Comment by JulianPGough
4 days ago
Well, that's a purely physics argument. You need to think instead about the information about an evolutionary history that can be extracted from an evolved organism (and the implications thereof), even if you only have one example. There's a surprising amount. As an evolutionary theory, it therefore makes predictions about the order of structure formation in the early universe. Which are working out pretty well so far.
Implications: https://theeggandtherock.com/p/the-key-implication-of-cosmol...
Predictions thereof: https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the...
https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the...
From your first source: “One was a black hole, where mass/energy collapsed rapidly to a point…”
That is a false description of black holes in GR. It’s colloquially correct. But if we’re saying this is a rigorous argument, it’s a red flag.
Black holes are regions of spacetime within which space and time reverse. We don’t know what the singularity is—it’s a mathematical anomaly almost by definition—but the best models don’t suggest anything collapsing to a “point.”
> evolutionary history that can be extracted from an evolved organism (and the implications thereof), even if you only have one example
We can do this because we understand chemical biology. When we’re talking about non-chemical extradimensional processes, pretending we can reason from first principles is philosophy. Not physics. Not science.