Just FYI on this, it is called a MICRO black hole, and its about the size 2 or 3 particles that are closer then the Planck lenght so the size of the terrifying black hole you describe is
.00000000000000000000000000000000063 inches, and they evaporate immediately after forming.. hope you dont have nightmares about that.. and CERN is the lab that monitors the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which is the terrifying device of dead that destruction you speak of..

how come when I edit it just makes another post n e ways?!?!?

This post was edited by Topher_Laid on Oct 5 2009 06:55pm

Humans won't be around in a billion years

At least not humans in a traditional sense

so you are saying a particular genus ceases to exist, they dont die out, they evolve into a new species. homo erectus is extinct. they didnt become extinct by food shortage, over population etc... they evolved into humans gradually and yes we will probably do the same thing (into what we do not know, probably a shorter, smarter less physically active creature).

you are saying every 750,000,000 years the solar activity changes, but i dont understand how. the solar life cycle has radical changes yes, but ive never heard of a 750,000,000 cycle. in fact the sun is much different now that it was 750,000,000 years ago. a star dies once it converts all of its hydrogen into helium, ours is at about 60% helium now (and has been since the last ice age)

there is recent theory (according to wiki) that "solar magnetic instabilities in the core of the Sun that cause fluctuations with periods of either 41,000 or 100,000 years." but i dont think that is what you are talking about and the name of the theory isnt listed.

This post was edited by juliusjuice on Oct 5 2009 10:01pm

weve been steadily growing as a race for quite some time now.

and the sun will likely change over the course of 750 million years simply because its getting older.

our sun sucks.. it wont even go super nova on us.. only turn into a red Dwarf actually.. cause its going to be alot smaller than it is now.

No again my point is that eventually there is an end to every lineage of species. Just like the rino, there is no evolved into another species, they simply died out.. Yes over the course of hundreds of thousands of years a creature might evolve into another separate species, but the scientific term extinct means the end of the line for a lineage of creatures. Simply put, Humans, or posthumanity will be non-existent far far far before we ever have to worry about our sun causing problems. Every creature that is the "top predator" or at the top of the food chain has their time in dominance and then passes on, and we will simply do the same.

On to the sun, no im not saying that solar activity simply changes, the FACTS are that in 600,000,000 to 800,000,000 years our sun will pass a certain point in its life cycle and start to "heat up", slowly and continually it will get "hotter" and emit more and more radiation. As Kamikizzle pointed out earlier it is possible that we may evolve with this radiation and still thrive in it for years, but at a point, roughly 750,000,000 the radiation of the sun will simply become to great for large land creatures to exist, this means that the radiation levels will reach a point that too high for large complex organisms to survive. Then all the terrible things start to happen to Earth, the O-Zone gets burned off, clouds and the upper atmosphere escape into space and then the oceans start to evaporate and escape into space too. Again this is no fluctuation that will die back out, once the Sun reaches a certain age (i wish i could remember the % of Hydrogen and helium but i can't) it will slowly start to produce more and more and more radiation and make this planet inhabitable for us.

There is a good book on this issue called "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" by Peter Ward and Robert Brownlee.. A google search turned up this 1/2 bit website that gives a very brief overview of the situation. http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/earth/how-long-will-life-survive-on-earth/

This reminds me of the first episode of the current Doctor Who series....Christopher Eccleston as the 9th Doctor




"You lot, you spend all your time thinking about dying, like you're gonna get killed by eggs, or beef, or global warming, or asteroids. But you never take time to imagine the impossible. Like maybe you survive. This is the year 5.5/apple/26, five billion years in your future, and this is the day... hold on...this is the day the sun expands. Welcome to the end of the world."

"The End of the World". The Doctor takes his new companion, Rose, 5 billion years into the future to the very day when the sun expands, destroying the Earth. They join a space station full of many different aliens all participating in this "entertaining" event. As things start to go wrong, the Doctor has to investigate who is behind the sabotage and why. In the final seconds before destruction, the time lord finds a way to re-raise the station's shields and save the day...again. But everyone misses the destruction of the Earth while the Sun expands into a Red Giant, which was the purpose of the space station.

Calling me small-minded person? And you are the one who believes in the Mill-Urey experiment. Man, you have a lot of nerve so let me prove you wrong.

Miller-Urey experiment = does not prove life could have arisen from non-living material. Why?
First, Miller used the gases ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor which were charged with an electric charge and then condense to form soup which contained two amino acids. Well there are several problems to this and I will show you what they are:
- Miller specifically did not include oxygen because he knew that it in primitive Earth conditions oxygen would be poisonous to newly formed life. However, if you have no oxygen then you have no ozone layer. If you have no ozone layer then the sun's rays would kill any living thing instantaneously. Not only that, but the rays would destroy amonia as well. So, if you have oxygen then it would be poisonous to life; if you do not have oxygen then life could not have started.
- Miller used a close system (glass tubing) and thus would not be an ideal experiment considering Earth is an open system.
- The two amino acids produced were called "left-handed" amino acids and you must have the "right-handed" amino acids to actually make something. Also, I believe you need twenty amino acids for life and this experiment made two.
- Over 97% of the "soup" he created was/is toxic to life.
- Lastly you must remember that (even though this is not entirely important) Miller made this experiment happen which contradicts the theory of Evolution which suggests that living material erose from life through chance.

wow... aaah I don't even know where to start.. Flat out, you are 100% wrong.. I would love to read whatever you did to come to this conclusion because I dont think you could be more off-base...
Again, your statements just prove that you are the type of person who reads 1 bias article and takes it for the truth.. Please allow me to prove you wrong, Sir.

--You DID actually get this part right, he did use water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen.
--Miller did not include oxygen in his experiment because it didnt exist in the beginning of our Earth. This is backed by the formation of hematite bands on the Ocean floors, the evolution of photosynthesis, roughly 2.5 billion years ago, released enough oxygen into the atomosphere to oxidize the free iron in the primative oceans and precipitate into hematite. And in response to your ramble about the Ozone and radiation, I guess first of all you would need to define which Rays you are talking about because a molten iron Earth would completely negate any presence of cosmic rays. However, since you mention the ozone also I will assume you are discussing UV radiation. In a short answer, Water. Between the very intense heat and evaporation that the early Earth contained, and the almost constant volcanic eruptions; The amount of water molecules in the early Earth's atmosphere reflected enough (or all depending on the experiment you read) UV radiation to protect the surface and even the lower altitudes of the atmosphere where abiogenesis would have been talking place.
--A closed system?? every experiment ever conducted is done in a controlled environment, that is what gives you accurate, unaltered results.... but just FYI, the Earth would have been the same "closed system" when looking from a cosmological perspective, and I assure you that the glass tubing didn't contribute anything to the experiment so your statement is without bearing.
-- 1) There where 5 amino acids that Miller identified in his experiment, not 2, and a later re-run of his experiment and re-analysis of his work identified 22 amino acids!. 2) Life on Earth is overwhelmingly dominated by construction of Left-handed Amino Acids.. I even got a source you can read for that 1 so you believe me.. http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/aachiral.html ..... but, now I am sure you will tell me NASA is wrong and you are right.. 3) Ok first of all the Miller-Urey experiment didnt say "these amino acids made life on Earth" it was a simple showing that the fundemental building blocks of life were made by the process the experiment used. The number of amino acids needed to make "life" depends on who's definition of life you are using, and as previously mentioned the experiment wasn't intended as the "Origin of life on Earth"
-- and 70% of all statistics are made up, on the spot... Again who's definition of toxic are you going by? AND what definition of LIFE are you going by, because by definition, the entire early EARTH was toxic to life, not just Miller's soup. However, I would like to remind you that toxic to one thi*ng is an opportunity to thrive to another.. google extremophiles and enjoy!
-- A mute point to argue indeed.. but abiogenesis fits into the evolutionary puzzle because it preceeds true evolution, Evolution states that life comes from pre-existing life, but people always argured, then where did the first life come from?!??! abiogenesis answers that question by showing that non-living materials, through chemical reactions, can form building blocks for living material, then that living material can aggregate into the first truly living organisms, THEN Evolution takes over to explain how the first organisms gave rise to complex organisms and then the muti-celled creatures and "animals" (bacteria)

P.S. if you would like to really argue against abiogenesis I highly suggest that, in the future, you use the arguement that abiogenesis can not yet account for the pairing of the first DNA and protiens and how they came to be because as we understand biology today, they require each-other to exist, a kind of.. chicken before the egg problem..

This post was edited by Topher_Laid on Oct 7 2009 09:25pm

- Okay, let me ask you something: where did the water come from?
- By definition, the Earth is an open system. The universe may be a closed system but Earth is open so thus this experiment is discredited. Based on your theory, you have hundreds of rocks bombarding the Earth and then you have constant radiation coming not only from the sun but from other stars. And that is the point, if someone is going to do an experiment of early Earth they must do it naturally and not like this experiment where it is not.
- Not only that but you have quite a few problems that you must take into account. First you have the Dilution Problem; second you have the polymerization problem; third you have the chirality problem; undirected energy being distrptive (UV rays); cross reactions of biochemical reaction products causing destruction or interference with amino acid production; and many more.
- And this is where Evolution fails because in order for it to happen you need abiogensis which fails as well because there are so many problems and gaps that it must fill that it becomes impossible to do.

P.S. No need to bring that subject up considering the idea of life arising from non-life is impossible to happen in early Earth.