what do evolutionists say about how atomic particles formed themselves?

Question

neutrons, protons, electrons came from something. what were the precursors?

Answer 1

Evolution is biology. Questions regarding sub-atomic particles are the realm of physics.

This is of course not a satisfactory answer, but then again, your question is not satisfactory.

By lumping biology with physics under the name "Evolutionism," you are really referring to Science as a whole. And you are pitting Science, in its entirety, against Religion.

It does not help to say that the elemental particles you mention were formed from the energy of the Big Bang, now does it? What you want to ask is, "How does Science explain the fact that things exist?"

Science does not ask that question because science studies how Nature works. When it shows that the universe arose from a Big Bang, it is not saying anything about the cause of such a thing.

Which brings up the famous Argument from First Cause. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

In the end, Religion does not want Science to have a "caused itself" or "had no cause" response. But. Religion wants to have these factors for itself: it wants to have "God caused himself", or "God had no cause." "Everything has a cause!" they exclaim. "So the universe had a cause!" And that cause is said to be God. But when you ask what caused God, suddenly everything doesn't have a cause.

In its foray into science and logic, Religion wants to "prove" the existence of something that is outside the rules of logic, and this cannot be done - what doesn't go by the rules of logic cannot be logically dealt with.

Answer 2

while you're interested in a real dialogue i do no longer think of this is the area to be and your loaded question nicely-knownshows the demeanor of a individual finding for a disagreement somewhat than a frank dialogue. Is there an journey that brought about this question that we are in a position to speak approximately? Edit: ok, grew to become into there one that set you off you should use as an occasion? The generalization makes it a complicated subject count to communicate because it leaves in straightforward terms room for specific, no and then the fountain of ridicule various the dialogue board is showering on. Edit 2: I understand which you're pissed off yet so as to go forward we ought to qualify what you believe counts as something that grew to become into reported with none theory or analyze positioned in the back of it.

Answer 3

Here is a real photo that we made recently of the beginning of the Universe:
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0217/

1. All that energy, or light, in that picture makes up everything everywhere that we know about so far. There's also Dark energy and Dark matter. That Dark stuff makes up most of the Universe, about 97-99% of it. So, we don't know much, yet.
2. All that energy, or, light, though, zoomed out in waves. Some of that energy bunched up into tiny bundles as it was zooming. We named those bundles, "photons".
3. Photons can get tangled up together. Two or three photons that get tangled up together stop zooming and just shimmer in place. Those little shimmerings we named "particles". (electrons, protons, neutrons.)
4. We also call those particle shimmerings "matter".
5. Particles can come together into families called atoms.
6. Atoms can come together and form elemental molecules.
7. Molecules can come together and form compounds.
8. Compounds can come together and form organic compounds.
9. Organic compounds can come together into life forms capable of consciousness and possessing senses.
10. Photons can become untangled and fly away again in waves. Matter can change into energy and energy can shimmer together as matter. That's what Einstein's E = MC2 means.

Lots of scientists study all the steps between energy and particle formations and about the forces that make them bond or shimmer together. It's a little too complicated for me, though, all that upside down quark business.

Answer 4

Nothing unless they are also physicists or perhaps cosmologists. Now THAT would be a tough double major! You are into the realm of physics, not biology. Biologists take for granted the existence of chemical elements and their basic properties. Many things very basic to the universe have to be just right for life to exist. Evolution is a process of how life forms change over generations, and little can be ascertained about the formation (or creation) of the universe just by knowing that a species will adjust over time to its environment. One trap to avoid, is thinking that species change or increasing species diversity in response to its environment is a reason do doubt God, which it is not.

Answer 5

I think, probably, the questioner is insinuating that those who would be most likely to have knowledge of atomic particles - in this case, apparently physicists - would also most likely be proponents of evolution. So rather than offering smart aleck replies pertaining to semantics, how about actually trying to provide an intelligent response.

Answer 6

Evolutionism deals with life, not sub atomic particles.

Answer 7

That sounds like it may fall under the aegis of evolutionary chemistry. I know nothing about that, but perhaps a chemist will come along and enlighten you.

Answer 8

that's like asking what a dentist says about a heart murmur. Why don't you ask what atomic scientists say about atomic particles?

Answer 9

Evolutionism doesn't have anything to do with that question. Physics is the science that tries to resolve these questions.

Answer 10

Dude, just have faith that evolution is the answer and never question it.