Itoero

Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels would be a herculean task, involving rapid, dramatic changes in the way that governments, industries and societies function, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06876-2

I call it an evolutionary trait because they found religious behavior in many animals...including apes..and we evolved from ape-like-mammals..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals They found that religious thought improves social/group cohesion which was very necessary when we started to populate the world. They also found that Neanderthalers used to burry their death.https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/And for example Homo sapiens burials that date +/- 34000 years.https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2018/02/23/why_this_paleolithic_burial_site_is_so_strange__110556.html And 70.000 year old ritual practises found in Africa. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offerings-to-a-stone-snak/ The 'fact' that religion is an evolutionary trait explains all those findings. There is a lot more that points to the evolution of religion... If it goes bad (war, civil war, famine)in an area or country then religion can I suppose, because it improves social cohesion, provide company, it brings people together.

It's not 'proven' but the reason why we grow up so slowly and tend to be physically weaker then primates is probably because our brain demands a lot of energy.https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/why-do-humans-grow-so-slowly-blame-brain So if you find a way the body grows faster then other children then that might mean the brain develops less.

This is a forum and the main subject is science...so yes this is a scienceforum.

The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source...so yes it is. So you travelled to a star to check this? The interaction photons-free electrons forms the K-Corona in stars so comptonscattering is definitely there. Also, there is zero scientific evidence that the properties of a wave can change without interacting with it's quanta. Cosmological redshift is probably caused due to a mix of gravitation and photoninteraction. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh....3..450K http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

You seem to think since religion/religious thought evolved in via natural selection, everyone should be religious. You have a wrong deterministic view on evolution. I think it's correct that religious thought improves social/group cohesion. When we lived in Africa and started to spread through the world, social/group cohesion was very important to create shelter, provide food/water, make cloths…..When you lived in a group you strongly increased your chance of having offspring. Now there are many factors that decide if you are religious or not. Natural selection works because the natural environment changes 'constantly'. A couple million years ago the environment was very different then now.

That's like asking: "We evolved from apes, so why are there still apes?" It's creationlogic.

Imroving social cohesion used to provide evolutionary succes when we, for example, spread through the world. But this is very different now. Natural selection is now different then it used to be when we were spreading through the world maybe 2 million years ago. There are many factors that play a role for whether you religious or not.

The doppler effect only deals with 'observable' wave behavior. The Austrian physicist Christian Doppler described this phenomenon in 1842. Redshift is often 'defined' as doppler redshift. Cosmological redshift is for example also defined as being due to the doppler effect. In the doppler effect, sound waves are treated the same way as electromagnetic radiation...very odd. There is this 'theory' you can call "Compton redshift" which states that Compton(inelastic) scattering causes Cosmological redshift.

People that live in a state religion or cult might think differently.

Maybe but religion is imo an evolutionary trait because religious thought/behavior is present in other animals, also the African apes we evolved from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/chimpanzee-spirituality/475731/ https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_animals

I just did..those are amazing! Aren't deep sea shots from Blue Planet taken a lot higher in the ocean? According to Wikipedia deep sea organisms generally inhabit zones from 1000-6000m Yet the three new fish species they found live at 7500m bellow the surface. At 7500m depth you have extreme pressure, low conc. oygen, no light and a temperature that rarely exceeds 3 °C (37.4 °F) and falls as low as −1.8 °C (28.76 °F).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_fish

That's true, I'm too uneducated to understand those things. Can you quote it? Relativity is a theory which seems to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. Yet you use a concept from relativity to 'disprove' my concept concerning quantum mechanics….that points to a serious lack of understanding.

That's ok.My use of English is probably worse, I often quote things and use google translate Those fishes can't deal with sunlight and are adapted to live under huge water pressure. Deepsea fish should be left in the depth of the sea.

Why is this in 'Science news'?

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are used to hunt lions. Maybe a couple of them tand a chance against a tiger.

Her correction is pointless and wrong. By using 'concern' I insert an 'random' aspect. Eise said: "The laws of the universe are wat people say about the universe" By using 'are', this sentence turns into an absolute. When you do that, you should add something like "through experiments/empirical evidence". That shows again a lack of understanding. It's unknown how particles behave in for example red shift. I explained that. I can't deny science that doesn't exist. You do often weird stuff like that. I for example said "the presence of the Jews enabled the Holocaust". Your emotions then makes you think that I said:"the Jews caused the Holocaust".

You people misinterpret things to fit your silly beliefs. Again, Eise said: "The laws of the universe are what we say about the universe " =>This is not true. Those laws are what people say about the universe through experiments/empirical evidence. You're lack of understanding is painfully clear. When I for example explained the doppler effect, your silly beliefs made you think I denied the doppler effect.

Why do you think that?

Because in general you show that your thinking is not very precise. I tried to help you, and obviously I succeeded a little bit. We agree on your last statement: You tried to 'help' me by wrongly correcting me? So 'clear thinking' makes you believe Jesus was a real person and makes you 'discuss' with imaginary consensus? You should try to understand that I don't deny any science ,my idea's tend to be backed by studies/papers pretty often. (including by an 'interview' from/with Albert Einstein).

Stop acting like that. Why do you think I used 'concern' and not 'are'? And if you pretend to ''correct' things,...do it correct!

No. The adding of "through experiments/empirical evidence"' is necessary.

An expedition to the Atacama Trench has uncovered a wealth of information. They found three new fish species. They do not conform to the preconceived stereotypical image of what a deep-sea fish should look like. Instead of giant teeth and a menacing frame, the fishes that roam in the deepest parts of the ocean are small, translucent, bereft of scales—and highly adept at living where few other organisms can. https://phys.org/news/2018-09-species-fish-extreme-depths-pacific.html#jCp