Leaderboard

First, it does not edit genes as such. It can be exploited for such purposes (in biology, we have a long history of using cellular enzymes for genetic work), however in nature it basically just recognizes foreign (viral) genetic material and just degrades it. Second, there are other enzymes, such as recombinases that can integrate foreign DNA into its genome, as well as other mechanisms that prevent it (e.g. restriction enzymes). But even our usual DNA replication system that tries to copy without errors, does, in fact eventually introduce errors, which creates mutations. In other words, there are a lot of things that can alter DNA (internally and externally) Here, you have to go back to the hierarchies that I a referred to earlier. On the mechanistic levels a lot of thing manipulate genetic material. Either by making errors or allowing errors and so on. Their impact on evolution is not zero, but rather it affects the overall genetic landscape in terms of e.g. expected mutation rate, potential role of horizontal gene transfer and so on. However, when it comes to the mechanisms of evolution, e.g. selection, the same rules apply as for any other traits that a cell or organism might have. So if you have cell that is very promiscuous with gathering foreign DNA (e.g. it does not have restriction enzymes and has a highly active transformation system), it could get lucky and get DNA from the enviroment that is highly useful and it will be positively selected. Conversely, it might get a lot of useless DNA which just cost energy to replicate and then its fitness will go down. I.e. you should not think too much in terms of yes/no but rather on which level and how much. If something impacts genetic material itself, it can affect certain overall parameters (again, mutation rate being the most obvious ones), but beyond that, it does not have a particularly different role. Depending on environment, these might be very important. For example, in an environment with a lot of viruses/phages, having CRISPR as protection might be very important. In other environments, it may be much less so. I think we have to be a bit more precise. Luckily, I think we have moved away from the idea of guided evolution to a large extent. But now that we have arrived at a somewhat better place, I think absolutes are not really helpful. CRISPR is an enzyme complex as any other and proteins obviously do have functions, leading to traits, which might then be under selection. So thinking that CRISPR somehow changes the course of evolution single-handedly is clearly not what is happening (if we ignore artificial breeding for the moment). Because at that point we might as well argue how dead we all would be without, say, ribosomes which I think is not terribly helpful (though there is a reason why they so conserved).

Two SF Ballet dancers perform this wonderful George Harrison classic:

I was 14 when I snuck into a theater to see Woodstock. I had to sit through the entire credits before I was able to walk. Yes. Earth-centered religions have tended to less elevation of humans over the rest of creation. In Paganism humans are a part of nature. In Abrahamic religions, humans lord it over nature, and are the only beings with immortal souls and therefore have a divinity which separates them from nature. This view has played out in ways that aren't so good for nature.

Naked girls dancing around the fire made me think of Woodstock for some reason.

I watched some of Eureka when it first came out but I lost interest as it progressed. I honestly don't remember a time travel component in the show but I didn't watch very many episodes. I might give it another go!

Mostly I really hate time travel in any show. I generally can excuse one or two bits of magic in something (e.g. faster than light travel is pretty much required to make most Science Fiction work), but the implications of time travel are just too much for me. Having said that, I recently watched Eureka. Pretty much all of the science in that show was just silly. But that then made it easier to accept the time travel episodes. It was all really just fantasy. And the interesting bit of the time travel was that they kept the "timeline changes" in the show. That is, around half way through the run they altered their present by something they changed in the past ... never reverted it. So some characters went on in the show knowing about the "other timeline" and others only knew one. It was like the show was rebooted, with some characters knowing about the reboot.

I think you have to be careful when thinking about randomness in evolution. In fact, there are multiple levels to think about it. First, is the mechanisms which create diversity. They include mutations, recombination and associated mechanisms. They are mostly random for most intents and purposes, but looking deeply into it, there are certain chemical reactions resulting in certain mutations that are slightly more likely than others, for example. But the likelihood that they are happening at all, are mostly stochastic. Then, you have the mechanisms affecting the inheritance of genetic material. Here, we clearly have random effects (e.g. drift) but also non-random mechanisms (e.g. selection). Finally, we also have the overall view on evolution. The important bit here is that because of potential strong effects of selection, evolution is not an entirely random walk. However, the measure here is fitness (i.e. ability to transmit genetic material to the next generation, not fitness in the physiological or survival sense). But fitness is highly context-specific and depend on the organism and its ecological niche. So while not random, there is also no clear goal, either. Going back, things happening at the First (lowest) level, do not have systematic impacts as such, they are one of many traits that affect the impact the system in terms of e.g. how fast new traits might appear, but they work in conjunction with myriads of other factors affecting traits. Selection, on the other hand, works on a higher level and takes the combination of traits, in a given ecological situation and there impacts the gene pool systematically, if you want to call it that.

See how easy it is too shoot down, what is essentially a very good idea; in answer to the OP, I think it's a shame that paganism isn't rising fast enough, our society steamrollers every idea that could potentially slow growth; I wonder why the Australian mice plague spings to mind?

Paulsrocket has been banned for really bad faith arguments (like you can't trust science because it's always changing).

! Moderator Note Enough! Take your ignorance and go someplace where it's welcome.

The notion that you could provide a picture of entanglement is ludicrous if you understand anything about entanglement. It’s not a request one can make in good faith. He “knew” what the best science at the time knew. Science is driven by data, not clairvoyance. The expansion of the universe wasn’t discovered until 1929

Technically paulfoolery…

The same. As long as the falling objects are much smaller than the BH.

Nothing can pass back across the event horizon, yet if small enough and thus hotter than the CMBR it can lose mass from "effectively" radiating from outside the event horizon. This might seem like a contradiction to you. Quantum effects are not the most intuitive.

We've been through the black hole thing. I pointed out there is no inconsistency in what Hawking said. But you've ignored it, being the aggressive and slightly mad idiot you clearly are. Enough of this tomfoolery.

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly. Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

This is the absolute epitome of disrespect and often the main way disrespect is spread. Ignore any points that are valid and concentrate on trivial details that can be used to denigrate more important aspects of any argument.

It's the point you brought up that I was addressing. Now that you know it's false, I assume you won't claim it again. If there were other points, by all means discuss them.

So you accept science without evidence, just like you accepted that nothing could escape a black hole, until this was declared wrong. So which is it, can nothing escape or does everything escapes via radiation. Then science said that the universe was static, until more science said that it was all in motion. So, it seems that reality in science, as you call it is more determined upon the time frame in which we live than in science itself. LOL, eyewitness testimony is actually evidence, unless you are claiming that you measured a thing that happens faster than light. LOL again, how many eyewitnesses did the church provide proving that the Earth was the center of everything? Those who disagreed were banned, canceled and hanged, the only reason that Galileo was spared is because the Pope liked the telescope, probably for peeping. PS. You still have provided zero% of the evidence that you claim exist, which means that your belief is based in faith not photos or other real evidence. Do tell us, what powers entanglement? Have you ever ask yourself that?

I can and will provide a photo of an atom https://media.indiatimes.in/media/facebook/2018/Dec/single_trapped_atom_photo_of_2018_1545711205_800x420.jpg All you have is your faith in science which changes its collective mind faster than the phases of the moon

What is the source of Hawking radiation? Black holes get the energy to radiate Hawking radiation from their rest mass energy. So if a black hole is not accreting mass from outside, it will lose mass by Hawking radiation, and will eventually evaporate. You do I presume know that although tailpipes emit exhaust, that the source of the exhaust is the engine? Likewise the event horizon is the exhaust pipe of the black hole if the theory is correct. LOL Einstein had a degree in physics too, and he knew that the universe was not moving but static. Can you understand that I have some very fine engineers working hard for me as you read this? Market Summary > Apple Inc 185.92 USD+185.79 (142,915.38%)all time So many words to argue with me, yet you provided no photo of entanglement. What the lab that you work at has no high speed entanglement cameras? Just provide some real evidence other than your faith