take microbial life to evolve into complex life then there is no guarantee that it ever will.

does it depend on its enviorment on how it adapts and looks?

A nebula is energy, it may be also life itself or conciousnesses. Our version of early life is only ours.


I read somewhere from some book that some life or planetary systems hold everything in constant decay, others as a crsytaline structure. Many different ways of life. The book was spiritualist etc.


All speculative hog wash to me, because I ain't got a spaceship handy.

No it isn't, it is a cloud of gas.

evolution is simply adaptation....no such thing as true evolution...nothing comes from nothing and within time creatures just dont evolve out of thin airs.

air is energy just as all gases are...they react with other matter..... hence exchange of energy in forming new compounds. But I ain't God, you beter ask him/her/it/energy for the deI'm just the witnessssssss.

Actually it can take anywhere from 1 year to 5,000,000,000,000 years. There are little particles only visible in space called cosmic bullets. Their origin is from GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursts) every once in a while the strike a chromosome. This is usually bad news for the owner, but if this owner is a woman she can produce a whole new speicies!

A nebula is a cloud of gas


Do you know the unlikelyhood of this? There are other ways of evolution...divided into two major grouos. Macroevolution and Microevolution. Each have different types of evolution, including mutation, polyploidy, genetic drift, gene flow, bottleneck effect, allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation, Natural selection, etc.

You are wrong here. Air is a mixture of different gases. Gases don't change states or turn into different compounds/element unless catalysed by energy (ex: electricity) or other reactions. Air is not energy

Catalyzing has nothing to do with it. Learn the appropriate terms if you wish to maintain the discussion.



Technically, it is. Matter is comprised of energy, so air is technically energy.

No it isn't. Energy and matter are equivalent ie matter can be converted to energy and vice versa (E=mc2) but they are not the same.


Good advice:

Energy
Energy is the capacity of doing work; where work is the process of moving some matter against another opposing force.

Matter
Something which occupies space and has mass.

Therefore air is matter but not energy.

Indeed they are. Half way through a grade 11 science class you learn m=E, but E does not =m. Its a case of "If all Johns are blobs, and some blobs are zorks, are zorks Johns?" You know... a common IQ test question...



Matter, as you've shown, is something that occupies space and has mass. As we see in the equation E=mc^2, (c being the speed of light), mass does equal energy. A certain amount of mass is the equivalent of it times c^2 of energy. Seeing as matter in a nuclear reaction releases energy (at the elimination of the matter), it is indeed energy, just as frozen water is still water.

Another simply way to see this is to ask yourself what is matter made of? Atoms, ok... but keep going... what are atoms made of, and then what are the subatomic particles made of, and you'll end up eventually with the answer "energy".

The total amount of energy within the universe is constant. If you annihilate matter, the result is energy. Seeing as the energy can not be created, and the total amount of energy in the universe is still the same, the matter WAS energy, but highly organised.

Still not convinced?

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New...y/916594209.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm
http://www.npp.hu/tortenelem/Einstein-e.htm

Argue with Einstein all you wish.



Indeed it is, dont you think?

Stellar, below are some quotes from the links you provided.

From the first link:



Notice it talks about changing mass to energy and vice versa, the implication of this is clear, they are interchangable but not the same. Note also that it is the "law of conservation of mass-energy" not the "law of conservation of energy."

From the second link:



The emphasis on the word different is mine.

From the third link:



Again one can be changed into another but they are not the same.

Your statement:

is the equivalent of saying that houses are made of bricks so a house is technically a brick. This is a false statement. (How did you do on that common IQ test by the way?)

Air is made of matter which is as you said made from energy. That is correct but it does not follow that air is therefore energy.

I have no need to argue with Einsein, he and I are in perfect agreemant on this.

i think a lot more could get done if we didn't take every argument personally...(myself included ) but im going to have to go with waspie on this one. Air is not energy, that is just silly, but it is very true in stating that air is capable of producing energy and that air can be used to carry energy, for lack of a better word.

That is because they are different "states" (for lack of a better word) of the same thing. I can chance ice into water and water into ice, but ice is still technically water.

From the same link where you got that quote, it clearly indicates "Actually, energy is matter, and matter is energy."



"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing."

The emphasis on the phrase "of the same thing" is mine.

It clearly says that they are the same, the different pertains to their "state" again, not to what they are.

Are you a good fisher?



That is because they are different states of the same thing, as the two previous links have shown. From the third link:

" In his article of 1905 Einstein proved that matter and energy are identitcal. In other words, matter and energy are two manifestations of the same entity. "

Convenient of you to leave that out...



Nah, thats quite rough. Its more along the lines of "This house is made of bricks, so technically, it is a bunch of bricks." Its perfectly valid, no? It indeed is a bunch of bricks, but with a certain order to it. One could almost call it "two different manifestations of the same entity"...



Ive only ever taken online IQ tests, and as expected, they ranged between different values when I took them 4 years ago. If you still wish to know what my scores were, go ahead and tell me.



Indeed it does, since, as I've quoted, matter is energy.



Really?

You:
"Therefore air is matter but not energy."

You make the implication that thus matter is not energy.

Einstein:
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing"

He makes the implication that air, having a mass, is thus energy.



"silly"

It may be silly, but thats what physics says.

Your mistake is that you say matter is energy. In some of your posts you more correctly say matter is of energy.

You seem to think that being different states is unimportant, but it is all important, Ice is made from water but it is not the same as liquid water. Same components totally different properties. You can not argue that an igloo is made of liquid water. (Your choise of water in this example is not really a good one as water can refer to both the liquid state and the chemical in any state, hence to make the analogy more accurate I refer to liquid water).

I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree on this before we totally hijack this thread and take it totally off subject.

That is not a mistake, as I have proven. To say otherwise is to argue against physics as we know it.

I do also say matter is comprised of energy, because it being energy means that it is made out of energy. Ice is comprised of water, for example, because it is water.



But I did not mention liquid water, I quite simply stated water. Ice is water, plain and simple, and thats why the state is unimportant. It doesnt matter what state its in, its still H2O, just like matter is energy.



Actually... I can argue that. I was under the impression that an igloo was made of frozen water...



No, the analogy was perfectly thought out, and technically, water is not liquid water. Water is any state of H2O, but is commonly used to refer to the liquid state.

Please do.

This is the fastest moving subject I have seen since the Roswell thread died.

Seriously though, this is fascinating and the two should not have to agree to disagree. This should be resolvable with the available resources.

I am in total confusion, I would agree with Waspie in a heartbeat normally as E=MC2 makes two sides of an equation which are proportional. If proportional to each other, how can they be the same thing? Energy is active mass is static?

But Stellar makes an excellent point that breaking down matter enough will provide minute but moving particles. To be moving, it must posses energy.

So, does mass possess energy or does mass comprise of energy? Are they symbiotic?
How can E=MC2 if mass is energy? Mass cannot be mass multiplied by the speed of light squared???
Is mass a combined and slower form of energy? (considering Ice molecules to water molecues) Ice is water but exhibits different properties. Can water=ice x the speed of light sqaured?

Hell now I'm confusing myself.

Interesting debate. Is this the middle ground?
Matter is made of potential energy?

Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...light_mass.html

Well, a better question would be "How can E=mc^2 if mass is NOT energie?"

It shows you right in the first part, E=mc^2



You're kind of on to it. Ice is water, but in a different state. So is mass. Mass is a more "organised" (As I'd qualify it) form of energy.

yall talk of evolution as if there is proof of it's existence.

There is a body of evidence for the theory of evolution, and evolution has been long observed in bacteria, not to the degree implied in the theory of evolution, but its still technically evolution.

including the chemosymbiotic theory...But more evolution has been observed in the fossil record...get your facts straight


Like I said, this has been observed in the fossil record.

like i stated there is no proof. There is no physical proof which means the theory has yet to be proven which means it isn't real.

There is NO PROOF? How long have you been in the cave? Plus, a scientific theory needs proof..This is a theory, therefore it has proof.

There IS Proof, too numerous to be listed. Such ignorance...

There is a debate in the Debate Leagues Forum about Evolution...check it out.

Not really observed. I wouldnt qualify the fossil record as proof, neither would any scientist.



Two things:
The thread started talking about baacteria evolving. We do have proof of bacteria evolving.
Forgetting that theres plenty of evidence to support evolution, saying that its not proven therefore it isnt real is faulty. I can come up with my own "theory" on the spot, completely unsupported, and it could still be real.



Talk about ignorance...

It is a theory, which means it has plenty of evidence, but not necessairly proof.

Why not? Any respected paleontologist would..


Plus all the evidence is present day life, the fossil record, and even molecular evolution (Stanley Miller's Experiment).

like i said...there is no physical proof. Bacteria may evolve right? so what does it evolve to? whens the last time u seen a creature evolve? IT HASN'T HAPPENED!!!!

where is the proof to modern day that creatures are evolving? Because not all creature would evolve at the same exact time. Which means we would be seeing creatures evolve in modern time today.

The fact is that there is no physical evidence of evolution in creatures...just like there is no physical evidence of the loch ness monster, bigfoot, chupcabra, UFO's, aliens, ETC....

You show me physical evidence of evolution in a creature then I will change my opinion.

Your view of evolution is all wrong...Evolution can happen at a genetic level. When animals reproduce, its evolution....Read up.

Endosymbiotic Theory...the mitochondria in eukaryote cells have DNA and were once prokaryotic cells...proof.

Not if he's an actual paleontologist.



Theres no "to" in evolution. Theres no goal. Evolution is, quite simply, adaptation to the environment. We've seen bacteria adapt to be resistant to antibacteria, we've seen insects adapt to be resistant to pesticides, that is evolution.



Read above.



Indeed there is plenty of evidence. Read the thread.

Do some research..any real paleontologist would agree...Ask Kirkland or Currie. I think they know more than you.

The fount of knowledge is adequate in the preceding answers, but I would just throw this in.

The Earth took about a billion years to cool down from its fiery and tempestuous beginning
(radiating heat, meteors and astroids, volcanoes, atmosphere development). Then you had, possibly the first living cells become active from the available input of rich reaction evironments during that cool-down phase. To go from the beginnings to those simple variations was probably some few million years. As time went further down the road, the different living organisms evolved, with a few major "extinction" events (which have interesting cosmic origin possibilities). All together, a technological, bi-pedal rocketman took 3.5 billion years.

Can that be accelerated, to conceivably allow for a shorter time-frame? Sure- take out the competition earlier, while allowing enough competition to spur development.

I could vaguely imagine symbiosis on a grand scale augmenting evolutionary time periods, but have not given that any real thought.

Indeed, ask them. Please, ask them to define a scientific theory. Scientists are not so presumptuous to call the theory of evolution proven... if that were the case, it would no longer be called a theory but a law. Science really does withhold on calling anything "proven"

Indeed it is not proven, but they do beleieve there is evidence in the fossile record.

Then what are you arguing about, hmm? The whole thing was about whether the ToE has been proven or not.

Going back several posts I would say you are sort of on it. Take E=mc2. If mass was energy then the equation would be E=M. As it is not E=M energy is not identical to mass.

Energy and mass are interchangable but not identical.

You do realise that theres a difference in measurement between energy and mass, correct? You do not say something has "1 kg of energy", do you? Just as 1 km and 1 mile are both distances, but theres just a difference of measurement. As for energy not being identical to mass... tell that to Einstein:

"In his article of 1905 Einstein proved that matter and energy are identitcal."

Mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing because matter is energy.

From the Nova tv web site, Einstein's Big Idea:



"Different forms of the same thing" in the same way that ice and steam are different forms of the same thing. But in the same way that ice is not steam, mass is not energy.

I say it again, Energy and mass are interchangable but not identical. Air is not energy it is matter.

Precisely. Different forms of the same thing, meaning they are the same, meaning mass is energy, but in a particular state. Its the equivalent of saying "water ice and H2O are the same thing". They are, but ice is in a particular state.



You can say it all you wish, it doesnt make you right. What degree do you have in physics to challenge Einstein?



Matter is energy, so therefore air is energy.

WRONG. If you were correct then ice is steam would be a correct statement. It is untrue that to say different forms of the same thing means they are the same. The key word here is different.



Actually I'm a chemist. I do not beleive I am challenging Einstein. Einstein said, "It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing"
Again different manifestations. This is known as the equivalence of matter and energy. Equivalence is defined as being equal in value, that does not necessarily mean identical. If mass was energy you would not have to annhilate the mass to convert the one to the other.



WRONG. Matter can be changed into energy and vice versa but they are not the same, therefore air is matter but not energy. They are different. You can say it all you wish, it doesn't make you right.

I'll repeat the definitions of matter and energy. If they were the same the definitions would be interchangable.

Energy
Energy is the capacity of doing work; where work is the process of moving some matter against another opposing force.

Matter
Something which occupies space and has mass.

Air quite clearly fits the definition of matter. It does not fit the definition of energy.

These seems to be where you are getting confused. "Energy" is not a term pertaining to a certain form, energy is more of a blanket term. We are not saying that "mass energy" and nuclear energy are the same, (that would be the equivalent of saying ice is steam, since its comparing two different forms)... I am simply saying (as physics also states) that mass is energy (which is the equivalent of saying liquid water is H2O, or water steam is H2O).



Good for you. What degree do you have in physics?



Once again, "the same thing".



Einstein clearly says "identical" though. Why? Because energy is a blanket term, which covers mass as a form of energy.



Untrue. That is simply a coversion from one form of energy into another, similar to electrical and thermal energy.



How many times do you want me to quote physicists and Einstein? Mass is a form of energy, whether you like it or not. It fits the definition of energy to the same degree that light fits the definition of energy.

It seems to me that we are arguing over semantics here. It really comes down to interpretation of the term equivalence. I have been looking into this further and it is possible to justify both our positions.

It can be said that matter and energy are two different aspects of the same thing, but it is also true to say that one can be converted to the other ie not the samething but interchangable. Even the quote from Einstein,

can be used to justify both positions depending on how you emphasise it,

you,


me,
.

If we carry on we are going to go round and round and never agree, despite the fact that really we agree on more than we disagree on. Interestingly on one site (which rather stupidly, as it di not back up my position, I forgot to note down its address so I can't give a link) there was a feature on the philosophy of E=mc2. There was a similar debate to ours and no definative answer was given.

So as I said earlier I think we will have to agree to disagree on that.


I think I answered that. Physics was the science I loved but chemistry paid the bills. Just out of curiosity do you have a degree in physics?