rivers82

Please let me understand- therefore you mean that space can be excerpted or separated from time and that each can "exist" on their own? I mean, don't we need space to calculate time and vice versa? (not in classroom math problems, of course)

Absolutely. I agree. I am positive that if we are dealing with infinite space, implying infinite time, then a beginning has not begun and just as well there will not be an end to existence.

OK, now have you also perhaps watched a video on youtube about a"theroy" (rather hypthesis) that explains EXACTLY what you are asking and also indicating about "never been a beginning"? Because I have and it literally hit me. There is a girl who thought out something really cool. I think she came a bit earlier than you! I don't think that I can paste any link, but you might try typing "implosion theory" like I did on youtube search. stv implosion theory's the title. I am sure you'll find it truly inspiring from what you just posted!

The question is too broad. Living in North America, which part? North America is pretty wide as an area... Miami and Toronto are both in North America and have completely opposite environments. Firstly, in reply to some posts above, there is still debate on human evolution so I cannot state without any doubt whatsoever that we all evolved from Africa (Africa at its actual size- remeber that continents too have split and moved, "evolved" in shape and position), and however that does not imply that our ideal environment would be today's Northern African- as there is incontrovertible evidence that the climate of Africa (at the size that we see today) thousands of years ago, especially Northern Africa, was completely different from today's, being more temperate and green, thus more suitable to human settlements. Just study about Mesopotamia, Babylon, Egyptian cities, during even only 2000 yrs ago at the times of the Roman Empire. These cities were described as paradises with incredible vegetation, water, abundance, etc.. A very different geography from today's. However, if we want to assume that the first human migrations to other world regions all began from Africa (whichever size it was when these started), then we must assume that all the migrating tribes departed for a reason and stopped in a given area for another reason, and this reason for stopping in a given area is that that tribes had benefits from doing so, where adapting there would be easier than keep trying to adapt to the changing original site. (This type of migration has been seen in countless archeological sites where there is evidence for mass, real and proper "evacuations" of whole settlements- see in South America. Now we have to also consider that each "tribe" or human race has different characteristics that enable one tribe to perfectly adapt to one climate and another to adapt to another. My "tribe-line" is unable to adapt to hot weathers, not even to those that characterize perfectly habitable places by "western civiliaztions" like Southern US, or Southern Europe. I suffer from it and prefer cold weathers- where my mind and motivation maintain dynamism. TODAY, humans thanks to advances in medical science, transportation&communication means and all the rest that we all know perfectly adapts (physically and psychologically) to any weather that is not too extreme (harmful) on our vital functions.

Hi Irbis, yes of course genetics play the major role. but also other factors such as nutrition and sun exposure are significant to explain the physical development of individuals. just think about the observations done on separated twins that grew up in different countries with different nutritional habits/cultures/availability that resulted into two completely different statures and body shapes. also, you can note how in Europe too before the industrial revolution the average hight was almolto 10cm lower than the actual mean. This is because if you see as reported on the graphics of the below link (that is for the country of Italy for the last century), consumption of protein has dramatically increased. Also, availability of variety of food has increased thanks to transportation improvements and this has lead to better general health. http://bressanini-lescienze.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2009/10/23/cosa-non-mangiavano-gli-italiani-una-volta/ However, what has lately concerned many countries, especially those in Europe, is the effect of the hormones given to cows (& thus to milk products) on humans when consuming these meats. it has been demonstrated to have dratic effects on: the growth in size, on the sexual development, and on the mental acuity. In fact there have been many reported cases of adolescent boys growing breasts or manifesting other such problems who have been perfectly been cured just by eliminating meats treated with hormones, and also, it is currently under accusation the consumption of milk too for promoting in girls earlier first menstruation. In the US there are in fact statures that are unseen anywhere else in the world, and it is not due to meat consuption which is comparable to that of many other European countries, but due to the hormone levels and types given to their livestock. This also explains why in countries where the highest percenatge of protein intake comes from sources such as fish, eggs, and insects, where the hormone administration is at insignificant levels if none, and their statures are small. However it is reccommended by many world famouse nutritionists to eat between .8- 1.0 grams of protein per (ideal/healthy) body weight, but only HALF of these coming from animal sources. That is the ideal quantity for guaranteeing all nutritional needs and avoiding problems in development either for malnutrition or overnutrition.

Impressing work! my compliments! significant are the following statements that you wrote: A) "That randomness meant no two runs were exactly identical, but there were some common patterns that cropped up" B) "What I did get, though, were predators whose coloring would mimic plant life and lead to other circles making a beeline for them. The trait to run towards plant life died out very quickly whenever that particular predator appeared on the scene." C) "Biological life as unimaginably more potential for complexity." D) "It's really not necessary for there to be any direct response to the environment." E) It's both a necessary and sufficient condition for evolution to occur. My reply: A) exactly- it is the individual perspecive and individual differences and interactions with the environment that affect internally and externally the bodies and emotions of the living organisms (lets not forget that living organisms have emotions or respond to stimuli such as pain, fear, love, etc too, and that are not just dots interacting with the environment driven by the search of food. As I gather that we all look for food to have a life and don't have a life to look for food. This guarantees uniqueness. (BTW- I found EXTREMELY interesting your observation that "Every time a circle reproduced, the new circle would copy the values for each variable of its parent, but there was a small chance (ranging from, I believe, 1 in 20 to 1 in 100 depending on the trait) that a trait would "mutate" to another number." would like to know exactly upon which variables, and why, there is that specific proportion in the mutation. B) This is indicative that it is the reaction of the living organism to the environment to trigger the need to evolve (whether successfully or not); the environment plus other surrounding factors being a motive but not the CAUSE. C) definitely YES- infinite probability is actually determinant. D) also very true and I am so glad that you have proved it with this amazingly well done project. E) I do not understand why at the end you conclude with this statement, when it is your same work that indicates that it is not: again- it is surely sufficient and necessary MOTIVATION for evolution to occur, but it is not the CAUSE. and the essay I have been recently reading opened my eyes to this little but not irrelevant detail, that differs motivations to causes, giving an answer to "why" rather than "how". However thank you very much for the extended explanation of the project you lead- it is very interesting and I have now material for extra research for a few days!!!

I received her reply to my mail but she hasn't been able to publish it in a journal yet, though I understand she's trying to. However she was really nice and she sent me the text relative to her "Darwin's theory revisited" as it's titled I really wouldn't know what to quote here for you, especially as this is but a chapter 13 as I read, of very elaborated essay- out of which the revisitation, or as she puts it the completion of, Darwin's theory was consequential. as far as I am concerned she quite convinced me, but quoting a sentence or two would be totally futile unless the totality of the concept isn't first understood. the user in this forum called "Delta1212" posted on aug 6th on the thread "How accurate is the theory of evolution by natural selection of darwin?": (I just copy/pasted) "I think if you're going to talk about a "primary driver" you need to specify what is being driven. Mutation seems to be the primary driver of variation and natural selection the primary driver of adaptation. I'm not sure it is fair to call one or the other (or genetic drift, which is probably one of the larger drivers of speciation) the primary driver of "evolution." As an explanation for the variety of life we see around us, why it is the way it is and how it got that way, mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are all necessary but not sufficient elements." I marked in bold letters the exact problem with Darwin's theory, as he perfectly put it to my own opinion- and this girl pinpointed this discrepancy too. She explains WHAT and HOW the enviornment affects IN the species and IN the individuals within one species, which in turn will affect the DIRECTION and process of the evolution for each species/individual. because we must not forget that yes evolution's got to do with all the above mentioned and rementioned by all researchers, but that however nobody can explain WHY species evolve/split into the incredibly different organisms that we see, in the colors/shapes/forms/behaviours, etc. What is the initial trigger for this. This is why this girl's essay impressed me, because she does not discern the reality of living organisms' perception of beauty from the math of probability and perspective. She very nicely exposes how the beauty that species and individuals perceive, lies within the perfection of science, giving way to evolution. however, one must read the 12 chapters before this to understand what is and where from this "perception of beauty" or drive to perfection/survival comes from.. truly inspiring and well thought

this is one of the most beautiful and smartest questions of all times- it unites what we see and what we don't see and brings forth scientific research as it definitely requests a new mentality and new means of analysis. i would also be very interested to receive any link to the latest research done in this field...

yes I know that too, as evolution is one of the topics that intrigues me the most- I'm truly passionate about it, and as a matter of fact I would like to reply to every single post I read in this forum, cuz I'm reading outrageous stuff. The fact is that this one time this girl opened my vision connecting a few extra dots to the picture: she doesn't at all go against all the scientific evidence come about so far, she just adds to it an "extra ingredient".. which I believe it has been in fact overlooked... she's got deep insight. So yes, guess my previous post was wrongly- she doesn't "disprove" it, but she adds to it. sorry I don't know where she published the work. I read an email on her channel. I will see if she replies to that and I'll get back, cuz I'm also quite curious about it. I'll go through that bit of the video again in the meanwhile, as I know I'm forgetting a few passages. I might quote her, as in the video she displays the whole text of her essay on one side, and then she added video on the other side so that would be easy

hahaa yes Strange, no need to be forgiven as you have nothing to be excused for of course! however, I think she went one step forward Darwin's theory. in short she states that yes there is evolution but she explains that how it happens is different, explaining the reasons WHY evolution happened, which are different from those that Darwin hypothesized. Briefly, but I think you should read the whole thing to understand it fully, she said that species do not merely live to survive and look for food, and therefore select their partners on these basis- the fittest for survival is not only fit for the capacity of adapting (as it doesn't explain the colors, the shapes, the sounds, etc.. which in fact it is pretty reductive!), but that all species, just like us humans do, eat and fight against predators or diseases so that they can enjoy their lives and existences. So basically, she said it is not live to eat, but eat to live. which is true if you think about it- we do not want to survive just to pass on our species- we want to survive to experience our life- and we choose our partners on the basis of what we look for/desire in life... Therefore, our choices are dependent on what we like, want to achieve in life, etc., to better enjoy it, and all this is dependent on a mental evaluation, on a personal perspective or view of what is beautiful. Beautiful to do, beautiful to see, etc. so what brings along evolution is the pursue of beauty or perfection that lies within our own personal minds. and so she says that this explains also why there is no leaf equal to the other in the world... and it goes on explaining it in detail.. talking about perspective where we lie conditioning our views and desires and sense of beauty, and so how the environment conditions every atom in a dfferent way just because it is interacting on a different point in space and time. At last she said that it is our mental thoughts, our drives, instincts and emotions that play that one crucial role in the evolution of species into what we see today as an incredible variety of amazing shapes, colors, and behaviours... so Mr. Strange, implausible, but not so implausible. check it out and let me know if you like, cuz I know I explained it terribly! hum sorry they banned my "speculative" post as the staff of the science forum wrote to me (sorry for them they're wrong and i made sure to reply to that) so sorry i can't tell you which video to watch to get the theory!! ahahaaaa

well, I think that forums should be what they're named after: FORUM, which in latin it is referred to as a public place open to all people to discuss freely of all matters with the end point of opening to new commerce or ideas, or confronting. Forums are where you look for alternative inspirations, a place for the public to express their people's views. If the policy of this forum is to discuss only ideas that are old or already scientifically accepted, then it is obvious the limitations that are put on the members minds. it would not be a public place giving the freedom of expanding the imagination of the members. If I needed to look for information on an already accepted theory, then I would look it up on wikipedia, and not on a forum. As a matter of fact that is what I always did, until I came across a new theory that struck my attention. For this reason, because it is a new idea, I wanted to confront my views and inform those who are into the mysteries of life and science like me, about it. 2 of my posts have been "blocked", when I genuinely wanted to get the feedback on one new theory which I believe being brilliant and unheard of. I feel mistreated and oppressed. it is also frustrating being part of a forum, where I cannot reply to the questions with an answer that I deem pertinent to the matter. (then why doesn't the forum directly hand me a list of answers and theories that I am allowed to post and mention?) If the post on a forum is for example, "how did the world begin", since there are no accepted theories to that, on what basis does the Forum ban one theory over the other? On the basis that one is new and others are old???? No, if the reason for covering posts is that some "new speculative theory" is mentioned, then I am sorry but even anything regarding the Big Bang theory should be pulled down, or anything regarding even the theory of Gravity or Evolution, because it is still under debate! Hoping to receive a kind reply by someone

yes what would be even more interesting to know, is not even where in the brain the info is stored, but actually in what FORM the memory is coded. I mean, when we send images, sounds videos or even just txts to our mobile phones, the original info is de-coded and then coded back at the end device. Knowing the code language that is used to to this, I can get in the middle of the message during its transmission and easily read the exact message. NOW, wouldn't this procedure work in the same way if I knew the CODE used for memories? Then I could dissect a brain and re-code its stored memories, so that I can exactly SEE/view them! I know this sounds crazy, but if memories are stored, and they ARE stored, then they must be in some sort of code. Then why couldn't these be retrieved directly from one's brain and read? even post mortem? no murderer would ever get away with it!! (excuse the stupid joke) Maybe one day....! However I wouldn't like that- i'd hate the idea to have my memories and thoughts made public after my death!!

yeah well, nobody ever disagreed on similarities on chromosomes. the problem with creationists is just WHY new species evolve into different forms. In the humans case, it is not explained why nor how the human brain evolved so rapidly. you should type in the youtube search field the name (name of video channel removed by moderator) cuz this girl came up with something truly cool about evolution. it's a new video and it took me a while to watch it all- at the end she explains evolution and frankly it's the first time i hear a theory like hers but it makes really good sense. i keep thinkin about that video so i cant wait for more people to watch it cuz i really wanna share views. unfortunately it's like so new there are only about a hundred views and no comments. Oh by the way she totally disproves Darwin's theory!!! she's really cool- you can't miss her ideas. look the video is called "(name removed)". the evolution part is in the second half, but you should watch it from the start so you can get the full concept

OK, I found EXACTLY the answer to your question! I think I watched every possible video on youtube about it and just like a few days ago I found this brand new video called the infinite stv implosion theory. it is such a cool explanation. (link removed by moderator) really I haven't come across anything like this before, so I guess it is really worth watching and digesting this new idea. i really think she's up to sthing. it's a bit boring but i really liked how she explains also the why of things and not just the how. it's so awesome cuz she actually goes against the whole world's smart brains saying like how her theory shows that the force of gravity is the opposite. it's really good stuff really revealing. So if you ask me how time flows and what is the present, I tell you watch that girl's video! let me know what you think