7 genetic markers

Nov 17, 2020
56
19
35
Do genetics markers contain carbon as in the Big Bang carbon and is it possible that all the genetic markers in humans go back to the Big Bang and all of the cosmos is embedded on all of our genetic markers?
 
Last edited:
Apr 5, 2020
377
407
560
To be frank, we are all made up of the same thing: star dust. Rather say higgs boson. And I guess, the BB theory says that time started from the moment the big bang happened, therefore, everything we have is from the point of big bang.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COLGeek
Dec 24, 2020
4
2
15
Carbon was not formed in the Big Bang, but later in supernovas.
In answer to the young lady's question: No. Carbon was formed from nuclear reactions inside stars, which did not form until sometime much later than the Big Bang, but before supernovae. Supernovae spread carbon around in the area of each exploding star. But the star made the carbon, not the supernova.
 
Apr 5, 2020
377
407
560
I guess you ( @Vincent Peri and @Patrick Gisler ) are drifting away from the question. Well, I shouldn't blame you for that as the question itself is wrong as, at the time of the big bang, the universe didn't even have carbon!

Do genetics markers contain carbon as in the Big Bang carbon and is it possible that all the genetic markers in humans go back to the Big Bang and all of the cosmos is embedded on all of our genetic markers?
So, I am providing a direct answer to your two questions.

First question: Do genetics markers contain carbon as in the Big Bang carbon and is it possible that all the genetic markers in humans go back to the Big Bang?

Ans:- Already stated above, the universe didn't have carbon at the time of big bang. But, it's true that all the genetic markers in humans, in fact, every bit of higgs boson in humans date back to the Big Bang.

Second question: Is all of the cosmos embedded in all of our genetic markers?

Ans: - Now, this question is like asking whether all of nature can be represented by a green plant. A direct answer will be a bold NO. As one plant can't survive without the ecosystem, one human gene can't contain the code of the universe. It is a part of it. Not it itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trithinium
Nov 17, 2020
56
19
35
I guess you ( @Vincent Peri and @Patrick Gisler ) are drifting away from the question. Well, I shouldn't blame you for that as the question itself is wrong as, at the time of the big bang, the universe didn't even have carbon!



So, I am providing a direct answer to your two questions.

First question: Do genetics markers contain carbon as in the Big Bang carbon and is it possible that all the genetic markers in humans go back to the Big Bang?

Ans:- Already stated above, the universe didn't have carbon at the time of big bang. But, it's true that all the genetic markers in humans, in fact, every bit of higgs boson in humans date back to the Big Bang.

Second question: Is all of the cosmos embedded in all of our genetic markers?

Ans: - Now, this question is like asking whether all of nature can be represented by a green plant. A direct answer will be a bold NO. As one plant can't survive without the ecosystem, one human gene can't contain the code of the universe. It is a part of it. Not it itself.
Thank you for your reply. I didn't think of it like that. I appreciate your answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Jun 1, 2020
713
449
760
Do genetics markers contain carbon as in the Big Bang carbon and is it possible that all the genetic markers in humans go back to the Big Bang and all of the cosmos is embedded on all of our genetic markers?
Although only hydrogen and helium, with traces of a few others like lithium were the only atoms that came forth before stars fused some of them into carbon and all the other elements, there is still something within your question that is worth considering.

The "laws of nature" which mysteriously sprang forth from the moment of the Big Bang guaranteed that elements like carbon would necessarily form, and from there more development would come from those few forces and a few dozen parameters that now allows a thing like us to ask such an interesting question, if taken more broadly. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Nov 17, 2020
56
19
35
Although only hydrogen and helium, with traces of a few others like lithium were the only atoms that came forth before stars fused some of them into carbon and all the other elements, there is still something within your question that is worth considering.

The "laws of nature" which mysteriously sprang forth from the moment of the Big Bang guaranteed that elements like carbon would necessarily form, and from there more development would come from those few forces and a few dozen parameters that now allows a thing like us to ask such an interesting question, if taken more broadly. :)
What within my question is wrong please? I'm working on a theory and can use some corrections thank you
 
Apr 5, 2020
377
407
560
How is my question wrong?
The question should be , "Do genetic markers contain the same thing as the matter at the time of the Big Bang did and is it possible that all the genetic markers in humans go back to the Big Bang and all of the cosmos is embedded on all of our genetic markers? "
 
Jun 1, 2020
713
449
760
What within my question is wrong please? I'm working on a theory and can use some corrections thank you
It's important to understand that the BBT requires that only H and He, with a few trace elements (as mentioned) be premises to your arguments. The BBT necessarily rules-out carbon as a first element due to the temperatures and pressures that existed during the time atoms formed. Carbon had to come much later from the furnaces of stars, which came long after the elements associated with the Big Bang.

Carbon is especially tricky. Science could not find a way it could be made within stars because the process would fall apart faster than it could form. But along came the anti-BBT theorist, Fred Hoyle, who pushed the Steady State model instead. But he also needed carbon to be formed in stars and he found a very special resonance for carbon that allowed its stability during formation. He gave the info to a physicist willing to put it to the test, and it was found. Oddly, it was the physicist that got the Nobel Prize and not Hoyle, which has been a thorn for many.

[The CMBR's discovery was the last nail in the coffin for the Steady State theory.]
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY